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?
I find this all fascinating. I don't think anyone who says "it's not reading" is denying the validity of books on tape (or CD) my husband and I listen to books on tape almost every night. We are also avid readers.
When I am listening to a story I am not reading it. I am enjoying the experience of being told a story. I enjoy stories or I wouldn't read or listen to them.
Having an impairment that makes reading hard to impossible, makes the listening experience that much more enjoyable and meaningful.
If I'm listening to music am I reading it? No, I'm enjoying the creation of an artist as played by the musician. Does it mean I can't appreciate the music simply because I'm not reading it? No.
I wonder if Nathan meant this to become a discussion of whether or not listening to a book is valid?
There's no question it's valid. Just a different way to enjoy the story.
PS I think reading in braille is still reading. Its a tactile version but still requires the putting together of letters to form the correct words and not having someone else do it for you…
I'm not going to vote because I can't vote yes or no without qualifying my answer. Yes, it counts as reading *if* you are not teaching or attending grade school. Yes, it counts if you are visually impaired (or for that matter, have an auditory deficiency and then that would even out the score because that means you have to *listen* harder, right?). No if you're an editor (come on, that was obvious, right?), proofreader or beta reader. And, um, why would anyone be "counting" other than to record your minutes on that fantastic chart complete with gold, green, blue and silver star stickers? So there. Count that. 😛
Sarcastically yours,
Kathie
Interesting comments on both sides. Alas, I suspect that this will become a mainly semantic debate owing to the phrasing of Nathan's question. While the experience of listening to an audiobook cannot be identical to the experience of reading the same book, since the former is narrated by a third party, I would argue it can certainly be equivalent.
I'm going to put aside the example of people with visual impairments or conditions that make reading difficult or impossible. Not only have others expounded upon this point at length, but it's not as pertinent to Nathan's question–in order to compare the two experiences, listening and reading, and judge them equivalent or not, we must start with a person equally capable of both. If that is not the case, then obviously someone more capable of listening to a book than reading it will judge the former experience superior to the latter.
Those who claim listening to an audiobook can't be equivalent to reading the same book argue that the presence of the narrator changes the meaning of the book, acting as a filter through which the text passes before it reaches our ears. Yet any book's text passes through innumerable filters before reaching our eyes. Consider two editions of the same book, with the exact same text, yet bound differently. A hardcover book may be read differently than a paperback book. The size of the text may make one's eyes skip ahead or crawl along slowly.
Furthermore, by the same logic, does this mean that translated books do not count as reading material? After all, those books have been filtered by a third party as well, just a narrator instead of a translator. And that translator has to make judgement calls when rendering idioms or concepts that don't translate directly. As anyone who has ever plodded through ancient tracts or even something in Old English, like Beowulf, can testify, the translation makes all the difference. In fact, a translated book is probably more filtered from the original than an unabridged audiobook could ever be.
The other objection is that a narrator can't capture the nuance of the written word–particularly punctuation (Rick Daley mentioned this). This is backwards. We, as a species, are wired for spoken language. Prior to the invention of the written word, oration was the only form of storytelling, through which we preserved our history and our culture. Punctuation exists as a way of transcribing oral elocution, not the other way around. Hence, a good narrator will be able to pronounce a book as it is written. And that's the rub–an audiobook's experience hinges upon the skill of its narrator. A poor narrator can ruin an audiobook, while a good narrator can make it come alive.
I've begun listening to audiobooks while I bike to work this summer, instead of listening to music as I usually do. I find some books easier to understand orally–Victorian writing, for instance, with its very formal language. Yes, it's easy to be distracted by an audiobook. Then again, it's also easy to be distracted by a regular book. Both require concentration and perseverance.
Listening to an audiobook isn't technically reading, no. Yet while one's mileage may vary, I maintain that listening to an audiobook is equivalent to reading the same book, assuming one devotes an equivalent amount of concentration. Those who listen to books because they think it's "quick and easy" compared to reading are fooling themselves, because they're missing the point–any form of reading requires effort. However, it is possible to listen to an audiobook and come away with a solid understanding of the story, a grasp of its themes. A good book, or a good audiobook, it doesn't matter–both can move me.
I don't have anything against audio books, but if you're listening to one then I'm afraid you're listening, not reading. Saying that listening is reading is kinda like saying that if you smell the book then you're reading it. It's two completely different senses. But perhaps I'm being too slavish to the three question form…
PS Welcome back Nathan!
PPS I'm a little quiet lately because I've finished the first draft of my book and I'm like SO obsessed with editing it. I think I forgot to eat and breathe yesterday I've been so caught up with it.
PPPS I hate Blogger. Why won't you let me post?!?! (A million dollars says it lets me post this time just to be a pain…)
I think it counts as taking in a story….kinda like a movie. And I totally do it just to hear the story so I won't be in the dark, but I don't count it as reading.
