Terminalcoffee discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Feeling Nostalgic? The archives
>
Do you say you've read something after listening to the audiobook?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Sarah
(new)
Aug 01, 2011 11:09AM
Someone posed that question on G+. She argued no. I would say yes, without a doubt.
reply
|
flag
my wife only does audiobooks. and yes, she says she read it. there should be another term than read.
That's an interesting question. Let's go to dictionary.com, shall we?World English Dictionary
read 1 (riːd)
— vb (when tr , often foll by out ) , reads , reading , read
1. to comprehend the meaning of (something written or printed) by looking at and interpreting the written or printed characters
2. to be occupied in such an activity: he was reading all day
3. to look at, interpret, and speak aloud (something written or printed): he read to us from the Bible
4. ( tr ) to interpret the significance or meaning of through scrutiny and recognition: he read the sky and predicted rain ; to read a map
5. ( tr ) to interpret or understand the meaning of (signs, characters, etc) other than by visual means: to read Braille
6. ( tr ) to have sufficient knowledge of (a language) to understand the written or printed word: do you read German?
7. ( tr ) to discover or make out the true nature or mood of: to read someone's mind
8. to interpret or understand (something read) in a specified way, or (of something read) to convey a particular meaning or impression: I read this speech as satire ; this book reads well
9. ( tr ) to adopt as a reading in a particular passage: for ``boon'' read ``bone''
10. ( intr ) to have or contain a certain form or wording: the sentence reads as follows
11. to undertake a course of study in (a subject): to read history ; read for the bar
12. to gain knowledge by reading: he read about the war
13. ( tr ) to register, indicate, or show: the meter reads 100
14. ( tr ) to bring or put into a specified condition by reading: to read a child to sleep
15. ( tr ) to hear and understand, esp when using a two-way radio: we are reading you loud and clear
16. computing Compare write to obtain (data) from a storage device, such as magnetic tape
17. ( tr ) to understand (written or printed music) by interpretation of the notes on the staff and to be able to reproduce the musical sounds represented by these notes
18. informal read a lesson , read a lecture to censure or reprimand, esp in a long-winded manner
19. read between the lines to perceive or deduce a meaning that is hidden or implied rather than being openly stated
20. informal ( Austral ) you wouldn't read about it an expression of dismay, disgust, or disbelief
— n
21. matter suitable for reading: this new book is a very good read
22. the act of reading
[Old English rǣdan to advise, explain; related to Old Frisian rēda , Old High German rātan , Gothic garēdan ]
The emphasis of these definitions seems to be on the visual element. I'm trying to think of an analogy, but I'm coming up blank now.
The third definition is "to look at, interpret, and speak aloud (something written or printed): he read to us from the Bible" which implies the person reading the book out loud gets to use the word, but those to which the words pass do not. But both parties will be able to answer the same questions about the book. The content will have been absorbed. There's nothing important about the story except actual ink (or e-ink) on page that hasn't been conveyed.
I also say yes. I don't really draw much of a distinction between reading and being read to; the words are the same, it's just the delivery method.
I'm trying to equate audiobooks with oral tradition in some way. What do people think? What words would listeners to Homer's epic, you think, use for the activity?
I use both "read" and "listened to" when I finish an audiobook.It's interesting that one can read by touch as in Braille (definition 5). Could listening to an audiobook fall under the same definition?
I use read for either. I do lots of both and have for years and I can never remember which I read with my eyes and which I heard. The only way I can figure it out is if there is a foreign location and I know how it's pronounced, I listened, if I know how it's spelled, I read it.Same difference to me, though.
But sometimes the foreign location is pronounced wrong...I'd point out that saying that an audiobook is not a valid read is kind of an insult to a lot of visually impaired people, who may or may not read Braille.
As for the oral tradition equation, Orson Scott Card wrote a blog about how he loves listening to books because he thinks that's where storytelling shines. He says a good book should be even better when read. And reading your work out loud is a common technique for writers perfecting their final drafts, since you can expose some problems that you might have missed otherwise.
