Does reading a book include listening to the audiobook?

[Anonymous]

This is a huge debate on social media although I'm not sure why. Yes - a story is a story.

[Anonymous]

I love how people think listening to something makes it not "count". Count for what?

I have a hard time sitting still and reading when I feel like there are other things to do. Audiobooks are amazing! I listen and do dishes, fold laundry, sweep, dust, go for walks. If I am driving anywhere over 15 minutes in the car I put the book on. I have been able to "read" so many more books this way. Especially books that I would have a hard time sitting still for, but that I still find interesting (like a lot of non-fiction).

[Anonymous]

This is just a debate about the definitions people have for "reading", really. I'm a big reader, and also love audiobooks, and there are pros and cons to each. Reading is a specific activity, distinct from listening, so I can see why people might say its not the same thing. It is, however, equally possible to understand a text that way. Reading is faster, but sometimes I comprehend better via audiobooks because you're forced to go slowly. OTOH, its also easier to zone out during an audiobook if some distraction pops up. Aesthetically, some stories seem to me better as an audiobook. It's also like someone reading you a story which can be soothing. Poetry is flat-out better read aloud, that's a major part of the form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. This video says it all.

To summarize: one doesn't need eyes and print on a page to read. Limiting "reading" to eyes on a page is classist and ablest. There are people who can't hold printed matter to read because of ability or lifestyle, but they can still read books.

The creator of the video says she changed her opinion over time. As an English professor, she had a limited view. As a bookseller today, she is more broad. She also points out that dictionaries include definitions for "read" that go beyond using eyes on printed material.

This is OP. As I said, I believe listening is reading but I don't think the 'classist' and 'ableist' arguments are important to the discussion. There are some things that people with disabilities cannot do (depending on the disability) and it's not ableist or classist to acknowledge that. An analogy is walking. If I asked, "Is riding to the corner in a wheelchair the same as walking?" The answer is no, they are not the same even though both are methods of moving from here to there, and it's not ableist to recognize that difference, IMO.

My opinion is not that listening should 'count' or that listening is just as good as reading but that it is reading. One pp above says it's not "actively reading" and another pp says you're not "actually reading anything" and I disagree because I don't understand why some people think reading = understanding the words with the eyes but doesn't include understanding the words with the ears. I agree with the person above and others who say it's decoding a text and building the story (ETA: or taking in the information) in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a huge debate on social media although I'm not sure why. Yes - a story is a story.

It's just content generation. It's gets trotted out every three months or so because people need to have something to be dramatic about.

There are certain topics you can count on to come up regularly because it will cause a flurry of engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. This video says it all.

To summarize: one doesn't need eyes and print on a page to read. Limiting "reading" to eyes on a page is classist and ablest. There are people who can't hold printed matter to read because of ability or lifestyle, but they can still read books.

The creator of the video says she changed her opinion over time. As an English professor, she had a limited view. As a bookseller today, she is more broad. She also points out that dictionaries include definitions for "read" that go beyond using eyes on printed material.

This is OP. As I said, I believe listening is reading but I don't think the 'classist' and 'ableist' arguments are important to the discussion. There are some things that people with disabilities cannot do (depending on the disability) and it's not ableist or classist to acknowledge that. An analogy is walking. If I asked, "Is riding to the corner in a wheelchair the same as walking?" The answer is no, they are not the same even though both are methods of moving from here to there, and it's not ableist to recognize that difference, IMO.

My opinion is not that listening should 'count' or that listening is just as good as reading but that it is reading. One pp above says it's not "actively reading" and another pp says you're not "actually reading anything" and I disagree because I don't understand why some people think reading = understanding the words with the eyes but doesn't include understanding the words with the ears. I agree with the person above and others who say it's decoding a text and building the story (ETA: or taking in the information) in your mind.

I watched the video. The points made sense to me.

[Anonymous]

I think it "counts" (for whoever is in charge of making that decision?) but I do generally make clear that I listened to something rather than read it. (I don't, however, make a distinction between reading a paperback/hardcover or reading on a Kindle).

I think a good narrator can enhance a story in amazing ways. Similarly, a bad one can tank a story. But I think in terms of the essence of the plot and whether you enjoyed the story (or didn't), listening is just as valid as reading.

[Anonymous]

Reading is a way to be entertained and gain information. The same can absolutely be done with audiobooks. Yes it absolutely counts.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure it counts. But, a pet peeve - when people say they read 100 books this year but they actually listened to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would call that listening to a book, not reading a book. You're not actually reading anything so... no, not reading.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Eh. There is more than one way to use the word "read" besides looking at words on a page or tablet.

You can walk into a party and "read" the room.

You can "read" the emotion on someone's face.

You can go to a fortune teller for a psychic "reading".

You can "read" between the lines when someone is not giving you accurate details.

[Anonymous]

Put me down as a "no", not quite. It's closer and better than watching a video/movie of the same subject but you need to include an asterisks if you say "I read(*) such and so book".

[Anonymous]

Here we go again. You do not need functioning eyes to read a book.


https://therewiredsoul.medium.com/audiobook-shaming-is-ableist-and-laughably-silly-84c87a738505

https://bookriot.com/audiobooks-dont-count/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it counts. But, a pet peeve - when people say they read 100 books this year but they actually listened to them.

What’s the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just a debate about the definitions people have for "reading", really. I'm a big reader, and also love audiobooks, and there are pros and cons to each. Reading is a specific activity, distinct from listening, so I can see why people might say its not the same thing. It is, however, equally possible to understand a text that way. Reading is faster, but sometimes I comprehend better via audiobooks because you're forced to go slowly. OTOH, its also easier to zone out during an audiobook if some distraction pops up. Aesthetically, some stories seem to me better as an audiobook. It's also like someone reading you a story which can be soothing. Poetry is flat-out better read aloud, that's a major part of the form.

+1

I tend to read very quickly and audiobooks tend to slow me down so I glean more details.