Audiobooks Do Not Equal Reading?

Good grief. How old are these friends?

Not everyone enjoys the experience of reading words on paper/screen. For quite a lot of people it's unpleasant or difficult or impossible and audiobooks are the only way that texts are accessible to them. Anyone who gets prescriptive over what other people are allowed to do when it comes to reading needs to go outside and have a good long think about things.

Let’s look at the problem "scientifically":-

- Author writes words; words good, consumer accesses pirate copy = happy consumer + unhappy author
- Author writes words; words crap = happy author + unhappy consumer
- Author writes words; words good, consumer buys book = happy author + happy consumer
- Author writes words; words good, consumer buys audio book = happy author + happy consumer

So, there you have it. Reading or listening to good words makes everyone happy. If someone listened to my work and asked a question would I dismiss them because they haven’t read it? Of course not.

Tell your friends to spare a thought for my dear old Ma who, at 93 and a keen reader all her life, has acute macular degeneration and is profoundly deaf so neither option is comfortable for her. She can just about get by with a backlit kindle and a very large font or a 36” computer monitor set to 640x480!

I personally cannot focus on the words if it is an audiobook, but to each their own. I think that instead of making it a status symbol or debating "real books," we need to just hope everybody is doing what will best make sure that they absorb the information.

I think... the important thing is to get people interested and enjoying books. What format that book takes is a matter of taste and really not worth fighting over. Different strokes for different folks. The bottom line is, they both buy books and both enjoy books, so why argue about the method of delivery?

If I read a book, and my friend listens to that same story in audiobook format, we could happily discuss the book together. So, yeah, listening to an audiobook does = reading as far as I'm concerned.

Ask your friend if she wants to kick visually impaired people out of the Real Troo Booklovers club too.

Then dump a milkshake on her head.

Its just an example of pretend intellectual smuggery and snobbery. Reading doesn't make you clever, it means you like reading.

I don't read a lot, it hurts my eyes and I'm easily distracted, but I can read a book in an afternoon if the writer was on the ball. Maybe puts me at a disadvantage as a writer so i have a coping mechanism.

I know the type.
'But you haven't even read...' Sounds like the innocent observation of a gentle thinker, but its definitely a pot shot in the oneupmanship war.

Thing is, in most cases, if a film was made of whatever book it was I would have read if I was as worthy as them, I wouldn't watch either. I'm fussy.

Your friend seems petty, but its a common condition.

Ditto what Helix said. Plenty of people use audiobooks because that's the only form they can consume.

I mean, if your eyesight's great, you never get motion sick (this was a huge one for me as a kid -- I wished so much I could read on car trips!), and/or you have a schedule that's conducive to sitting down with a book for hours at a time, that's awesome. But don't turn your nose up at people who don't have those luxuries like you're better than them.

Plus, some people are visual learners and some people are auditory learners. Doesn't make one better or worse than the other. I'm glad there's different forms of books available for everyone to enjoy.

Alessandra Kelley said:

As for the OP, it seems odd to claim that no taking in of composed language counts as experiencing it except by the silent path of the eyes.

Click to expand...

This, very well said, I think

I like to read most when I travel, but as I get older I get more and more prone to nausea on moving vehicles when I focus on things so close to my face, and can't read words for very long. Audiobooks are great for this stuff. I still notice the writing when I listen; I still notice how sentences and narratives are composed. The physical activity is different so it seems weird to say "reading," but . . . in all the important ways, yeah, I think it's more or less the same.

Audio book on the treadmill. The only way to fly.

...wait. If I'm using a treadmill, then am I not really running?

No, it's not reading. It's listening. You're still "consuming" (couldn't think of a better word at the moment) the book, but it's not READING. Or at least not by you. Someone else is reading it to you.

So if you're illiterate and have to have someone read everything to you, can you honestly say you know how to read, just because you are able to listen to a book read to you?

Interesting discussion here and I like the observation made just prior here that the act of reading is distinct from the act of listening. As verbs, in the strictest sense of them, the two are not on par. I believe that the making of audiobooks is a good thing for the reasons many have already mentioned - for those who cannot read due to educational or medical reasons, but that does introduce a need to draw a distinction.

