This came up in the comments section while I was incapacitated, but I thought it would make for a good Can I Get a Ruling:
Does listening to an audiobook count as reading?
On the one hand, you’re absorbing a book. The method doesn’t matter, right?
On the other hand, someone else is doing part of the work, aren’t they?
What do you think?
Hi Katrina- I agree with you that reading is relaxation at its best; but, it struck an off chord with me to read that you think “so few people actually sit down with a book.” I think people are still reading. Although I left the publishing industry for mommyhood, I still feel very attached to it, and I believe in its longevity. At any rate, it may make you feel better to know that Amazon’s revenue stream is massive and not showing signs of declining. In 2008, a half million Kindles sold (which attributed to the 18% surge in profits in their fourth quarter) and overall revenue reached 6.7 billion. I think about half of that number equates to books, audiobooks, and other media. And, that’s just Amazon. Feel better? 🙂
Great discussion. And I also find the language people are using to be sort of interesting, particularly in defense of audiobooks. "But what about people who can't read? They can listen to audiobooks!" Which is totally true and valid… but the very defense highlights the difference. Listening to an audiobook is something you can do if you can't read…
I also think it's sort of interesting that so many people seemed to take the question as a knock on audiobooks, and have defended their value. And they certainly have value. Oral storytelling preceded written stories, and so the written versions are sort of like young second cousins of the original form.
I think in the end I lean towards the different but equal stance. They're both wonderful and equally valid forms of experiencing stories, but they offer different absorption processes. Interpretation for one, and audience for the other.
In the end, of course, it's always going to be the story that matters.
If a friend sits in the passenger seat of the car and reads a book out loud, does that mean only she has read the book and now I haven't? Do I then have to go out and get the book and read it again? Do my eyes actually have to have read the words?
I think audiobooks are redefining the way we think of reading. Without audiobooks, I'd probably read only a book or two a year. I absorb just as much from hearing the books as reading them myself.
Ben made a very good point about the filter a translation provides. Sometimes, voice gets lost, and it's so important for understanding a book, isn't it?
Now, how would you feel if somebody said you couldn't claim to have read War and Peace unless you've read it in Russian? (Or Shakespeare in the Klingon original?) It sounds awfully snobbish to my ears.
People read for all kinds of reasons, to follow a story, to enjoy creative language, to dissect the techniques used in writing. Maybe, you lose out on punctuation and paragraphing if you listen to an audio book, so you actually have to put the nose to the page if that's what you are reading for, but for most other purposes, the audio book will do. Unabridged.
Can you cross a book off the list of 1001 Books to Read if you listened to the audio? I vote yes.
What if it is a graphic novel with pictures?
What if the graphic novel is on a Kindle that reads the text to you?
What if the pictures are are shown so fast that they appear to be moving?
It all depends on your definition of reading. The world is not black or white it is a lot of grays.
No, listening to an audio book is not reading anymore than listening to music is playing an instrument.
An illiterate person can listen to a book but cannot read.
If audiobooks don't count, then why does a blind person say he has READ such and such a title.
And yes, that is how they define it. They then have to explain to many that audiobooks are easier, lighter and less bulky than braille and faster.
Reading is a story that engages the mind with words, not the eyes.
I suffer from migraines and blurred vision so I love audio books. If someone asked me…did you read The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society is it wrong for me to say, YES? Or do I have to qualify that and say…I listened to it? Should I quit book club because I didn't read with my eyes? Or can I still make a worthy contribution? I feel that the audio book does qualify as reading, but I am glad to know how many people deem it lesser! Also, I would like to say that it would be a far greater shame if people weren't indulging themselves on books period!!! It's hardly sad that people buy audio books. That is just silly to me.
It’s a proven fact that listening vs. reading does not activate/use the same processes in the brain.
Many a student knows the difference between reading on a subject and hearing a lecture.
For me, there is no doubt that listening is not the same as reading. Reading is more personal, and I 'hear' the book in my own voice, when I hear any voice at all.
