The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Rule 34
2012 Reads
>
R34: Reading versus Listening
message 51:
by
Aloha
(last edited Jan 21, 2012 07:03PM)
(new)
-
added it
Jan 21, 2012 07:03PM
I really enjoyed Neuromancer while a lot of people seemed to be confused by it. I wonder whether it's because I listened to it instead of read it. I had to explain in the discussion what the plot was about because people thought it was a jumbled mess.
reply
|
flag
:)
I think many of the above comments should come with caveats. For many people it is an individual thing about how they read - even the way you absorb different sorts of material can be different. And I believe that many of the statements about areas of the brain are not necessarily supported by the evidence. Personally, I find that if I engage with the material, whether it is read or listened to, I think about it more thoroughly. Often, I can't tell you whether I've read from a page or listened to the audio. If a book has a strong authorial voice I often 'hear' it as I read.
This isn't even specifically down to the quality of the writing. I'm a huge Gene Wolfe fan, but find his stuff impossible to get to grips with in audio form; his style is simply so dense and heavy with reference and allusion that I need to absorb it from the page.
Here's my two cents.Yes, technically, reading and listening are not exactly the same. However, for the purposes of discussion, the problem that arises seems to me to be mainly due to people feeling that reading text is somehow superior to listening to an audiobook. Thus, people who listen to audiobooks get offended, because their experience of the book is being labled as inferior. So the question is, does reading text actually lead to a superior experience than listening to audiobooks?
Some people are not strongly auditory, and have trouble following a spoken narrative, while they have no trouble with written narrative. Obviously, for them, reading text is superior. Others have difficulty processing the written word, but can easily follow a spoken narrative. For them, clearly, listening to audiobooks is better. But for most people, I suspect we fall somewhere in between--we can follow both written and spoken narrative without a problem, though perhaps with varying degrees of ease.
For those in between, can we definitively say that one or the other is better?
Some have argued that reading text is somehow a deeper or more intellectual experience than listening to an audiobook. I disagree. I have done a lot of both, and I think that for me, they are equally good, except that I have far more opportunity to listen to audiobooks and thus have experienced a lot more books than I would have if they weren't available. Furthermore, I'm far more likely to listen to non-fiction than to read it. Before I started listening to audiobooks, I consumed almost no non-fiction at all. When I started listening to audiobooks, I also began choosing non-fiction a lot more often.
Another important point is that sometimes the sound of language matters. After a bad experience of Dickens in high school, when did I decide to give Dickens another chance? When I heard part of A Christmas Carol spoken aloud, and was struck not only by how well put the sentiments were, but also how beautiful it sounded. I had seen and enjoyed many film versions of A Christmas Carol, so I knew the story well enough, but nothing struck me with a desire to seek out the book until I heard how wonderful it *sounded* when spoken aloud.
The last time I read The Hobbit, I read great swathes of it aloud to myself, just for the gorgeousness of how it sounded.
If I choose to listen to an audiobook of something by Tolkien because then I can fully appreciate his talent not only for selecting words that meant what he wanted, but that also sounded beautiful, how does that make my understanding and appreciation of his work somehow inferior or less valid than those who choose to read the text?
I have both the ebook and the audiobook of The Graveyard Book. Though it is my favorite of Gaiman's books, I haven't read the text since I acquired the audiobook. I have listened to the audiobook multiple times. Why? Because his spoken reading of his own work amplifies how wonderful it is.
Given a choice between a text version and an audiobook of Barbara Kingsolver's I'll pick the audio--because her impassioned reading of her own work enhances my experience of it.
I have read and been moved by the text of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, but I have been far more moved by hearing the recording of him giving that speech.
Personally, I have a great appreciation for the beauty and power of the human voice and spoken language. Thus, listening to a work can increase my aesthetic appreciation--I exerience not only the message, but the beauty of its delivery.
Not all prose is created equal, nor are all speakers. Some audiobooks are better than others, just as some written texts are better than others. Some things may be best read in book or ebook form, others may be as good or better in audiobook.
