Listening is the new reading

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

We aren't saying it's not REALLY reading, we are saying it's not reading.

In the same way swimming is not walking, it's not better or worse, just different.

There is a perfectly good word for what you do with an audiobook and it isn't read. As far as I can tell absolutely no one has any problems with audiobooks themselves, I prefer audioplays myself but that's just my preference.

Yep. My view entirely.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

We aren't saying it's not REALLY reading, we are saying it's not reading.

In the same way swimming is not walking, it's not better or worse, just different.

There is a perfectly good word for what you do with an audiobook and it isn't read. As far as I can tell absolutely no one has any problems with audiobooks themselves, I prefer audioplays myself but that's just my preference.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yep. My view entirely.

So since you both seem to claiming a purely semantic reason for your views, I'm assuming you would both object (just as strenuously) whenever someone used the phrase, "I read you loud and clear", right? Or do you just pick and choose when pure semantics should rule the day? Are you perfectly OK with the guy in the truck on the street remotely "reading" your meter with a radio device?

I mean, if you're only a stickler for semantic detail under this one particular "reading" scenario, then your whole "listening isn't—by definition—reading" objection sort of falls apart. Unless you're equally willing to oppose all usage of the word "reading" that doesn't involve eyeballs perusing written language (with comprehension), then what you're really saying is "I get to decide when saying 'reading' doesn't really have to mean 'reading'."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So since you both seem to claiming a purely semantic reason for your views, I'm assuming you would both object (just as strenuously) whenever someone used the phrase, "I read you loud and clear", right? Or do you just pick and choose when pure semantics should rule the day? Are you perfectly OK with the guy in the truck on the street remotely "reading" your meter with a radio device?

The word "read" does indeed have many different usages. I wouldn't personally include the act of listening to someone else reading a book among those usages: I choose to call that activity "listening". That's just me; other people will of course regard the situation differently.

[Tarana]

Crich, a MOVIE is an interpretation of a book. So it is completely apples and celery. An unabridged audiobook and a book are the same words at least. So apples and applesauce.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

We aren't saying it's not REALLY reading, we are saying it's not reading.

In the same way swimming is not walking, it's not better or worse, just different.

Swimming and walking are both forms of motion. Visual reading and aural reading are both forms of reading.

There is a perfectly good word for what you do with an audiobook and it isn't read. As far as I can tell absolutely no one has any problems with audiobooks themselves, I prefer audioplays myself but that's just my preference.

Tell me this: Are you engaging in the exact same activity when you listen to Bach and when you listen to an audiobook? Why or why not?

No, you've looked at it, like a picture. If it helps I'm willing to accept viewed, studied & scrutinised as well

By your definition of reading, why isn't it reading? It's a visual intake of the material.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The word "read" does indeed have many different usages. I wouldn't personally include the act of listening to someone else reading a book among those usages: I choose to call that activity "listening".

There is no separate but equal aural equivalent to 'reading'. Listening is the equivalent of looking; looking and listening both merely refer to being aware of a stimulus. Reading refers to not only being aware of a stimulus but actively comprehending it and engaging with it on a high level. This is why, I think, reading is beginning to be used as a verb for consuming an unabridged audiobook.

Basically, it's a void of the English language being filled by the more precise term (reading) often related to a different sense (sight) rather than the less precise and more generic term (listening) related to the same sense (hearing). It is also backed up by other valid aural uses of the word 'reading', and in fact they (the prior uses and this use in regards to audiobooks) probably have the same root cause of using 'reading' in an aural context- to better differentiate that the information is being comprehended on a higher level.

Of course, one could just say 'listening to an audiobook' and would be understood, but despite any vigorous protestations to the contrary, 'listening' gives a less precise and less estimable connotation than 'reading'.

I think any objections to the thought of 'reading an audiobook' are mostly because of the newness of this usage (and therefore it can sound odd or awkward at first) and a bit of linguistic 'drawing lines in sand', but language is ever-evolving and we've offered very sound reasons in this thread for 'reading an audiobook' being as proper as 'listening to an audiobook', and more precise.

Personally, I still may use either one as I see fit, but I prefer the choice rather than feeling like I should have to say one.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

There is no separate but equal aural equivalent to 'reading'. Listening is the equivalent of looking; looking and listening both merely refer to being aware of a stimulus. Reading refers to not only being aware of a stimulus but actively comprehending it and engaging with it on a high level. This is why, I think, reading is beginning to be used as a verb for consuming an unabridged audiobook.

Basically, it's a void of the English language being filled by the more precise term (reading) often related to a different sense (sight) rather than the less precise and more generic term (listening) related to the same sense (hearing). It is also backed up by other valid aural uses of the word 'reading', and in fact they (the prior uses and this use in regards to audiobooks) probably have the same root cause of using 'reading' in an aural context- to better differentiate that the information is being comprehended on a higher level.

Of course, one could just say 'listening to an audiobook' and would be understood, but despite any vigorous protestations to the contrary, 'listening' gives a less precise and less estimable connotation than 'reading'.

I think any objections to the thought of 'reading an audiobook' are mostly because of the newness of this usage (and therefore it can sound odd or awkward at first) and a bit of linguistic 'drawing lines in sand', but language is ever-evolving and we've offered very sound reasons in this thread for 'reading an audiobook' being as proper as 'listening to an audiobook', and more precise.