When I listen to someone else read, I occasionally get hung up on how he's said a word or stressed a point. The reader controls the delivery, and therefore, stands between the author and me.
However, some people are auditory and others visual. Auditory learners may not enjoy the process of reading for themselves.
My brother was also dyslexic, and he can't stand to read, but he loves to learn. For people like him, audio books are a Godsend.
I still consider braille reading. The words are still being read, with fingers instead of eyes, but it involves the same process of interpretation.
Audiobooks I consider being read to. But that doesn't mean it's a lesser experience, just a different one.
I find this debate so fascinating, I’ve decided to way in again. I feel safe in assuming that I am the only severely dyslexic person who regularly “reads” this blog, and as such I have a much more intimate relationship with the wonderful world of audio books. I voted “yes” and when speaking in the past tense, I do consider reading and listening exactly the same thing. If someone asked me, “have you read any good books lately?” I’m not going to ignore the many books I’ve listened to when making a recommendation.
But the physical act of listening is a very different experience than that of reading. I do know how to read, but I’m sure I read in a very different way than most of the other would be writers that follow this blog. I often get really caught up on the letters, and have a hard time fully processing what I’m looking at. While reading a story, I am able to grasp the general concept, but I often miss the subtler nuances of the story. Listening is completely different. When listening to a story, my eyes are completely free. I don’t have to look at the words on the page, so it’s easier to visualize the events in my head.
A few listening haters have commented that listening to the book equates to watching the movie. I tend to find this kind of offensive, but in a twisted way they are right. When I listen to a book, I normally feel like I am watching it. The “movie” the author created is magically unfolding in my mind. But when I read a book, well them I’m just staring at a piece of paper. The experience is never as rich or as meaningful.
I can still recall not only the plot points of stories I listened to 20 years ago, but also the exact way I felt while I was listening to them. Audio books have touched me so deeply they have become a part of who I am and how I see the world. The only thing I remember about reading as a kid is feeling pissed off and deflated.
So maybe listening and reading aren’t the same thing. But at least for me, listening is infinitely better.
Five nights a week, I sit on the couch and read to my wife and son. Is my son "reading" right then? I say he's not. He's being read to. It may be close to the act of reading, but it's not the same thing.
49 to 50.
We certainly put that topic to bed, didn't we!
I said yes. The story is still getting into your brain. It's just traveling through your ears rather than your eyes. Blind people read with their fingers, don't they? (Or listen to an audiobook, I'd bet. =D)
This is a case for semantics!
Example 1:
"Have you read that book?"
"Yes, I listened to it in my car."
Example 2:
"I enjoyed listening to that book more than I did reading it."
Example 3:
"Who cares? I watched the movie."
In Example 1, polite conversation, having listened to an audio book counts as 'reading' it because the person is asking whether or not you know the contents.
In Example 2, the topic of concern is the experience of reading it, thus, a distinction is needed.
In Example 3, the person should be whacked upside the head and tied to a chair with only a glass of water and a book.
Note: I've had to do this to myself several times after watching the Harry Potter movies before reading the books.
How many lives have we got to read all the books we would like to read? Being at the shorter end of the candle I'm quite happy to be read to- reminds me of the days at school when the teacher read out loud David Copperfield, Black Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Three Men in a Tub, The Water Babies, Lorna Doone… Sigh… Life was wonderful then.
I used to 'read' books on tape (before CDs) while driving 58 miles each way to work. Sometimes I got off shift at 9-1-1 in a snowstorm at 12:30 at night and the books helped keep me awake. I count this as 'reading a book' as your mind still has to consider the plot, the characters, the highs and the lows.
Nancy
Raleigh, NC
Does it count for /what/?
For a child's summer reading program? Usually not.
For the improvement of your spelling ability? Absolutely not. When you see the word written, your subconscious makes a note of how it is spelled. When you hear it spoken, you don't get that benefit.
For purposes of "Yes, I read that book – wasn't it great?" Of course! You got the story.
For purposes of improving your writing? Probably. You get the grammar and structure of the story.
It all depends on what you want it to "count" for.