I used to specify whether I had listened to an audiobook or read the text version--until I encountered too many times the ridiculous snobbery of people who considered reading to be superior. Then I just switched to saying I read books, regardless of whether I read or listened. And funnily enough (or not), no one ever said to me, "Your understanding of the book is so superficial that it's clear you listened to an audiobook." Never in a discussion did anyone notice the difference of the manner in which I had consumed the book.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that your preferred text-based reading of a book can yield as deep an understanding of a work for you as my preferred method does for me. But if you're going to sit there and tell me that your way is *better* not just for you, but for everyone, then I'm here to tell you that your understanding of people--and the differences that their interests, preferences, and aptitudes can make in how they best understand something--is clearly inferior to mine.
I'm going to give what should be my last and final comment on this thread.I stopped arguing and replying to this thread because arguing with someone (Aloha) who thinks they are better than everyone else in the discussion is pointless.
Aloha, the consistent theme in your comments is that you think you are better than people who have read a book because you listened to it. You consistently say "I got more out of this book", "I understood it better..." you even made a HUGE leap and said that if you listened to a book and another person (in this discussion) read it you would get more out of it than he would. That's incredibly arrogant and short sighted.
This isn't a discussion with you. It's pointless to make any additional comments because you will just reply with YOUR biased point of view and obscure the real discussion. This isn't a discussion if you personally got more out of a book by listening to or reading a book. The real discussion is if "reading" is different than "listening" and if so what is the difference. You've made so many leaps (Naizism, OCD, etc) into ridiculousness that it's impossible to reply to all of them. Again, this isn't about you personally, it's a much broader discussion. I believe most people in this discussion have replied that reading isn't better than listening, just different. I know that's been my point since my first reply. However you consistently reply that listening is actually better than listening. I'll say it again, whether reading is better than listening or vice versa isn't the discussion, it's whether they are different or not.
So Aloha you can continue to reply with your insulting personal comments, I for one will not participate again while you are doing it. I could care less about your insights or thoughts if all that comes across is your belief that you are better than everyone else in the conversation. The old saying "No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care" really applies here.
I also wanted to say that I do agree with Tora, there should be no stigma attached to listening vs reading a book. Those that look down on people who listened to a book should just be ignored and the ignorant louts they are. Even with that said though I think you should state whether you listened to or read a book. It doesn't matter to me personally, I just like to know. I couldn't agree with your last paragraph more Tora. Very well put.
Glenn, now you're modifying your point of view from what you originally posted. Your post #13 ended with "If you want to read to stretch your mind then you'll actually have to read, not listen." What does that mean? To me, it means that the listeners do not learn anything from audiobooks that they've listened to. I've listened to audiobooks for 10 years, so you're telling me I haven't learned anything from audiobooks in 10 years. You're also telling people who became blind late in life and have a hard time learning braille, that their listening of audiobooks will be fruitless, because they will not be stretching their minds, hence not learning. So, who is being insulting and insinuating that readers are better than listeners?My tone changed after that statement was said. What I said about being just as good or better in a book discussion was in response to Brian's jesting (?) statement:
"Sue me, I think reading is 'better' than listening. Doesn't mean I can't discuss books with you BUT I do believe that I 'get more' out of it than you did."
Well put, Tora. Thank you for taking the time to type all that.
To me, it's context. Sure, if I am having a detailed conversation about modes of consuming literature with someone in a particular context, I may differentiate between unabridged audio and reading. But in most of the general conversations I have about books, my listening to Wil Wheaton read me Ready Player One counts as having "read" the book. I'm not lying, I'm not trying to deceive, I'm using the word "read" is a more general context to facilitate conversation.
Mod
Aloha, I'm not changing my position. I stated "If you want to READ to stretch your mind then you'll actually have to read, not listen." I didn't say anything about not learning anything if you don't read. Prior to that I stated that I disagreed with the perceived bias of reading vs listening and clarified that if you're after the story (or information) than reading vs listening doesn't matter. But if you want to get the brain benefits of reading then you have to read not listen. I later pointed out that reading stretches your mind in a way that listening does not. Maybe I should have used different terms, using brain instead of mind since I was referring to the physical effects that reading has on your brain than listening does not the intellectual effect. It's scientifically proven that reading changes your mind in a way that listening doesn't as listening affects your brain in a way reading doesn't. You didn't change your tone, in your very first post, message 2: "I only listen to unabridged. I'm a seasoned listener, so listening is better than reading." You opened up with that. Literally your very first contribution to the discussion was that listening is better than reading. Later in that same post you imply that there is no difference in reading vs listening. You then jumped on one comment taken out of context and ignored all further clarifications continually going to on attack about how much better you are for listening vs reading. You're next posts were where you introduced the perception of lacking IQ for listeners vs readers. You're tone has been the same since the very beginning.