Reading makes me fall asleep because it requires sitting my tired self down. Audiobooks, not so much.
if you are listening to a tv show, doesn't that count as reading the script?
Hell no it doesn't.
On the glorious day that I become a published author, there is no way I'd turn my nose up to people who bought my book in the audio version over the print. I'm going to be happy with however my story is enjoyed!
I enjoy books both ways. When I have a long drive, audio books work very well. In my office at work, they help me pass the day. But when I curl up in bed, or on a long flight, nothing beats a nice print book.
We listen to books on tape as a family but my children have to READ a book in order to learn the nuances of words and word structure.
I personally would rather READ a book. I love the feel of the pages in my hands and knowing how far I am into a book or how close to the end.
I also LISTEN to audiobooks while driving.
I vote yes.
I have a child who struggles with reading for some reason or another, but she's an amazing listener. She loves good literature and absorbs what I read to her and what she hears in an audiobook.
Okay, yeah, it's not *reading*, but she is taking in wonderful stories by great writers.
I am of two thoughts on this question. On one hand do you have an impairment that cannot allow you to read? I.E. Are you blind?
If so, then yes this would count as reading.
If no, then no it does not count as reading. You are not really exercising your brain you are just tuning into a pictureless tv. The same as listening to a radio.
To assume that an audiobook doesn't count is to call the basis of all literature into question: what is the storyteller but an early audiobook? Would we discount Beowulf as literature if it was delivered in the traditional manner with a drum accompaniement?
Whether the story is taken in by the eyes or the ears, it is still consumed by the brain!
I don't think anyone was saying that audio books are not a legitimate form of absorbing a story or turning up their nose at them(but I haven't read all the comments so I could be wrong).
The question wasn't about the legitimacy of audiobooks, from what I understood. It was asking whether listening to one is reading. Or maybe I can't read, myself, and I have the question all wrong.
I count listening as reading because some of us, with old eyes, have to conserve our sight for work. After a day in front of a computer, curling up with a book means falling asleep in fifteen minutes.
Audio books are definitely a different experience from reading. They're being tucked in bed to Grimm's Fairtales. They're sitting around a fire listening to the old story teller. They're total immersion.
I download my books to my iPod and listen with my ear buds. The world fades, especially with the right reader. The Anansi Boys, read by Lenny Henry took me away for 10 hours as completely as any book I've ever held in my hands.
I do miss curling around a heavy, hardbound book in my arms, but there's a lot to be said for curling up and simply drifting away.
No. That is being read to – not reading. It's a good way to enjoy a book if you spend time commuting. But when you read, you set the pace. The emphasis you give parts affects what your brain invisions. It's just not the same!
Aaaaand, Victoria Dixon wins. Thanx to everyone else for playing.
Since I get motion sick, it's the only way I can "read" on a plane or in a car and therefore, it counts.
I think that the brain relies pretty heavily on Broca's area (left, frontal lobe) for comprehension of language, regardless of format. So really, your brain is pretty much doing the same thing (taking syllables and creating meaning) whether you read it or it's read to you. So I tend to think of listening to a book as 'reading' just as much as actually reading it. I find listening to a book much more annoying than reading it, though. I read much faster in my head! I think that's the main difference for me.
I've only recently (in the last year) started listening to audio books and I have learned soooooooooooooooo much about writing, but you've got a zillion comments here, so I won't take the time to write about it. If you don't want to count it as "reading" then definitely count it as part of your education (as well as lots of fun).
To me, an audiobook is the equivalent of sitting in Mom's lap and listening to her read the book. My kids love when I read to them, and they love to listen to audiobooks on long car trips. Either way, it counts as reading the book. It's not like Cliff Notes or watching the movie. You're still getting the book, the whole book and nothing but the book!
I'm a children's librarian and we certainly count audiobooks as reading for our summer reading program. Many kids come into the library who are struggling with reading and books–giving them the opportunity to listen to audiobooks, often alongside with the print, enhances their reading ability. I have one young man who has a strong reading disability. He plows through all the audiobooks I can recommend though and is always first in line for new ones in the series he has read.
Unless the assignment is meant to be physically read, where a student is specifically working on reading then why not count listening? Listening students may pay more attention and might even have a better idea of how to read aloud, having heard others bring the words to life.
And one final point–I do the audiobook selection for kids and teens. Our shelves right now, particularly the new books and Playaways, are really picked clean as people grab audiobooks for the summer.
Whoa! I'm vote 666. Yikes. Does that make my opinion evil?
When I asked my mother to read me another story, it didn't mean I couldn't read it myself. I wanted the experience of being read to, which I maintain is different from reading.