No. Reading a book and listening to a book being read to you are two different things. They engage different areas of the brain.
BOTH are very satisfying and serve the same purpose of enlightening and/or entertaining, but they are not the same thing.
But my question would be "count for what?"… Acquiring the knowledge presented in a book? Sure. Why not. For my able-minded 2nd grader's homework? No, he has to read the words himself, not listen to them if he wants to get the exercise correct and earn a passing grade.
It is SO not reading, lol! But that's ok.
I vote yes! Recently, I have been listening to podcast novels including the great Scott Sigler, JC Hutchins, Tee Morris and Pip Ballantine. I have listened to them perform their books and I absolutely feel that I have "read" them. I remember them more vividly than books that I have skim read, the audio resonates in my mind so much more. The brain processes information and a book can enter through my eyes or my ears. Thanks, Joanna
Here's the thing. I voted yes even though *personally* I don't like audiobooks very much (my attention wanders because I have the chance to focus on other things with my eyes, and if I close my eyes, I fall asleep).
I work at a library whose sole purpose is to produce (if not acquire), under Canadian copyright law, textbooks in alternate formats for anyone with a print impairment (blindness, dyslexia, visual impairment, etc). And for them, when we produce an audio version of a book, listening is the only way they can access that book. That *is* their definition of reading: listening. Just as a blind reader running her fingers over braille is also reading. So maybe it's not *my* preferred method of reading, but it is still reading for someone out there.
I listened to the entire Harry Potter series on audio and it was a brilliant experience. The same reader did all of the books so the character voices and tones were consistent all the way through. Hearing the dialogue in a proper British accent made the stories new and alive to me – I highly recommend it to anyone.
The same goes for John Grisham books. A reader with a proper southern accent gives life, depth, and breadth to a Grisham novel that the printed page cannot.
Finally, on abridged works. There is one particular political thriller author who has excellent ideas that are poorly executed. His editor needs to cut words by the pound. Paragraph after paragraph of extraneous description that bog down the action and adventure.
I can't finish the books in print. I love them in abridged audio. Stripped down to the essential action, the stories are fantastic!
So, YES, audio is reading.
Phfft! Of course! Who even cares what the format is? It's the BOOK that matters.
Definition of To Listen:
1: to pay attention to sound
2: to hear something with thoughtful attention : give consideration
Definition of To Read:
1 a (1): to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch
1 a: to perform the act of reading words : read something
Audiobooks are not bad, they are great but you are not reading. You are listening. Technically they aren't books either, they are tapes/cd's.
As of this point, it looks evenly split. Interesting.
I think we've got a continuum of ways to experience a written story. On the one end is reading, where the reader's imagination has to do all the work in turning the words into an experience. In the middle, there's audiobooks where the reader's voice inflections guide the listener's interpretation of the material. There's also audio plays ("The Shadow knows…"), where the listener's imagination has to do less work because the actors voices mean the listener doesn't have to imagine what the characters sound like and the narrator's voice can convey tension in tone as well as word choice and sentence structure. Then on the other far end is video/movie work. Here, the audience doesn't have to do much work at all. Everything is right there on the screen, and all they have to do is interpret the actor's work to extrapolate emotion and meaning.
I don't consider audiobooks reading because they are a less private experience and require less concentration and imagination than reading. However, I prefer not to read in the car during my commute, and audiobooks are certainly a valid and entertaining way to experience a story without resulting in a traffic catastrophe.
I was sort of torn on this – I mean, if you're a teacher reading to your class, YOU are the one reading. Your kids are listening. Yes, they're getting the story and learning to enjoy books… but they aren't reading themselves. If you don't know how to read, you can't listen to an audio book and then claim you've learned.
I'm not saying that you aren't getting a similar experience, that the content you've heard is all that different from what someone else read… but if I look at it from a technical aspect… no, you're listening, not reading. The person whose voice you're listening to? They did the reading.
I voted for this as "reading," but actually I'm rather torn over it myself. I find myself agreeing with comments posted here from both sides of the argument.