No one is saying that you don't get information or enjoyment from listening. What people are saying is that there is a difference between reading and listening. What I (and others) are also saying is that we disagree with any stigma that's attached to reading vs listening. It doesn't help the discussion or the dismissal of that stigma to try to claim that listening is the same as reading. You must over come those biases not just ignore them and cover them up.
I'll say it again (reworded) for clarification: "If you want to expand your mind, specifically the parts of your brain that deal with reading, the visual cortex, then you'll have to actually read not listen."
Now, if you want to continue the discussion of reading vs listening I'll continue to participate. But if you want to continue to post how great you are and how lacking everyone else is that only reads and not listens I won't be participating. Whether I participate or not doesn't even matter, you may feel free to post all you want. It's a free world and for now a free internet.
I would like people to state whether they read vs listen so that I can get insight to the person and the text being discussed. As Tora put so well you can get different insights from listening vs reading. If I know someone who listens to a text and I read it and that person shares a unique insight then I may jut be motivated to go listen to it to see if I get the same insight. Tora's example of Martin Luther Kings speech is a good example of this as is the example of Barbara Kingslover.
Glenn, by your clarified statement, you're interested in the neuro aspects of learning?"If you want to expand your mind, specifically the parts of your brain that deal with reading, the visual cortex, then you'll have to actually read not listen."
But learning is a complicated process. Learning affects the association area of the brain, which connects the visual, the auditory and the tactile senses. For a child, it is important to stimulate all the senses, via visually reading a book, learning music, and tactile activities. What you said eliminates the connective function of the brain, especially in an adult who had already been educated in reading and writing. If you're learning a new language, it is important to both READ and LISTEN to the language. However, in terms of an audiobook listened by an adult already educated in the language, the content of the audio can easily stretch the mind since it is not only the visual cortex that is part of the learning process.
If I knew that this was going to turn out to be an argument instead of a person's subjective experience with either audio or written, then I would have reviewed my writing. My content following obviously meant that this sentence should have been "I only listen to unabridged. I'm a seasoned listener, so listening is better than reading [for me]." since I followed with my personal experiences. Where in post #2 have I said the term READ is the same as the term LISTEN? What I have said is that what I got out of listening is just as good or not better than reading, due to all the factors in my life. It is only afterwards that people started declaring that the terms are different, while I am still focused on the benefits of listenings and what an individual gets out of it. Terms are unimportant to me in the context of a book discussion. All I care is whether I think what somebody said about the book is thought-provoking and insightful. And the reason for that could be the person's focus at the time of reading the book, personal biases, intelligence, educational background, cultural background, etc.
So, if your reason for wanting to know whether a person listened or read a book based on you wanting to compare the audio world vs. the reading world, and get more information about them, that's fine. But I get suspicious when research is noted that one may not get as much out of listening as reading, especially when you didn't even add a link to the original research. I also know that even if a research is valid, it can also be focused to skew to a certain viewpoint, much as a lawyer modifies what information is given or deleted from the court to sway the jury.
When somebody wants information about me that has nothing to do with the importance of it in the situation, I question why does that person want the information. Take a parallel example of race statistics. If a form is sent to me from the Census bureau only wanting to know the race makeup of the country, then I wouldn't mind letting them know my race, since that is good for accurate information of the race makeup in the U.S. If an employer sent me a form wanting to know my race, given the scenario that this is an on-line interview and they don't know my race makeup, I would be suspicious as to the necessity of knowing my race, since it has nothing to do with my qualification for a job, unless they assume that my race is a factor in my performance on the job.
Aloha, you keep making unsupported leaps from reading to learning. I never wanted to discuss learning. My initial post was all about the differences between reading and listening. It never mentioned learning and never implied learning. My most recent clarification didn't mention or imply learning. That's a leap that you've made and it's completely unsupported by my comments.And now you have change your tone. You are now clarifying that it's your personal experience and you aren't making grandiose general statements and trying to imply that your personal experience applies to everyone. That makes a big difference in how your comments are taken.