I don't hear anyone here saying that 1) an injustice is taking place when one questions whether or not listening to an audiobook should be called "reading" and/or 2) there's an implication that listening rather than reading is a less valid/worthy experience. The two experiences are different, though, and the question, in my mind, anyway, revolves around whether or not the word "reading" encompasses both listening to an audiobook and reading in the way that we usually conceptualize reading (e.g. looking at a page, silently). For example, the word "experiencing" a book could be used for both listening and reading a book, but there would be some ambiguity as to how that book was experienced. I could understand someone asserting that the word "reading" be reserved for the traditional definition of reading while "hearing" used for listening to an audiobook. It sounds like, Sarah, though, you're saying there's an implied dig in that. I'm not hearing (heh) the same implication as you, but I could be naive in these lingustic matters.
I made books on tape for the blind and visually handicapped (via the Library of Congress) for 20 years. We call them readers; they always say they "read" a book. So I'd say that's a definition that should be added to the dictionary! With me, it depends on the context. If the discussion is about the content of the book, I don't make a distinction. I know what's in the book and can discuss it. But if somebody said "what are you reading?" I'd probably say "I'm listening to _______ on tape."
I also have to agree with Orson Scott Card about reading out loud (and I so rarely agree with him!) I learned more about what works in writing from working at APH for a year than I ever did from the 23 years of reading I did prior to that.
RandomAnthony wrote: "I don't hear anyone here saying that 1) an injustice is taking place when one questions whether or not listening to an audiobook should be called "reading" and/or 2) there's an implication that lis..."The dig was in the post that I got the question from - you're right, nobody here has made that same statement. She said she didn't consider it reading. One of the posters asked why an audiobook wasn't considered a song. I sat on my hands at that one. How is a raven like a writing desk?
Rebecca wrote: "I also have to agree with Orson Scott Card about reading out loud (and I so rarely agree with him!) I learned more about what works in writing from working at APH for a year than I ever did from t..."I often agree with him about writing/reading related stuff, as much as I hate to admit it.
Sarah Pi wrote: "But sometimes the foreign location is pronounced wrong...I'd point out that saying that an audiobook is not a valid read is kind of an insult to a lot of visually impaired people, who may or may ..."
I would agree with him. I've only 'eared' (love that!) a few audio books, and they happened to be books that I'd read previously. I found that the audio version had breathed life into the characters and actually made the stories a bit more compelling.
Rebecca: Regarding message 12--I have several totally blind friends. They generally use the words "read" and "listened to" interchangably with referring to audio books. In the same way, btw, many will say "I saw such and such yesterday" instead of "I met such and such yesterday".You "read" with your brain---the eyes or ears are only the pathway to you brain , which interpets the story.
BunWat wrote: "If I listen to a book or read a book, I still consider it to be much the same activity. Its the same words, in the same order, the only difference is whether I'm taking those words in through my e..."Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.
Rebecca: Ps Meant to add thanks for the tapes and records. Before audiobooks became widely avaialble, that was all most blind people had.
It's still the same exact words, and a person listening to the book will be able to participate in a book discussion the same way a person would be able to who read the paper or electronic version could. Listening to the audiobook is not comparable to watching a movie or documentary version, which can be skewed or changed.Although, if someone only listened to audiobooks and didn't at least pick up a print form every once in a while, it would be hard to consider them a "reader" in my head, unless they were blind or unable to read. That doesn't mean I'm right by thinking that, because it is more of a weird distinction that I might make.
Most people I know who do listen to audios are avid readers of print as well. They choose to use whichever medium will work for the current situation, such as they might use an audio for commuting to work in the car, and read a print or ebook at home, for example.
That's what I was kind of thinking, Charlie. "Reading," as, eyes going across the page, is an impotant distinction I'd make only with kids, because they need the practice. For adults, who have the language and reading skills, it's the same accomplishment in my book. God knows I've "read" with my eyes scanning and every word going in and immediately out because I wasn't thinking about what I'm doing. I wouldn't count that as reading.
BunWat wrote: "I think audio and text versions have slightly different uses and qualities, just like a paperback is different from a hardback, is different from a ebook. Its easier to read a paperback in the bat..."I don't know if I agree with this analogy. While a paperback and hardback are different, sure, they're still using the visual to comprehend the material. An analogy to the paperback and hardback, in my mind, would be listening to an audiobook on the car stereo vs. listening on headphones.
