Have ebooks changed your reading habits?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by patrickt

I remember telling an English teacher in high school that she didn't need to read the poems to me, I could read them on my own. Her response was, "I wish everyone could and would."

Poetry is perhaps a little different, in that one needs (assuming it's metrical poetry) to bring out the metre when reading it. If you simply read it as straight prose, you'll miss a great deal. There's a tremendous difference between hearing one of Shakespeare's Sonnets read "properly", and simply reading it yourself if you've no idea where the stress should fall. That really is an area where audiobooks can be tremendously beneficial.

[cvkemp]

I love to read, I do not like to listen to someone reading to me, mostly due to the fact that I am very hard of hearing and my speech recognition is very poor. Due to ereaders I read a lot more than before. It is so easy to care around a e-ink reader with lots of books on it. I read out of any where from 2 to 4 books every day. Now that does not mean I can read a whole book in a day or less it just means I will read a chapter here and a chapter there.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In musical terms, it's the difference between playing a piece of music, and listening to someone else play it. Yes, the notes are the same, but they are very different experiences. One is active, the other passive.

I disagree.

The technical ability required to play complex music is FAR GREATER than the ability required to read. For this reason I think that your example of playing vs. listening is a flawed analogy.

Moreover, in my experience the emotional experience of hearing a good peace of music and playing it yourself is very similar if you take the technical component out.

[spindlegirl]

E-books have made me more interested in reading, period. They are easier to get, whereas before I had to wait until I either could get to a library or bookstore to read what I wanted.

I just bought a Kindle Touch 2014 (7th gen) not paperwhite. (after a few years with the Kindle 4 non-touch) I know it's not currently the most popular but it has the features I need the most in an e-reader. I love the quick link to Goodreads, and I like how quick and easy it is to get books almost the instant a title reaches my radar.

For borrowing e-books I have Overdrive at my local library, and the app works well on my cell phone. But I like the visual interface on my kindle the best.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by twowheels

I disagree.

The technical ability required to play complex music is FAR GREATER than the ability required to read. For this reason I think that your example of playing vs. listening is a flawed analogy.

Moreover, in my experience the emotional experience of hearing a good peace of music and playing it yourself is very similar if you take the technical component out.

Would you explain the technical component of listening? I understand the technical component of playing a violin or in reading Ulysses or Moby Dick. I also understand the passive nature of listening to a concerto or listening to a dramatic reading.

I love reading. I value the existence of autiobooks. A friend of mine was totally blind and listened to books on tape. I have another friend who commutes to work and listens to "self improvement" books and "inspirational readings" as he drives. I do value audiobooks but I worry about conflating reading and listening and thinking that a device that does one should do the other.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Would you explain the technical component of listening?

Listening to books being read? At least in part... the exact same technical components that one practiced when learning to read: comprehension, literacy, vocabulary, etc. Seeing the words is the smallest technical component of "reading a book," no?

Unless you mistakenly believe that those who use audiobooks are simply letting sounds go in one ear and out the other with no retention/comprehension whatsoever, then they're using the exact same tools to process what they've heard that you do to process what you've read. Hearing a word does not impart instant knowledge of said word. Complex sentence structures must still be parsed to gain comprehension.

Your implications that reading books requires more technical skills (of the same literate reader) than listening to a book just don't hold water. There's really only a difference in technical skills for those who never learned to read in the first place.

[patrickt]

Of course not. Listening to audiobooks has the same technical skills as listening to drunks crying in their beer.

Where I worked we gave up trying to have police officers write reports. Their handwriting, spelling, and structure was horrible. It was so bad people laughed at the reports. Only a handful could write a decent report. All of these officers had high school degrees and some had college degrees. Generally, they couldn't write. So, we had them carry inexpensive tape recorders and dictate their reports to be typed by typists. I suppose in your world, they were still "writing" their reports.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by twowheels

I disagree.

The technical ability required to play complex music is FAR GREATER than the ability required to read. For this reason I think that your example of playing vs. listening is a flawed analogy.

Do you really think so? It generally takes someone years of practice to be able to read fluently; a significant number of people never master this skill. Pretty similar to the amount of practice taken to learn to play a musical instrument well, I suspect.

[LovesMacs]

I find that with e-books, I am more likely to persist when reading a very long book. For example, I recently finished reading War and Peace, a book that I was never able to complete on paper, but took just a few months as an e-book.

Paradoxically, e-books also make me more quick to discard a book if it disturbs or offends me. I quickly dumped a Piers Anthony sample for that very reason.

It is fortunate that e-books let you read samples at your leisure.

[issybird]

I know nothing about cognitive differences between consuming material by reading or by listening. However, it's self-evident that in reading, the reader provides his own interpretation while a listener takes in another's interpretation and those are two very different things.

That said, I greatly enjoy audiobooks, which pleasantly while away time when my eyes or hands are otherwise occupied. And I really don't see why anyone cares how someone else describes the act of consuming audiobooks, and that goes for both camps.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by patrickt

So, we had them carry inexpensive tape recorders and dictate their reports to be typed by typists. I suppose in your world, they were still "writing" their reports.

Stop the my world/your world thing. It's all one world. If you don't think that people who utilize audiobooks could possibly be competent with written language (or that utilizing audiobooks threatens competency with written language in general) then there's nothing further to discuss. I find your "concern" a bit silly. Live and let live.

[cromag]

I, personally, prefer the term "listen" for audiobooks. But not to the point that I would get into a fight over it.

I occasionally listen to audiobooks, but I can't when I'm driving. I pay too much attention to the book and it distracts me from my driving. I listen to music when I drive and have no problems with being distracted.

[Ksquared]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you really think so? It generally takes someone years of practice to be able to read fluently; a significant number of people never master this skill. Pretty similar to the amount of practice taken to learn to play a musical instrument well, I suspect.

I recently re-learned to play a musical instrument (French Horn) after a 30 year break. I could still read music (from singing), but the physical challenge of coordinating fingers, air and lip pressure was certainly more challenging than I imagined or remembered.

I wonder if I could learn to read again if I took such a long break... But I do think reading takes a similar commitment and practice to form the connections that lead to understanding. I still find listening to a story enjoyable, and think that reading regularly helped build the pathways that help me understand what I hear.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by cromag

I, personally, prefer the term "listen" for audiobooks. But not to the point that I would get into a fight over it.

Yeah, me too. Listen is a perfectly good word in common usage that fits audiobooks far better than read does, it's like saying "Hey, I went and read the new Terminator movie at the cinema last night." or "I watched the radio last night".

Of course, I still use the word 'Tape' when recording something on a Sky box, so what do I know

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Of course, I still use the word 'Tape' when recording something on a Sky box, so what do I know

I am deeply embarrassed to admit that I've been known to use the verb "dial" to describe the process of entering a telephone number on a telephone which doesn't have a dial .