I never wanted to get into a discussion of what's better for one person vs another and I don't think that was the intent of the original poster. I think the original intent was to distinguish between when someone listens and when someone reads. Regardless of the personal benefit one method provides or not I think that the original topic was is there a difference.
If "Terms are unimportant to me in the context of a book discussion." then don't join in a discussion about the terms used. I don't think this thread was intended for that.
If someone reads vs listens that can give helpful and insightful information on the input that person provides to a discussion about the book. A "reader" vs a "listener" may have different perspectives based on their learning style. Having that information helps me as an acquirer of information understand another persons view. It's not a bias, it's more information leading to a better understanding. Can that information be used as a bias, yes, but that's wrong and shouldn't be. In the same way that your race example can be used as a negative bias or as a better understanding of that person.
I don't want this to devolve into personal attacks. I wanted you to know how your comments came across to me. I wanted you to know how your generalizations were doing more harm in my opinion than good.
I would much prefer to drop this whole thing and redirect to what I believe the original intent was and that's if someone should say they "read" the book or "listened" to the book. And for me I believe a person should say what they actually did, read it or listened to it.
I reread Jason's post. Based on the content of his post, he seemed to be asking whether the experiential nature of listening to a book is as valid as reading, with an example of 9/11 that implicitly states that listeners are removed from the "reading" experience compared to a reader. This I felt is too general of a statement judging listeners, and that set the scenario of invalidating audio listeners. Also, what has the difficulty of absorbing an information got to do with the best scenario for each individual to absorb the information, whether it's audio or visual. He set it up as if there's a competition between listeners and readers, that listeners somehow "cheat" and declared that they've absorbed the information quickly, but really have not absorbed it fully as a reader would. The only thing that is actually valid about his post was his last statement about how listening is for him. If he prefers reading, that's fine, but he should not be declaring that listeners are somehow cheats and that their experience with a book is not as full as a reader's experience.Glenn, you never wanted to discuss learning, but you did. What is your usage of the words "stretch" and "expand" in referring to the mind mean? I hope it doesn't mean we take it out of our noses with tongs and pull it like elastic.
Yes, I should have added two words "for me" to clarify that was a subjective experience, although I added paragraphs of words illustrating that it was a personal experience.
I think whether there is a difference depends on what everyone's post was referring to. Jason's post implied that the difference is that it's easier for us listeners, hence we're cheating, and that we're not really fully absorbing the reading experience as a reader would. Of course, that also depends on your definition of the reading experience, whether it's eyeballing each word, or getting into the story via a narrator reading for us. I disagree that it's a given that we are removed from the full enjoyment and learning of the book material because we listened to it.
It is not a discussion about the terms used. Reread Jason's post. We can narrow it to say whether the definition of "read" is the same as the definition of "listen." However, based on his usage of the illustrations of the marathoner and 9/11, the post is implicitly about the validity of reading vs. listening, that listeners are cheats and whether a listener got as much out of a book as a reader. To that, I kept on referring to in my posts. If it was only a dictionary term, it would have been easy to agree that there is a difference.
Yes, it's fine if you want the extra information whether a person read or listened for point of view information. However, Jason's initial post and your post stating that your mind can only "stretch" via reading show biases against listeners.
If I was generalizing, I was generalizing missing my two words "to me" in paragraphs that obviously illustrated my personal benefits from listening. But I think Jason's post is much more incendiary in what it implied, along with your scientific references.
Voted! Great Fun!
Thanks, Veronica!
Thanks, Veronica!
Very interesting, Aldenoneil. I voted, Veronica. Thanks to both.
I haven't read all your comments (long thread and long comments, sorry), but there's another aspect which I hope hasn't been mentioned before, but which plays a huge part in *my* audiobook experience.I have listened to some audiobooks in English which is *not* my native language and my feeling is that I have to concentrate more and that it's harder to focus on all the details than when I'm reading. When I'm listening to an audiobook I cannot really multitask or just simple tasks like cleaning up or something similar, so the experience is often more intense than just reading it.
