Listening is the new reading

[barryem]

[QUOTE=sun surfer;3606082In fact, thinking over it, I don't believe reading with eyes is any more active than reading/listening with ears.[/QUOTE]

It might be considered more active since the visual reader has more direct control over the pace. That's a bit tenuous but it's something.

As for the fact that a reader's eyes are moving making it active, that kind of assumes that if he's not reading his eyes stop moving. I will concede that reading is more active than being dead.

Can we infer from this that the dead do read? Oh god I hope so!

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

At the same time, I can't follow the thought that listening is reading. To me it's like saying swimming is bicycling. It's not that one is better than the other; it's that they are completely different activities.

I don't recall anyone in this discussion claiming that listening IS reading, only that it's comparable to reading.

Barry

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

If I was asked if I had read a particular book and I had only listened to the audiobook, I think I'd say something like, "No, but I've listened to the audiobook." I would have to specify because it would be necessary to answer the question, safely assuming that the person asking the question meant the text version. And I would mention the audiobook in case they wanted to talk about the story.

If someone holding a hardcover book asked if you'd read it, would you feel compelled to say no, you'd only read the e-book?

How would the format of the book matter to the person asking you the question, who presumably is interested in what you thought of the contents?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

If someone holding a hardcover book asked if you'd read it, would you feel compelled to say no, you'd only read the e-book?

How would the format of the book matter to the person asking you the question, who presumably is interested in what you thought of the contents?

I'd probably say, "Yes, the ebook."

I probably wouldn't know how it mattered to them, hence my specification. What if they were asking about that particular edition?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I'd probably say, "Yes, the ebook."

I probably wouldn't know how it mattered to them, hence my specification. What if they were asking about that particular edition?

Well, that's just weird.

I wouldn't make a distinction unless the subsequent conversation focused on the format. Like if the person said didn't the designer use a lovely typeface, or weren't all the typos distracting. Then I'd say I read the e-book (and changed the font), or the audiobook (and avoided the typos).

[leebase]

Originally Posted by barryem

I don't recall anyone in this discussion claiming that listening IS reading, only that it's comparable to reading.

Barry

I do. If asked “did you read xyz book”, I’d say yes even if I had listened to the audio version.

I would not say yes if I watched the movie or went to the play.

This forum is the only place I’ve seen where you didn’t “read the book” if you listened to the audio version.

[sun surfer]

By the way, on Goodreads if we choose an audiobook it still lists us as 'reading' it.

[issybird]

Here's the bottom line for me: when talking about the process, there is a distinction between reading and listening. When talking about the content, I'm indifferent.

As a practical matter, I think that a good narrator can add a lot to my entertainment when I'm listening to fiction. However, with nonfiction, there's always loss involved in listening, but I tolerate it because I'm using what would otherwise be downtime and audiobooks mean I can access more content.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

Here's the bottom line for me: when talking about the process, there is a distinction between reading and listening. When talking about the content, I'm indifferent.

So ... how do you define "reading"? I would say it's basically the intake and comprehension of words. That definition allows both visual and aural intake to be classified as reading. Does your definition allow only visual intake? If so, what about visually impaired people--can they be said to read?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well, that's just weird.

I wouldn't make a distinction unless the subsequent conversation focused on the format. Like if the person said didn't the designer use a lovely typeface, or weren't all the typos distracting. Then I'd say I read the e-book (and changed the font), or the audiobook (and avoided the typos).

That's interesting. We're at slightly different places on the graph. Me anticipating and you responding.

I listen to audio and I read text. The first means imbibing and comprehending through the ears, and the second by the eyes. Afterward I'll consider the book read in both cases, but won't feel that I've read the audiobook. It is read as in the result but not as in the process.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... how do you define "reading"? I would say it's basically the intake and comprehension of words. That definition allows both visual and aural intake to be classified as reading. Does your definition allow only visual intake? If so, what about visually impaired people--can they be said to read?

I would define "reading" as the intake and comprehension of letters spelling words and where there is no intermediary interpretation between the reader and the text. Braille is reading. The visually impaired who can neither see to read nor use Braille to access a text but listen to audio are not reading, IMO, but there's no judgment involved in that. For about five months last year I couldn't see to read and very grateful I was that I already loved audiobooks, although I'm not trying to trump a discussion by citing a temporary disability, which would be infamous. For me the reality is that sight and hearing are different senses both as absolutes and as applied to texts.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

I would define "reading" as the intake and comprehension of letters spelling words and where there is no intermediary interpretation between the reader and the text. Braille is reading. The visually impaired who can neither see to read nor use Braille to access a text but listen to audio are not reading, IMO, but there's no judgment involved in that. For about five months last year I couldn't see to read and very grateful I was that I already loved audiobooks, although I'm not trying to trump a discussion by citing a temporary disability, which would be infamous. For me the reality is that sight and hearing are different senses both as absolutes and as applied to texts.

OK, so if the sticking point is the intermediary, do you make an exception for books ready by their author? With such books, there's no additional interpreter; surely the author isn't going to read the book with an interpretation contrary to what he or she intended.

And as I mentioned upthread, text-to-speech offers no interpretation; it's just words, not performance.

In any case, realistically, how much of an effect on the story itself does a narrator actually have? The story is the story, regardless of nuance, and the overall feeling is pretty much the same no matter who the narrator is. Most readings aren't subject to wildly differing interpretations.

[barryem]

When I was listening to audiobooks I nearly always avoided those read by the author. If the book interested me I'd listen to the sample and I was always ready to make an exception. Most authors, though, were very poor narrators.

I listened to a sample the other day of a book read by the author. I can't seem to remember which one it was now but it was very poor. Authors, when doing public readings, often have this way of trying to read their book as if it was some kind of poetry and that really doesn't work. About half the authors do that when reading their own books. The other have just are bad at narrating.

There are a few exceptions. Amy Tan did a much better job with her books than any of the narrators who did them later in her career. Tony Hillerman had a strange way of reading his books that I really liked. Once Stephen King got over his lisp he was an above average reader. Even when he lisped he wasn't bad.

Barry

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

OK, so if the sticking point is the intermediary, do you make an exception for books ready by their author? With such books, there's no additional interpreter; surely the author isn't going to read the book with an interpretation contrary to what he or she intended.

The text is the text; how the author interprets it is irrelevant.

And, in spades:

Originally Posted by barryem

Most authors, though, were very poor narrators.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

The text is the text; how the author interprets it is irrelevant.

And, in spades:

By the same token, how any narrator interprets it is irrelevant. It's the same text whether the reader sees it or hears it.

You can't really call an author narrating his or her own book an intermediary; it's not an additional person getting between the reader and the author.

I tend to avoid author narrators as well, but for a memoir or autobiography, an author's reading seems to be the norm.