When I listen to an audiobook, I'm not technically reading, as reading is interpreting letters on a page. But I'm absorbing the story of a book – what else would you call it? I'm at a loss.
Until "listening" to a book becomes a commonplace phrase in our language, and equal to reading in meaning, people (read: me) will continue to say they've read a book, even if they've listened to the audiobook.
Thank you for this poll, Nathan. Isn't it interesting that the results (as of Thurs, about noon) are nearly split even?
I think we came to a consensus…
Unless you are dyslexic, have ADD, are prone to migraines, are blind or you have no fingers…listening to audio books is NOT reading. The aforementioned exceptions get a free pass…YES…you're reading. The rest of you are lazy, illiterate, too busy, uptight and invalid. Sweet! Alienation rocks!
I voted no, but that's not a statement against audiobooks. I just don't think it is reading.
I even believe that some books are better listened to than read, especially when read by the author. Two examples that come to mind are Steven Colbert and David Sedaris. Both have a style that is much better listened to than read.
No, they're not the same. I don't know why so many people mentioned braille as the comparison. Clearly, braille is much closer to reading than an audiobook is.
For one thing, you are still absorbing braille mentally, internally, and the words are going through your own mental filter.
Listening, on the other hand, involves someone ELSE doing the filtering, deciding when to pause, when to stop, when to raise and lower pitch.
I vehemently disagree with the way some audiobook readers phrase their sentences. But when I read, I can pharse them in the way that I like. There is a 'customizable' factor to reading that will never happen with an audiobook. I'm sorry, but it's true.
I know I'm late here, but…From what research I've seen, listening has many of the same benefits as reading- children's brains develop in many of the same areas by listening to books as reading them- including vocabulary, grammar, comprehension, and it increases their writing skills.
The two modes are not the same, but there's a reason you're supposed to read to children for half an hour a day- even when they're babies. TV does NOT give these same benefits, but audiobooks do.
At my library – yes. Kids can listen to audiobooks for summer reading. My mom is a dyslexia/reading therapist and often uses audiobooks with kids, plus I've noticed that kids will listen to a book they've already read, or go read a book after they've listened to it.
If an author does his/her job right, then the reader gets lost in the story and stops reading the individual words. There is a point where the story is more than the words, it's akin to transubstantiation.
As a writer, I love the words, but when I'm just reading for entertainment, I love to get lost in the story.
I love audiobooks when I drive. And I let myself get caught up in the story. As a writer, sometimes, if I really love the story, I'll buy the hard copy of the book as well, to see how the writer handled its puctuation, its formatting. Sometimes I just need to see the words.
And I've come to find some genre's don't work for me in audio. I can't "read" mystery or a thriller when I drive. If I miss something I can't go back to look at where the clues were as easily. That may just be me.
Finally, some performers/readers just don't do the text justice. Some help. I do believe the actor can help, but if the words are good, they should sweep us away be they be on the page or in the voice. They are, after all, just words.
My car is never without an audiobook, and they're often on at home as well. I read plenty in print, too. And am a bit bewildered that so many think the audio is a lesser experience than the 'transformative power' of print. To mention just one favourite: the unabridged recording of The Time Traveler's Wife, read by William Hope and Laurel Lefkow, is brilliant. Loved the print book, love the audiobook.
As someone located outside the US, my biggest problem with audiobooks is one related to authors/publishers/agents, ie. rights, in relation to digital downloads in particular. There are plenty of audiobooks I'd pay for, but they aren't available to my geographic area (eg. on Audible, Amazon which uses Audible, Barnes and Noble and more). Some are available on CD, but in the age of the iPod, a download is cheaper, faster, involves no postage or packaging and doesn't have to be subject to the tyranny of distance.
When a recording exists, I can't understand why authors/agents/publishers don't make it available to non US markets, so we can pay you money to enjoy these stories. These aren't necessarily niche books, either: major best sellers, too. Why not tap into this royalty stream?
I'd so appreciate an explanation of this anomaly. It's really frustrating to be pressing your nose to the glass of the US audiobook closed shop and not be able to buy and listen.