I can see how depending on language, story or narrator it's easier to miss stuff and just let it wash over you, and that happened to me with other audiobooks, but if I really get into it, an audiobook requires more attention from me than a "regular" book and is a really rewarding experience.
Tom wrote: "I'm just disappointed someone didn't shout Godwin's law several posts back."Steve did, message 34.
That's when I stopped replying, cos them's the rules.
LOL. Happy Godwin's Law. Us listeners will just have to take over this thread and gab our viewpoints.
By coincidence, a friend just pointed out to me this morning that my audio book list is at #666. And by coincidence, I'm reading God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I have not looked at my audiobook list in months. I have only input books. Coincidences and life are hilarious sometimes.
Justin wrote: "So, I listened to the discussion on how listening to a book is the same as reading and have to say I disagree, with extreme prejudice.
Listening and reading challenge different parts of the brain..."
I agree with you that its not the same, and I agree with the extreme prejudice part.
Words have meaning. And reading has a meaning, and no, if you are blind you can't read a book. If you have listed to a book you haven't read it. It doesn't matter that you have heard all the words, its not relevant. It doesn't matter you have enjoyed it, that is not relevant.
If you run around at Wimbledon and hit a ball with a hammer you may enjoy yourself you are not playing tennis. It is mentally retarded in the ultra extreme to suggest listening is reading.
Of course Tom risks being fired by the mega twit so he has to say that, but anyone who says that with being threatened is a low functioning (semi)human.
Listening and reading challenge different parts of the brain..."
I agree with you that its not the same, and I agree with the extreme prejudice part.
Words have meaning. And reading has a meaning, and no, if you are blind you can't read a book. If you have listed to a book you haven't read it. It doesn't matter that you have heard all the words, its not relevant. It doesn't matter you have enjoyed it, that is not relevant.
If you run around at Wimbledon and hit a ball with a hammer you may enjoy yourself you are not playing tennis. It is mentally retarded in the ultra extreme to suggest listening is reading.
Of course Tom risks being fired by the mega twit so he has to say that, but anyone who says that with being threatened is a low functioning (semi)human.
I'm looking at Pete's profile. He joined Goodreads just in time to make his statement in this thread. He has no books, no friends, but just joined this group to make his comment. I wonder why?
Please bear with me,As a composer and arranger and teacher of music I can say that I can read music and actually "hear", inside my head, the music as if it was being performed by an ensemble. We call it our inner ear or inner voice. It's how I know if the players are performing their individual parts correctly.
I have never cried while reading a score. A score, by the way, is what the conductor reads that has every person's part in one place. I have been moved, inspired, awed, humbled, and many many times confused. But, I have never cried.
I have conducted bands and orchestras and have been so moved by their performances, so proud of their achievements, that it brought me to tears. I have been sitting in a movie theater with my family and watched a trailer to a new movie and had my eyes well up because of the way the music moved me. I will never forget tears rolling down my face and yelling at the top of my lungs in a football stadium with 100,000 other fans at Drum Corp International.
Is Reading different from Listening? Heck Yeah! Is Reading more difficult than Listening? Heck Yeah! Is Listening more enjoyable than reading? My opinion, no, they are both enjoyable in diffrent ways.
Do I think a person has read a book if they only listened to it. Absolutely yes.
I also don't feel that telling someone that I read a book is a lie if I only listened to it.
I get your pet peeves, I do, but, if I can talk about a piece of music after reading it and you can talk about a piece of music after listening to it, then we have both listened to it. We will just have different feelings about it. I obviously feel the same way if I listened to a book, and you read a book. Guess what? We both read it.
Vince, what you just said highlights that perception, experience, and learning is processed not through one area of the brain, but through the area of the brain that connects the various areas, the visual, the auditory, and the tactile. If the argument is the dictionary definition of what reading and listening is, then I agree on the difference. But if the argument is about learning and experiencing, which was Jason's main argument in his introductory post, then whether that person has a better experience with one medium or the other, or no difference, is subjective.
First time ever I checked whether it's possible to block someone from Goodreads, but apparently it's not. I'm all for free speech and stuff, but if someone annoys me with their inability to argue without being a jerk, I tend to just remove them from my personal internet space.I never would have thought that this questions would turn into such a heated argument, though.