Personally, I still may use either one as I see fit, but I prefer the choice rather than feeling like I should have to say one.

I read you 5X5.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

There is no separate but equal aural equivalent to 'reading'. Listening is the equivalent of looking; looking and listening both merely refer to being aware of a stimulus. Reading refers to not only being aware of a stimulus but actively comprehending it and engaging with it on a high level. This is why, I think, reading is beginning to be used as a verb for consuming an unabridged audiobook.

Basically, it's a void of the English language being filled by the more precise term (reading) often related to a different sense (sight) rather than the less precise and more generic term (listening) related to the same sense (hearing). It is also backed up by other valid aural uses of the word 'reading', and in fact they (the prior uses and this use in regards to audiobooks) probably have the same root cause of using 'reading' in an aural context- to better differentiate that the information is being comprehended on a higher level.

The reason I choose not to use it myself is that I see reading as an “active” activity, but listening as a “passive” one. It’s the same difference, to my mind, that exists between playing a musical instrument yourself, and listening to someone else play one. As a listener, you are simply a consumer of someone else’s performance, whether that performance be the musician playing the instrument, or the narrator reading the book. When you read a book or play an instrument, on the other hand, you are creating the performance yourself. I regard these as entirely distinct activities.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a listener, you are simply a consumer of someone else’s performance, whether that performance be the musician playing the instrument, or the narrator reading the book. When you read a book or play an instrument, on the other hand, you are creating the performance yourself. I regard these as entirely distinct activities.

You're giving the reader to much credit I think. Reading a book is in no way the equivalent of creating anything. A reader is experiencing the story just as passively/actively as a listener, in my opinion. In the end, you're both merely processing/consuming what someone else has created.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're giving the reader to much credit I think. Reading a book is in no way the equivalent of creating anything. A reader is experiencing the story just as passively/actively as a listener, in my opinion. In the end, you're both merely processing/consuming what someone else has created.

We must agree to differ. I, for example, have both the UK version of the “Harry Potter” audiobooks, which are narrated by Stephen Fry, and the US version, narrated by Jim Dale. Same books, but two very different performances. I use that word deliberately; I think an audiobook narration by a good narrator is very much a performance, and I, as the listener, get my experience of the book filtered through the interpretation that the performer has placed on it. When I read the book myself, on the other hand, all the interpretation is my own; there’s no intermediary.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

When I read the book myself, on the other hand, all the interpretation is my own; there’s no intermediary.

Well see now you're moving the goal-posts. Of course the interpretation is your own (though I don't see how having an intermediary reader would preclude a listener from interpreting the words they're hearing any way they see fit also—provided the narrator isn't "ad-libbing" of course) when reading the book to yourself. But you were likening your own reading to creating a performance. That seems a bit of a reach to me.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason I choose not to use it myself is that I see reading as an “active” activity, but listening as a “passive” one. It’s the same difference, to my mind, that exists between playing a musical instrument yourself, and listening to someone else play one. As a listener, you are simply a consumer of someone else’s performance, whether that performance be the musician playing the instrument, or the narrator reading the book. When you read a book or play an instrument, on the other hand, you are creating the performance yourself. I regard these as entirely distinct activities.

Rather like reading Julia Child's book and hearing her voice in your head.

Now I will say that the railroad would appreciate it if more people would actively listen when planning to go over the track.
That is the only example I can come up with for listening being an action.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well see now you're moving the goal-posts. Of course the interpretation is your own (though I don't see how having an intermediary reader would preclude a listener from interpreting the words they're hearing any way they see fit also—provided the narrator isn't "ad-libbing" of course) when reading the book to yourself. But you were likening your own reading to creating a performance. That seems a bit of a reach to me.

I wonder if it perhaps boils down to individual differences of perception? When I read a book myself, the mental imagery that the process of reading triggers is very much an “internal performance”, and that doesn’t happen for me when I listen to someone else reading the book. It’s always been that way for me, which is one reason I’m an avid reader - the pictures are so much better than TV .

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

There is no separate but equal aural equivalent to 'reading'.
Basically, it's a void of the English language being filled by the more precise term.
Personally, I still may use either one as I see fit, but I prefer the choice rather than feeling like I should have to say one.

I've cut a lot of the quote out to be concise, follow the back link for the full text.

Excellent argument, the only slight problem I have with it is that exactly the same reasoning can be used for "reading a movie (or play)".

I'd agree that a more precise term may be of use, although most stories throughout the ages have been narrated, so the term you're looking for should predate reading, not follow it.

Obviously, use whatever you want, me and HarryT tend to be finicky about language and once spent about 3 days arguing about whether or not Welsh was phonetic (we eventually decided we had different definitions of phonetic)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I wonder if it perhaps boils down to individual differences of perception? When I read a book myself, the mental imagery that the process of reading triggers is very much an “internal performance”, and that doesn’t happen for me when I listen to someone else reading the book. It’s always been that way for me, which is one reason I’m an avid reader - the pictures are so much better than TV .

That's very possible. I freely admit that I'm not putting on a show for myself when I read. I don't do voices, and I don't try to visualize places, architecture, facial features, or fashion that an author takes the time to describe. There are no pictures being created in my head (or very few, anyway)—only ideas and feelings. Tension and release. Much like how I experience music.