I'm a former special education teacher with mixed feelings on this one. There are some people who genuinely get more out of material when it is presented in an auditory fashion rather than a visual one. Most people will retain more information in a visual format, so I was inclined to say know – but there are others for whom listening to a book is actually more engaging and intellectually stimulating than visually reading a book.
I would say yes. I enjoy audio books and at one time relied on them heavily. Unabridged books allow full access to the text the same way reading it would. To say that I pick up something different orally rather than visually is obvious. I pick up something different on each visual reading, too.
I have worked with the visually impaired community and used to Brailled books. I've also shelved A LOT of audiobooks that are in rotation in the state for them. It's a geat resource. As is the newspaper service, etc.
I'm also reminded of an 'article' on NPR several years ago by a man who was blind. He had lost his sight as an adult and learned to live almost seamlessly – including using a text reader, so he didn't read Braille. Technically, this meant he was illiterate because he could not read the words printed for him in his 'language'. His point, if I remember correctly, was that perhaps technology was outpacing our definitions and our perceptions.
Perhaps there's a place for audiobooks and text-to-speech readers so that everyone has access to all the books they want to read. Because, I think that's really the point – bringing the joy of story and language to as many people as possible including those who have disabilities and other challenges.
No. Reading is a physical act that involves the eyes.
I hold a book in my hand and my eyes scan the pages and my brain takes in the words and in its mysterious way, converts all those sentences to story that I understand.
Listening is not reading, as it involves the ears. But I still enjoy the story and take in the meaning of the words. Also, we are "read to" when listening to an audiobook. We ourselves are not reading.
Sigh. I guess you can tell that the semantics are important to me.
******
What is interesting to me is the that it seems that a lot of folks here equate a text with its delivery system. And conflate that with their experience of absorbing the story.
A text is an object separate of its delivery system. We have these ways in which to interact with the text:
Book/electronic book/computer monitor: Eyes
Record/tape/mp3: Ears
Braille: Fingers
We interact with each of these delivery systems using a primary sense: Seeing/Hearing/Touching.
So, to listen to an audiobook is not to be actively reading a book. Rather, it is to be *read to* by (hopefully) a person whose voice we enjoy.
I'm a little late on this one, but I thought I would chime in because it comes up between my friends and I often: They love audio books. I don't.
I say it is very different depending on your goals: If all you want is to ingest a story, then fine, listen to your heart's content, but understand that you are really just taking in the concepts and situations. If you want to learn about writing and the amazingly powerful use of language, you had better read it as reading allows you to focus more specifically on the choice of words and the reasons for those choices. Reading it yourself also allows you to create the cadence without someone else's imagination infringing upon your own.
I would choose to read it myself every single time. But then… that is just me.
WOW! I'm surprised so many people said NO. Of COURSE it's the same as reading it…so long as it's unabridged. What's the difference? In the end, you've heard every word of the book, you know the entire story, etc. I'd say half the books I read are audiobooks, and I never say "oh I listened to a book last week that…" I always said "yeah I've READ that," even though it was an audiobook. Honestly it doesn't make sense to me that ANYone would say no to this question.
Forgive me for necroing, but I feel obliged to comment.
As many people have already stated, it really depends on how you define "reading." If, by reading, you simply mean the analysis, interpretation, and understanding of something, then listening to an audio book does count as reading. However, if you define reading as the mental conversion of visual symbols into ideas, then no, listening to an audiobook wouldn't be reading.
For instance, if someone says, "During our conversation, I read her body language, tone of voice, and emphasis on certain words to determine what kind of person she is," then obviously it's the former definition that comes into play.
I am shocked that people have suggested that listening can never be the same as reading; on the contrary, active listening is merely another form of reading. Reading a book while daydreaming about something else doesn't count as reading since you're not converting the words into ideas; likewise, listening to an audiobook while having your mind on something else would not count as reading, either. But if you actually pay attention to the message behind the words while listening, then that counts as reading. For the debaters out there, the people who speak like rapidy-firing machine guns require one to tune in on their words with greater concentration than when reading.