I still think that listening to a book is equal to having read it in the sense of "experiencing" the story. You can argue whether you should use the word "read", but I guess it just comes from habit.
If I ask someone whether they had read a book, what I really want to know is "Do you know the story?", not "Have you read the single words, one by one, WITH YOUR EYES?", so I would be totally fine with someone having only listened to the audiobook.
I also don't necessarily agree with listening being the "lazier" way of receiving the input from a book. I realize that you can easily lose focus listening to an audiobook, but the same thing happens to me when I'm reading. I sometimes can read up to two pages or more before realizing that although I have read the words, I have no idea what happened, and I don't have to be tired for this to happen.
There is a difference between reading and listening, but it's not a qualitative one in my view. It's a question of preference and it's a different experience, I just don't think one is generally better than the other.
EDITED: Alas, it *is* possible to block someone on Goodreads. Yay!
I think Pete is either a troll or a member here who opened another profile in order to make vitriolic remarks without having anything to back it up.Jason's post #1 put the listeners of audiobooks in a defensive position, insinuating (more than insinuating) that listeners are cheats, lazy, and does not have the full "experience" of the book as a reader would.
I know I thoroughly experienced the fictional story, and understood the concepts of the nonfiction book just as well as any readers, and I enjoyed the book just like any reader. It's ridiculous that I have to point out with links to my reviews that I understood and experienced the audiobook just as well if not better than some readers, because I KNOW that listening was a full ingestion of the book for me. Then in trying to point out, in defense to Jason's initial post, that I comprehended the audiobook very well, I'm accused of saying I'm better than anyone else.
Then people started coming in throwing terminology into the water, implicitly accusing the listeners of somehow lying, being lax or addlebrained by not being clear in the terminology, which has nothing to do with Jason's accusations, and again throwing the audio listeners into a defensive position.
It's when Glenn came in referring to scientific research as if they are the nails in the coffin that I lost my patience. Poor Glenn got the brunt of my argument, but he actually helped me clarify some of the issues here.
But what I should have done was to attack Jason's initial post, which was insulting to audio listeners, instead of going on the defensive position. That might have ended it quickly by putting the focus of the thread where it belongs, and maybe people who are critical about terminology would not have stepped in.
So, in regard to Jason's initial post:
Jason: "Listening and reading challenge different parts of the brain (I read this on the intertubes once), and reading is a lot more difficult than listening. It's like saying you ran a marathon when all you did was go and cheer people on while drinking a Venti Latte in your parents old lawn chair."
This statement insinuates that listeners are lazy, full of subterfuge, and did not experience the book fully as a reader would. What has difficulty in ingesting the book got to do with whether the listener got as much out of the book as a reader? If I was listening to a book not of my native language, hence it is difficult and more labor intensive to understand, does that make it better than if I listened to a book with a terrific narrator who made the story absorbing?
As to the accusation of being lazy, what is the definition of lazy as applied to the ability to absorb the content of the book? If being lazy means we didn't move our eyeballs in ingesting the book, then we're lazy. But I don't see how critical that is in getting the content of the book in most cases. I consider the valid definition of being lazy, in this case, is not being engaged with the book, whether you're listening or reading. Basically, going through the book to get it done and not taking the time to figure out its meaning, or having such a strong prejudice about something in the book that you've blocked out whatever it has to say and kept to your assumptions about the book. In my book discussions, I've seen that "readers" are just as guilty in being "lazy." Jason, if your definition of lazy is akin to running the marathon, would it help if I tell you I listen to the audiobook while walking, doing chores, or working at mentally numbing tasks that do not distract me from the audio? Would that make me less lazy?
Jason: "To be more cynical, It reminds me of the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where a character states that he lost his son on 9/11. As Larry goes on to find out, the son was in Harlem and died in a car accident on 9/11. He didn't die in the attacks. Larry thought it was disingenuous to imply that you were part of a very different tragedy."
This statement insinuates that listeners are full of subterfuge and did not have the full "experience" as the reader. I think my posts and posts of other listeners have thoroughly indicated that we have the full "experience" of the book just as much as a reader. How it got in our brain is different, but we did absorb and enjoy the information and content of the book.
