Do Audiobooks count as reading?

[gb2000ie]

If you listen to a full un-abridged audio book, have you read that book?

B.

 

[MaximumT]

Not in the sense that you have "read" it, because reading requires actual reading, in my opinion. But you have in fact gone through a book and know the story as if you've read the book, and so you've... consumed a story(?). Sorry, couldn't come up with a better word than "consume". :rofl:

 

[Casanova]

Good question, I think it totally depends upon the individual's definition of "reading".

For me the reading experience is more than just the story.. It's a combination of visual, tactile and olfaction... you touch the pages, you can smell the books (the old ones are musty and the new ones are fresh) while you're absorbed between text, the little voice in your head and your imagination.

Personally, audiobooks is not the same as reading, but it is equally stimulating to the brain, and perhaps easier to absorb. The experience is different, but the simple joys which some hardcore readers love are never achieved in audiobooks.

 

[AleXXX UK]

Pretty much. I've gone through many audio books, probably at 10x faster than actual reading books. You can plug into a book and listen to the story word for word. I managed to "read" a whole semesters worth of psychology books just while on the bus, in the supermarket, whilst carrying out chores. If you have that books knowledge word for word implanted into your head then it's as good as having read the book. I don't know what else I would call it. If I was asked if I had 'read' a particular audio book I'd say yes.

 

[tonka]

They are different experiences. Listening is a more passive experience.

Sometimes an audiobook is better for me. I have a tendency to rush ahead when I read: comprehend and move on. But with an audiobook, the pace is set by the audio. The language becomes more vivid (if it's good).

 

[bafm]

Interesting question, probably yes but - just my opinion - I don't like it.

I don't know probably I'm not used to it but I can't really give free rein to the imagination just listening to the story, I have to read it

 

[gb2000ie]

Cheers for all the answers folks!

I didn't want to prejudice the topic by starting out with my out point of view, but now that the discussion has been opened I think I can contribute without ruining it.

This has been a perennial argument between myself and my partner for YEARS. I insist that I have read Pulman's His Dark Materials trilogy (and the short story prequels and sequels), he insists I haven't. To me, having the author read you the story is the ultimate way to experience the story. The fact that we historically had to settle for writing things down because we couldn't record our stories directly is no reason to dismiss a better and fuller experience when it comes along! Also, I never mispronounce things in sci-fi or fantasy books, because I hear the author, or someone coached by the author, say them correctly

My partner believes that the fact that writing is imperfect and loses aspects of the story compared to a telling is what makes literature great, you get to inject more of your own imagination into a story when you don't hear the author's intonation. I can see his point, but I disagree, I care about stories, and when ever possible, I want the author to literally tell me his or her story.

B.

 

[Tjerk12]

I am a terrible bad reader. Not that I am dyslexic, but somehow it doesn't function properly and requires much effort making it difficult to let your imagination run free while reading text lines. Yet I am rather skilled in writing, they say. I would prefer to hear my stories as an audio book, instead of reading it myself.

 

[SimplyJakeAndAlex]

Well what kind of question is that? Audio books are told to you, so do you read it or listen to it? The answer is kind of obvious right? READ for god' sake it's good for you and your brain. Why do you think kids today have a hard time imaginating things, that's because being told a story and reading it are two very different world. Being told a story put you in the world of the storyteller, reading puts you in your own world. So read, develop your own mind, stop being a sheep.

 

[dargelos]

There are two styles of presenting literature in audio format.
Some readers like to embelish the telling of the story using accents, dialect, pauses, gasps, coughs, pace and volume modulations and so on. This style is like that of a radio drama which BBC R4 does so well. Enjoyable, entertaining, but not exactly the same as reading the book because some of the activation of the story has already been done for you.
The other style is like that used in books for the blind, a rapid, even pace, a flat, neutral tone, nothing added, nothing taken away. This type of reading may seem boring at first but I find that I soon learn to tune out the voice, letting the words go direct to brain.
The first style is not equivalent to actualy reading the book, the second style, in my grovellingly humble opinion, is the real thing.

 

[gb2000ie]

Well what kind of question is that? Audio books are told to you, so do you read it or listen to it? The answer is kind of obvious right? READ for god' sake it's good for you and your brain. Why do you think kids today have a hard time imaginating things, that's because being told a story and reading it are two very different world. Being told a story put you in the world of the storyteller, reading puts you in your own world. So read, develop your own mind, stop being a sheep.

I disagree very strongly!

If you listen to a reading of a story you still have to use your imagination! You can only see what the author is describing in your minds eye. Each and every single picture in your head is created by your imagination, just like when you read. An audio book is not a film, it does not make the images for you, that's still entirely up to the reader.

There is nothing sheepish about listening to stories - that's how we as a species learned for many many more millennia than we have had books!

I agree entirely that TV and film are passive media, but neither books nor stories are.

B.

 

[SimplyJakeAndAlex]

I disagree very strongly!