A favorite memory is being read "Stuart Little" and "Charlotte's Web" in elementary school with my head on my desk.
Listening to an audio book is, to me, the same as being read to. Not reading. It's a qualitatively different experience.
@Anon 12:36 (Off topic on wait times) No, I don't know, but in my inexperienced opinion, if you have an agent with whom you have a good relationship, surely you should be able to ask them if they are submitting on your behalf? They will know better than anything general you get from the Internet.
And if for whatever reason you don't want to ask, why not focus on writing your next project for distraction. All the best.
Yes, technically the listener has experienced the work. BUT it is not indepth OR careful reading.
Listening is second-rate reading!
Listening is a reading experience. (When people write they are always advised read it out loud. Physically hearing the words that have been written often bring about changes and improvements.
If the link is essential for us as writers how can we say it is not as valid reading experience.)
Writing is the effort to capture the oral story telling tradition.
I'd say no, it doesn't count as reading. Despite the fact that I learn the story, and all the words of the book (if unabridged), it's not my reading experience. I'm being talked to: there's an extra agent involved whose speech, voice, rhythm, speed (etc) I must pay attention to and get accustomed to, their voice interferes with my imagination. So no, for me an audiobook means a way weaker experience.
-g.
I thought about this one a while and decided to vote, "no."
I think reading involves more than just knowing a plot or absorbing a story. I think it needs more work than that.
When an author writes, regardless of what they're writing about, their own experiences and thoughts will inevitably influence how they are going to write.
The awesome thing about reading, to me, is that when I read a book, my thoughts and experiences are influencing how I interpret the text, and the experience of reading that book alone will influence how I take the next book.
Writing is an art. Giving written text meaning, is also an art.
When you are listening to an audiobook, there is a third party that is disrupting the link between the author, the text, and you. You are no longer left with only your own experiences to interpret the text–somebody else is giving it their mood and their pace with their voice.
Therefore, you are not reading–you are listening to somebody else read.
Still, I do think reading to children is important, but if the teacher assigns a story for a child to read as homework, it's probably best that they read it themselves, rather than having a parent read it to them.
I'm surprised it's so evenly split. To me reading is a verb, it's something you do. Listening to an audiobook is a different thing entirely. You might be able to absorb a book as well each way, depending on who you are and how you listen or read, but they can't be the same thing even by definition. Apparently my Vulcan semantics are getting in the way of seeing the debate.
I think the question is ambiguous, but I chose no. Listening to someone read is different from you reading the book in your hands. Different, in that the book is/isn't in your hands (dissimilar experiences accompany both as well).
But then if the question is more to do absorbing the story of a book and not physically reading that book then yes it's very possible – in fact, in some cases, better – to sink into the world of a book and take in everything while listening to an audiobook.
Part of the work of reading is interpreting the little blobs of ink. The same story in spoken form comes to the listener already interpreted, by the one reading it.
I actually remember books differently if I listen to them rather than read them.
I went back and forth on this, and said "no" on a technicality.
Reading is much more involved than listening. I'm sure there's some kind of colorful scan available somewhere to prove that brain activity is higher when you read rather than when you listen, but I'm just going on common sense here.
I feel it's the difference between watching someone paint a beautiful picture and painting one yourself. Even if the end result is identical, the process is different. Would you dare to say that you painted a picture that you had simply watched someone else paint? Hardly. Are you going to enjoy that painting any less because someone else painted it? Maybe. But not likely. The sense of accomplishment isn't there, but the picture is beautiful, just the same.
Yes. Suppose that while you were sick someone read 'War and Peace' to you at your bedside.
Now suppose that next week someone asks you "Have you ever read 'War and Peace'?"
You're hardly going to say "No", are you?
The answer really depends on the context. For the visually impaired and for young children the answer is 'absolutely yes'. However, how does someone become a strong reader if they don't read. How can a student be a better writer if they don't read (same goes for a writer). Seeing words and sentences take shape on the page and letting our mind absorb them helps us all improve our writing skills (of course you still have to practice writing, too).
I must admit my answer, though, is based on me being a visual person. My mind tends to drift when I listen to a book so I've learned years ago not to bother with them.
The brilliant science fiction writer, Orson Scott Card, believes that the audio book presentations of his work are indeed the "definitive editions."
"Ender's Game" is a classic that I did not read. I listened to it and I agree with the comments made in the afterward by the author. The audio book feels natural and it is the best way to experience the book.
In listening, we still experience the fullness of the literature and the piece of work. Therefore, I feel confident in discussing a work and saying that I have read it, even if I have only listened to the audio book.