I also wonder why such a hostile tone toward listeners of audios? Is Jason jealous that audio listeners are able to enjoy a book while he cannot via listening?
Mod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wil_Whea...
Pete, Did you really need to include those last 2 sentences?
Well, Dave, his profile name is Pete(r), which is synonymous with Dick.
This argument is ridiculous.I read your responses and I heard imaginary people speaking them in my head.
Am I the only one who hears voices when reading? I mean, like most people, I read much faster than the narrator of an audiobook speaks, but I still "hear" the words in my mind's um.. ear (I almost said "mind's eye").
That brings up another point. Do the sticklers for the distinction of "reading" vs. "listening" care when I write "I said" referring to something I typed? Or, for that matter, that I said "I wrote" when I actually typed?
Yes. There is a difference between reading a traditional book and listening to the audio version. That doesn't mean the difference is significant when discussing the work. Would you say that everyone who read 1Q84 in English didn't *really* read 1Q84 because it was originally written in Japanese?
It's also interesting that I would think that listening to audiobooks is more time intensive than reading.I'm a pretty fast reader, and I always listen to audiobooks in normal speed, so my guess is that it takes me longer to listen to a book than read it.
Add to that the fact that I really can't do anything much while listening to an audiobook other than cleaning up, walking or waiting, and I understand even less where the notion that listeners are "lazier" comes from.
(Also, depending on the quality of the narrator I feel more emerged in the story. My last audiobook was A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness read by Jason Isaacs and it was truly wonderful. I always listen to a sample first to make sure I like the narrator.)
Anne wrote: "It's also interesting that I would think that listening to audiobooks is more time intensive than reading.I'm a pretty fast reader, and I always listen to audiobooks in normal speed, so my guess ..."
I find myself doing a lot of rewinding in audiobooks (30s skip back on the Kindle is awesome) if I'm doing another task, even something menial like dishwashing. When I was listening to the confusing
Blackout by Connie Willis, I rewound so much that I probably listened to it twice.
When I read, I also do some backtracking, but not nearly as much. I absorb and process information more readily when I read it.
I personally cannot bring myself to use the faster listening speeds on audiobooks. It just seems wrong.
Aloha and Glen, thanks to your lively debate this has been a fascinating and thoroughly entertaining discussion. I must admit that a few years ago, I would have definitely voted that listening to and actually reading were totally different experiences and that you couldn't possibly claim to have read a book that you 'only' listened to.
Now, a few years of audible membership and lots of great audio books later, I find that I now enjoy both ways of consuming a book equally. I can be moved and entertained in what feels like exactly the same way whether I physically read a book or listen to it.
Now when I look to buy the latest book in a series which I'm following I have to do some research of my libraries (audio, ebook and physical) to establish how I consumed earlier books in the series. I genuinely often cannot remember whether I read them or listened to them originally. I don't seem to retain the memory of books any more thoroughly having read them than if I had listened to them. I have now come to believe that, for me at least, both are completely interchangeable. One thing I haven't done for some reason though is mix things up. For example, if I physically read the first book in a series then I definitely physically read all subsequent books in that series. For example, I've physically read all of the Ice and Fire series and Wheel of Time series but have listened to all of the Honor Harrington series and the Peter F Hamilton Void series. Don't know why.
This is my first post after being a S&L podcast devotee for a very long time. But this subject just got me going and I had to pipe in to agree 100% with Tom and Veronica.I always have an audio book loaded on my phone for car time and I absolutely consider the many books I've "read" via my ears as fully comprehended. Comparing listening to an audiobook to seeing the movie is just silly! Currently (and I do this occasionally when a deadline is involved) I am listening to a book AND reading a library copy. I just stop at a chapter beginning so I can easily find my place, then pick up the book and stop at a chapter ending, etc. The fact that it flows back & forth is further proof, if any is needed, that the two are both reading.
There are books I much prefer reading with my eyes vs ears (nonfiction that I want to mark up; books with maps, complicated geneology, visuals, etc.) But having been an audible.com member for years, and my husband & son will agree, we assuredly have read the books we have listened to.
Now that I have "spoken" I look forward to reading back through this thread to see what everyone else thinks.
Jana
(Hi everyone!)