Consuming is a good alternative word for the experience. This was alluded to earlier upthread as well. Does an author care if a person buys the audiobook versus the text? I would think not - either from the concept of a business model or from that of wanting to share their story with the world in an altruistic sense.

Finally, I would also like to add to the point someone else brought up about learning modalities. It's true that many people learn or process information better in different ways - visually, audially, etc. This is something I deal with regularly as a technical instructor. Most of my students are adults and in my experience they are much more visual than audial. I can say something to them ten times, but they may not get it until they see a picture of it. This does not equate to words on a page though so it's not a true 100% apples to apples comparison within the context of discussion on reading versus listening to a book. Elements are there, sure, but it's not a truly analogous scenario.

It's been a while since I've read anything on adult learning theory, but in my experience, adults tend to learn better than younger kids, in the following order:

Doing something
Watching something
Reading something

I am the same way. The above all being said, I do enjoy reading (and writing) and as I work on my goals for 2017 I am reading and writing a lot more. However, there are times when certain reading passages are much more challenging, and on re-reading, I've found it processes better by both reading it visually and orating it to myself, so that point is not lost on me.

At the end of the day though, I agree with the sentiment most have expressed that, when you take the learning element out of the equation, it really doesn't matter to me whether you read a book or listened to it. As long as you enjoyed the experience!

When we teach students to read, we distinguish between the ability of "decoding" the black squiggles on the white page and turning them into words, and then later we expect students to move on and start developing the ability to extract meaning from those words and comprehend the message being sent.

So when we listen to audio books, we aren't doing the "decoding" part, but we're still making meaning, which, to me, is the more challenging part of reading. Just about every student in our school system can decode well before grade three; if they can't, they need remedial help, diagnosis, etc. But we spend the rest of their school careers helping them develop their skills in the second part of the "reading" skill.

So, sure, in the strictest sense listening to audio books isn't reading, but the OP asked us to look at the question in the non-literal sense, and in that sense, of course listening to an audio book counts.

Spot on - strict interpretation, reading does not equal listening. Learning and interpreting meaning from words comes from higher levels of processing things mentally, so getting back to the OP question:

Does listening to an audiobook equate to reading it? The answer to the question (imho) starts with "It depends on the context of the question."

In the case you (the OP) used, I'd say yes, both consumed the book.

In a literal sense, no, reading does not equal listening. They were processed differently by your brain.

I agree with @captcha - in the colloquial sense, reading is the consumption of the information passed on through the written format. Listening to an audiobook is still the consumption of the information passed on through the written format with a short sides stop with the audio production studio!

ColdWintersNight said:

I think my other friend was more so jealous by the end of the whole thing because Mrs. Audio, as someone mentioned above, works at a place that allows her to do her work, zone out, and listen to a book while she does graphic design.

Click to expand...

Now I'm jealous.

I don't know what I would do if I had to drive in traffic without an audio book. It's like a giant pacifier to me, and makes me so patient. I also like to listen while I try and do housework.

In my experience, listening is a valid way to "get" the story and information, but I sometimes wonder how what I just heard was written.

I do occasionally read a book, but I'm so busy writing and reading my own stuff, it's a luxury.

Many, many people would probably listen to my book if I had an audio version, but many aren't inclined to sit and read for hours as was mentioned above. I'm glad audio books are out there and give consumers another way to enjoy a classic or a best seller.

(hey drag me into this, I'm on everyone's side!)

Click to expand...

This made me smile, ColdWintersNight.

I love to listen to an audio book, especially if I'm taking a walk.

A person who is listening to an audiobook is listening to a book that was written and then recorded. Those books are not coming off the top of the voice actor's head. They are not being written in the voice actor's mind in the moment and recorded. Someone is reading the book that was written. The same way a parent will read a book to their child. (Did your friend arguing against an audiobook counting never have their parents read to them as a child?) Listening to books that have been recorded is hearing the stories of those books. If a person listens to a lot of audiobooks, they are hearing the stories that were written. How could that possibly equate to not being a lover of books?