I'm surprised there's so little mention of the art of imagination, something an author evokes through what s/he has written. The fact that a book may be read silently or aurally does not change the fact that the author means to create a dynamic relationship with a reader, one in which the reader takes part in the imaginative work. So I voted "Yes", because the reader must re-create and interpret character, setting, and so forth as the experience of the story moves forward for fiction, and knit the logic and illustrations of a non-fiction work together into what the author hoped was a coherent whole. It is the dynamic interaction between author and reader that constitutes "reading".
In answer to Genella's question, yes, they do have romance novels in braille.
Now to this question. I put yes, reading an audio book is exactly the same as reading it in text. When I had my sight I used to read books and remember
that experience. Now with my sight gone, I read audio books, and nothing is lost experience wise when you listen to the book. The only difference in
audio and text, is that you can turn the pages in a text book, otherwise, there exactly the same.
And to the people who say "why not just read a braille book" to us blind readers…do you have any idea how many volumes a brailled book is? I have some
books in braille that are 200 pages, and those are 4 or 5 volumes of text. My church hymn book is 8 volumes, my other church books in braille on paper
are 10 volumes. In short, it's far too much storage! Audio books are far more portable.
But in short, yes reading an audio book is the same as reading a text book.
Crystal
The first form of reading is listening.
Ancient tribes gather around the fire as the hunters spin a tale of their valor, of their grand adventures felling the great beasts of their time.
Infants and toddlers lie still under the cover of warm blanket, enraptured by the cadence and the weight of nursery rhymes, of fairy tales, told by their protective elders.
Once they learn the alphabets, once they've mastered reading, they whisper stories for their own ears, within and without.
I'm re-reading the Chronicles of Narnia on my iPhone. By which I mean listening to the audiobook. And I still get the same effect, of a movie playing in my head, as I do when reading.
Blabbering. I know.
I vote Hell Yeah!
I am going on vacation this summer. I decided to fly to save myself the pain of a 14 hour drive. Ultimately, I will get to the same destination as someone who drove but that doesn't mean I can say I drove.
Listening is not reading but it is still absorbing and it is a vital medium for books, journals, newspapers etc… that can't be ignored. It has opened the market to people who don't have time to or don't like to read.
I voted no because:
– Paging back to check a plot point or a physical description is a major hassle in an audio book.
– Footnotes either can’t be ignored or aren’t read
– Spelling counts – especially the funky spelling in SciFi novels. ‘Teklace’ does not mean ‘without technology’.
Writing is an art form. Material written for oral presentation uses different words and sentence structures to take advantage of how we listen.
Also, I note that audio books are appreciated in part because they allow the listener to multitask. I think this says more about our lifestyles than it does about appreciation of literature. Part of the joy of reading with eyes (or fingers) is not doing anything else while reading.
You bet it does.
~jon
…its all about STORY, right?
I just want to share this… because some of the commenters here do go to my blog and others might like this.
At my blog (marjorie-digest), I just posted some photos of an art reception I went to last night. You can see me with Jerry, Edie Beale's "Marble Faun," and Albert Maysles!
How wonderful it was to see them together again, almost 35 years after that legendary documentary was made.
Two questions:
If someone recounts an experience, is it yours?
If someone feeds you, are you eating?
I think it does. For people with cataracts that cannot see much, it is a joy to listen to audio books. My grandmother cannot really see anymore, even with large print, and she has enjoyed books her whole life. The audio books provide her entertainment and topics to discuss with other people her age.
No I don't think its the same.
Reading a book is a total self absorbed experience. Its relaxation at its best.
However because we are in a world that somehow requires us to multi- task, most of us will be doing something else while we listen to a book. Driving, balancing our checkbook, cooking, etc. Its simply not the same experience.
It is disheartening to me that so few people actually sit down with a book and actually read the words on the page. So many people are into instant gratification rather than anticipation. Sad but true.
I chose yes because you are absorbing the knowledge of the book. If I listened to an audiobook, I would put it on my "books read" list. That's beyond the point though, as I don't particularly like audiobooks. Hm. . .
I absolutely believe it's reading. There are many people, either through illiteracy or vision handicaps that are unable to pick up a book and read. For others who have a passel of children or 60 hour work week jobs with long commutes are unable to relax in the recliner with a good novel. For these people, the escape one would find in a book is found through another reading said book to them.
Until I screamed, "Enough" last year, I worked 60 hours a week, and had a commute of one hour each way. Were I not able to take advantage of audiobooks, I think that I would have gone insane. Audiobooks were, and continue to be when I work out, my escapist therapy.
And then there's the part of me whose trying to break into the world of audiobook narrating…
I was once a huge book snob. Audiobooks were beneath me because you didn't get the full experience of reading. Then I met my dyslexic husband. Reading a book is incredibly hard for him, so the only way for him to truly enjoy a book is if it's in audio form. Since then I've grown to love the audio book. They're great for exercise and really long car rides.