It sounds like the word "reading" holds the meaning of "comprehension" for people, whether listening or looking at the page, esp. in the interest of validating the value of listening to an audiobook. I'm ok and somewhat fascinated with that; words evolve, no doubt. What, then, though, would the visual act of looking at a page and decoding words be called as separate from listening to an audiobook, if you wanted to differentiate between the two, assuming both would fall under the definition of reading?
I like what Bun said about audiobooks. It's very close to my thoughts about reading. Not all books lend themselves well to the audiobook format. I was listening to Island Beneath the Sea, and concluded rather quickly that I would be better off with a paperback version.
Mod
I'm the same way LG. My mind wanders when I try audiobooks.
I am an 80% audio and 20% print reader and I say "read". I think LG has an excellent point about being experienced. I have been listening to audiobooks for about 7yrs and when I first started I had to do a lot of replaying. Now I am very focused and do so only occasionally. If I am listening to a non fiction or something with an unusual dialect, etc I tend to replay a lot just so I get the information. I just loved telling stories to my daughter, reading Shakespeare aloud, poetry readings... so, it just follows that I would enjoy being told the story. Also, I am a hopeless multi-tasker and it works for me there too.
I don't listen to books as I am fairly sure that would put me to sleep but if I did, I would say I had listened to it. Either way, you're getting the book. I just prefer to be able to reread and flip back to pages for reference if necessary.
Mod
I'd say its READ - no matter whether you've read it, someone read it aloud to you (irl or audio) or you're blind and read it with your fingers (don't know the English word - but the small dots that make up the blind alphabet).You've taken the full contents in so to speak :-)
I agree--reading is like ingesting the book with our minds, whether someone reads it to us or we read it to ourselves, we are letting it in and letting it impact our minds and emotions.
I think this would be an excellent featured poll. :)(and my answer would be yes)
I don't do audio books. Unfortunately, they put me to sleep. The one place I'd find it helpful is THE one place I couldn't 'read' them......in the car.
Meagan wrote: "No. I don't listen to audiobooks especially when I can just read the book. Anytime someone listens to an audiobook and they are NOT legally blind, a poor puppy is slaughtered."Wow, I'll make sure to tell my friend with MS who isn't legally blind but has neurological issues that make reading impossible that she's a puppy-killer.
Oh, and the six or so friends who listen to audio books while they knit, too.
Eh. I'm not sure about all that. Most people read to preference. I prefer my ereader. If you took my availability to use it away, I'd go back to print, but not out of a sense of "missing paper books." It would happen because that's the only means of reading available to me. If all print books went away tomorrow, I'd think it was sad, but would still keep chugging on my reader without missing a beat.
I just want to read. I don't need to have a "real" book to make me feel like I'm reading, and truth be told, I have a lot of print books sitting on my shelf that I am not getting to because I prefer reading on the ereader. My hand cramps up trying to hold a book open, and I can prop my reader on a pillow one-handed and turn the pages with my thumb. It's way more comfortable for me to read a massive book on a reader than it is to hold open a behemoth.
As long as people are reading, what difference does it make what format they use?
He's talking about the meaning of books, but it ties in here:http://clive-shepherd.blogspot.com/20...
This distinction is complicated when we use the same word for both method and medium. 'Book' is one of those words. For many people it implies the function (a relatively lengthy piece of writing on a particular topic) as well as the form (sheets of paper bound together within a cover). So, when you say you love books, it could mean:
* I love reading relatively long works of fiction or non-fiction, or
* I love owning / handling / smelling bundles of paper"
Meagan wrote: "Lol, people I'm only HALF demon, I swear... I'm Human enough to let people with actual disabilities slide when it comes to those audiobooks, etc. but everyone else... When this world looks up and t..."The only time I have to read lately is while driving, and since it is frowned upon to read text while operating a moving vehicle, I listen to audio books.
Amber wrote: "The only time I have to read lately is while driving, and since it is frowned upon to read text while operating a moving vehicle, I listen to audio books. "That is probably easier than listening to a hard cover book, they are not very talkative.
From an educational point of view, some people are visual learners and others are auditory learners. I'm a visual learner. If my daughter reads something to me (like when she is studying for her LSAT), I have to read it myself before I can make an educated guess at an answer. Maybe some people do better with audiobooks because they are auditory learners.When I was a kid, I used to have this phonograph that had a screen attached to it. You could play the record, see a picture, and read along with a book. I guess that would be a multisensory approach. It was a fun way to read.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