Prince Anpiel said:

I personally cannot focus on the words if it is an audiobook, but to each their own. I think that instead of making it a status symbol or debating "real books," we need to just hope everybody is doing what will best make sure that they absorb the information.

Click to expand...

I can't concentrate on an audio book sitting in a chair, I need to occupy more of my senses. But in the car or walking, audio books are addicting just like reading is to many of us.

chompers said:

No, it's not reading. It's listening. You're still "consuming" (couldn't think of a better word at the moment) the book, but it's not READING. Or at least not by you. Someone else is reading it to you.

So if you're illiterate and have to have someone read everything to you, can you honestly say you know how to read, just because you are able to listen to a book read to you?

Click to expand...

Dennis E. Taylor said:

Audio book on the treadmill. The only way to fly.

...wait. If I'm using a treadmill, then am I not really running?

Click to expand...

CBJason said:

Spot on - strict interpretation, reading does not equal listening. Learning and interpreting meaning from words comes from higher levels of processing things mentally, so getting back to the OP question:

Does listening to an audiobook equate to reading it? The answer to the question (imho) starts with "It depends on the context of the question."

In the case you (the OP) used, I'd say yes, both consumed the book.

In a literal sense, no, reading does not equal listening. They were processed differently by your brain.

Click to expand...

Sage said:

I think it all depends on what you're using as "reading" here. Is it physically reading the words on the page? No. Is that what's important to you/the conversation? If so, then, correct, it's not reading. But if the point of "reading" is to experience the book and the words the author wrote, then audiobooks should count, since they do just that.

Click to expand...

The semantics argument is a different question than the OP is asking. When you 'talk' about a post, you might say (write) that so-and-so 'said' X or you might say (write) that so-and-so 'wrote' X. Are we having a discussion when we communicate in a forum?

The definition of discussion, talk and said have changed with the internet, wouldn't you think? Claiming an audiobook is not the same as reading is like saying a discussion on a forum is not really a discussion. Yes there are differences, but the exchanges are still discussions.

Literacy is another subject altogether.

Ambrosia said:

A person who is listening to an audiobook is listening to a book that was written and then recorded. Those books are not coming off the top of the voice actor's head. They are not being written in the voice actor's mind in the moment and recorded. Someone is reading the book that was written. The same way a parent will read a book to their child. (Did your friend arguing against an audiobook counting never have their parents read to them as a child?) Listening to books that have been recorded is hearing the stories of those books. If a person listens to a lot of audiobooks, they are hearing the stories that were written. How could that possibly equate to not being a lover of books?

Click to expand...

When I first discovered the joy of audiobooks while driving, a number of people told me they tried them but didn't like them. Then I found out they were talking about the vast majority of the first audiobooks which were abridged. Producers in the beginning of the audiobook commercial market had the idea no one would listen to a book that was 28 cassette tapes long. When I suggested to my friends not to get abridged books, many of them found they liked audiobooks after all.

Books are books whether you read them or listen to them. They are not movies, or plays or someone telling you a story. Those all have unique characteristics. One exception is the reader on an audiobook can make or break your reading experience. Readers are getting much better. There were too many monotone readers in the past, or some that did a terrible job trying to give a different voice to men and women. I can't stand a male reader who tries too hard to squeak out or whisper the voice of a female character.

Another thing one must adapt to is when the same reader does the second or third book you listen to. You have a lingering memory of the previous books hearing the same voice. And there is also the problem that once in a while you don't think the reader is putting the right intonation in a passage. You notice things like that the more books you listen to.



Bottom line, audiobooks may have some differences, but your brain treats an audiobook experience very much like the reading book experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Ambrosia said:

A person who is listening to an audiobook is listening to a book that was written and then recorded. Those books are not coming off the top of the voice actor's head. They are not being written in the voice actor's mind in the moment and recorded. Someone is reading the book that was written. The same way a parent will read a book to their child. (Did your friend arguing against an audiobook counting never have their parents read to them as a child?) Listening to books that have been recorded is hearing the stories of those books. If a person listens to a lot of audiobooks, they are hearing the stories that were written. How could that possibly equate to not being a lover of books?

Click to expand...

Exactly.