Later that morning: WOW. I got into this heated discussion via the podcast. Politics, religion & methods of consuming books = heated conversation. Enjoyed the straw poll and added my vote to the majority. Tora, thank you for your eloquent post.
My rule is simple: If I'm really excited for the book, I read it. If I'm mildly interested I listen to it. I get a better understanding of the story if I have the book in hand. Easier to back up and re-read segments. I usually listen to books while traveling long distance in the car, since I'm generally the one driving I don't want to risk backing it up because I don't like to fiddle with things while driving. A well done audio book can have just as big of an impact, though. I have been listening to the Fionavar Tapestry novels with my wife while we travel and it has been very fun to have the shared experience of hearing the story.I do use the distinction between reading and listening though.
Regarding the complex process of learning in the brain, have listeners of audios notice that you absorb the information best if you silence the rest of your brain, and only focus on listening. What I mean by silencing is that you don't even verbally repeat internally what the audio is saying. You would think repeating verbally internally makes you retain the material better. However, I find that if I totally silence my brain, the learning process happens efficiently. It's like the material processed magically into my cognition. I don't have to huff and puff, and repeat every word in my head. All I have to do is get so absorbed into the audio that there is total silence in my head. I think that has to do with the fact that if you silence the visual, etc. parts of the brain, information is processed more efficiently via the association part of the brain.
Aloha (re #83), I can almost say I completely agree with your posts and the parts I don't completely agree with are minor and personal so I won't say anything on those. :) I will say THANK YOU for using the word "ingesting" in your post. Doing that made it so much enjoyable to read your reply and didn't kick in my personal irritation of improperly using the term "read". Your post did a good job of summing up where we agree and disagree.And I'll say it again, I agree with you Aloha (and others) and not Jason that listening is not a lazier or cheating way of ingesting a book. It's as valid as reading and depending on the person can even be more beneficial. It's not for me, I'm a "reader" not a listener. I read so much faster than I can listen I find listening to even the best narrator boring. Additionally I've found I dislike listening because it messes up my imagination of what I perceive the characters to be and sound like. That's my personal preference and style though. Jason is wrong in saying that and you and I agree that the end result is for the person to obtain the information/story/whatever and be able to have a valid discussion about the book.
Thanks!
Thanks, Glenn, for that. I'm glad we didn't end up bitter enemies, because then I'd have to get another stew pot. LOL The good thing that came out of our debate was that a lot of thought-provoking things were brought up about listening vs. reading, including the science of it. Debating is good for clarifying where you stand, and seeing the points made.
Glenn, thank you for helping me temper my cannibalistic tendencies during the debate. You're a brave man. :o)
Glenn summed up my thoughts as well. To add to it I find audiobooks way too expensive and enjoy having books on display in my home...if for no other reason than this John Waters quote http://www.goodreads.com/author/quote... (the first one).I had no idea of these internet rules...is there one banning someone (me) coming home from bowling (drinking) and posting??
LOL! If all my books are in paper and turned into a building, it would be the Taj Mahal. I have to save space for those beautiful art books and cook books with illustrations. 
I've been listening to the same hardcover for years, it hasn't said anything to me yet.
Thanks Aloha, awesome kitten!
You're welcome, Anne. Cute kitty, huh? Cuteness and a good sense of humor helps.
I wish I had a man servant following me around to read to me, preferably one of the Chippendale's. But can they read?
I was recently best man at a friend's wedding. He lives in country Victoria (Australia) and we live in Sydney, so we ended up driving down and back - about 2600 kilometers (we took a week to do it). The reason I mention it is that my wife downloaded the Jobs biography to her iPhone and we listened to it through the car hifi during the trip.That was my only experience so far of audio books, and it totally converted me from being anti to being pro. It allowed us to share the book in a new way, it was extremely well read, and we could pause it to discuss parts we found interesting.
I would definitely do this again for a non-fiction book.
I'm going to have to try a fiction book out before I pass judgement, but I can't see how my visualisation of the characters, their situation, and their voices would be the same as reading. I'm also concerned that I would find it too slow.
Still, after that successful experiment, I'm definitely going to give it a go.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (other topics)Blackout (other topics)
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (other topics)
Neuromancer (other topics)
The Prague Cemetery (other topics)
More...