If you listen to a reading of a story you still have to use your imagination! You can only see what the author is describing in your minds eye. Each and every single picture in your head is created by your imagination, just like when you read. An audio book is not a film, it does not make the images for you, that's still entirely up to the reader.

There is nothing sheepish about listening to stories - that's how we as a species learned for many many more millennia than we have had books!

I agree entirely that TV and film are passive media, but neither books nor stories are.

B.

I agree with you on the storytelling parts but we do have books now, don't we? If someone is capable of reading I would expect them to at least do the effort of reading. I also agree with you that imagination is created by your own brain no matter if you are being told a story or read it by yourself. What I don't agree with is the fact that so many people will choose TV or audio books over reading because of some sort of intellectual laziness which is now a new pandemic in this very era. Sorry I should have develop my rhetoric better but I am doing a comparative study for my Master degree about the educational system of today and the latter days.

So you are right to correct me and accept it with a big Welcome :cheers:

 

[gb2000ie]

I agree with you on the storytelling parts but we do have books now, don't we? If someone is capable of reading I would expect them to at least do the effort of reading. I also agree with you that imagination is created by your own brain no matter if you are being told a story or read it by yourself. What I don't agree with is the fact that so many people will choose TV or audio books over reading because of some sort of intellectual laziness which is now a new pandemic in this very era. Sorry I should have develop my rhetoric better but I am doing a comparative study for my Master degree about the educational system of today and the latter days.

So you are right to correct me and accept it with a big Welcome :cheers:

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but the impression I get from your posts here is that you think it is a sign of laziness to listen rather than to read. I really want to challenge that!

I have a busy life, I have a lot of things I need to do. Some of those are purely physical things, and they are mind-numbingly boring. I like some quite me time too, possibly more than most of my generation, but I have my limits! When I'm cleaning the house, out exercising, or travelling alone, I want to stimulate my brain, so, I choose to make the most of these opportunities to fill them with something useful, and not just talk radio hot air or pop music drivel. To me, choosing to engage with books of any form, be they creative or factual, while doing purely physical tasks is the very opposite of lazy. Getting home from work and slumping down in front of the TV for the night, THAT's lazy, audio books are not that at all.

B.

 

[creslinwest]

I need to ask you a question about His Dark Materials, I have also never read them but I have listened to an unabridged audio version. In the version I listened to the character's dialogue was acted by different actors (I don't remember anyone else but Joanna Wyatt was Lyra) and the voices definitely influenced the way I pictured the characters.

Is this the version you listened to? If so, did the different actor's voices affect your own visualisation of the characters? Do you think that your imagination would have had a freer reign if you had just read the books.

I can't agree that you have read Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials because when people ask me if I've read them I usually say something along the lines of "no but I've listened to the audio versions, so I know the story" if I considered myself as having read them I would just say "yes, I've read them."

I can agree that Audiobooks are not for lazy people, I listen to them when doing housework, or when I'm knitting, or when I'm on the bus. Though I have to say they are also an incredible way of connecting with a story and sometimes I just listen to Audiobooks rather than read because of the sheer pleasure I get from doing so.

 

[gb2000ie]

I need to ask you a question about His Dark Materials, I have also never read them but I have listened to an unabridged audio version. In the version I listened to the character's dialogue was acted by different actors (I don't remember anyone else but Joanna Wyatt was Lyra) and the voices definitely influenced the way I pictured the characters.

Is this the version you listened to? If so, did the different actor's voices affect your own visualisation of the characters? Do you think that your imagination would have had a freer reign if you had just read the books.

That was not the best example actually - because that sounds like the version I have. The voice of the Narrator is Pullman himself, which I love, but each time a character speaks inside quotation marks in the book those words are voiced by a different actor. This has two effects:
1) it definitely influences the picture you paint in your mind of the characters - which is good or bad, if the author is involved and approves the choices then I think it helps him get his story across better, but if not, then it is some random other person's vision that's influencing your mental picture, which is not so good!
2) I'm somewhat dyslexic, and I'm very bad with keeping names straight, but I never forget a voice, so, I find the different voices very helpful. I imagine that if you have no such troubles, this is 110% irrelevant to you.

My favourite audio books are read by a single reader. To me that's the best way to tell a story, which is what a fiction author is trying to achieve IMO. I simply adore Stephen Fry's reading of the Harry Potter series, and re-listen to it every few years. Mind you, I think I would enjoy listening to Fry read the phone book

I guess it all comes down to whether you think a book is a vehicle for transporting stories, or an end in itself. I see it as a vehicle, my parter and many others as an end in itself. The reason I like audio books are the very reasons he doesn't!

B.

 

[RefixnarcisM]

For me, reading, well as being written in the dictionaries, is a process of extracting meaning from a written or printed text. That mean, Audiobooks doesn't count since its not a written nor printed text.

 

[dargelos]

Put the case then of someone whose eyesight was fading and used audiobooks because reading a long book would be too visualy demanding. Would that change the relative value of the audiobook or would it still be an inferior substitute?