Ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by leebase

One adult taking umbrage when another adult says they read a book...when they listened to it instead...is just silly.

What's silly is stating that one read a book when one listened to it. Words do have meaning. Why misrepresent yourself?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by leebase

Listening to a book by myself is not a social activity. Arguing about whether or not reading and listening to a book....on the internet...THAT is social.

Listening to an audio book is social. One is reading, another is listening.

It's kind of like using cruise control when driving a car. I don't like it, even though (technically) it's the same thing -- more gas when your going uphill, less when you're going down. But I don't feel like I'm in control. When reading a book I see the words, it makes it easier for me to comprehend. When I'm listening to a book it's "wait a minute ... what did I miss?"

I can read a book in a crowded room. I don't like earphones and would feel self-conscience if I was wearing earphones in a crowded room. The only time I could see the possibility of enjoying an audible book is if I was driving (by myself) on a long trip. But I don't take long trips by myself any more.

Again, I realize that some folks love to listen to books, but I'm just not one of them. I still see reading and listening to someone ELSE read as two completely different experiences. Admittedly I haven't done a lot of listening to books -- but I have tried a few. Didn't take.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DNSB

As hard to tell in several indie books I've read recently. Homonyms seem to the downfall of some authors. The most recent horrible example had me reciting "Royalty reigns, horses have reins, rain falls from the sky". We bake with gluten-free flowers?

This thread has shown extensive misuse of homonyms by people who are both for and against audiobooks, so it would appear that reading rather than listening to books does not in itself result in fewer misuses of words.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This thread has shown extensive misuse of homonyms by people who are both for and against audiobooks, so it would appear that reading rather than listening to books does not in itself result in fewer misuses of words.

I bet one lends itself to fewer errors than the other.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I bet one lends itself to fewer errors than the other.

I'd bet a large sum it's a complete wash.

In my experience, those who like to rant and rave about the "stark" differences ("that must--for the love of god!--be maintained at all costs") between listening and reading (RE books) are more concerned with semantics, tradition and nostalgia than they are with literacy or literature.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'd bet a large sum it's a complete wash.

In my experience, those who like to rant and rave about the "stark" differences ("that must--for the love of god!--be maintained at all costs") between listening and reading (RE books) are more concerned with semantics, tradition and nostalgia than they are with literacy or literature.

How would it be a complete wash?

On the one hand, you are constantly practicing with interperting the written word, the syntax, the structure, the spelling, the differences between two, to, and too and so on, on the other hand, you are not.


You think that would come out to a complete wash? As in perfectly even? 50/50?

Let me guess. You like audiobooks.

[HarryT]

I honestly don't see how it possibly matters if someone else's preferences as to reading or listening differs from one's own.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't see how it possibly matters if someone else's preferences as to reading or listening differs from one's own.

It lends a perspective into which way one's inevitable bias goes.

If someone is a listener, then by definition, they aren't that literate.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

How would it be a complete wash?

On the one hand, you are constantly practicing with interperting the written word, the syntax, the structure, the spelling, the differences between two, to, and too and so on, on the other hand, you are not.


You think that would come out to a complete wash? As in perfectly even? 50/50?

Let me guess. You like audiobooks.

Your guess is wrong. I don't care for audiobooks, myself. I just don't presume that my preference is the "correct" one. But i thank you for the gift of your response. It serves to disprove your own assumptions quite nicely. Case in point: you--who only "read" and prefer it not be used to describe any other activity (and believe more "listening" would naturally result in less literacy and more homonym misuse)--have used the word "interperting."

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Your guess is wrong. I don't care for audiobooks, myself. I just don't presume that my preference is the "correct" one. But i thank you for the gift of your response. It serves to disprove your own assumptions quite nicely. Case in point: you--who only "read" and prefer it not be used to describe any other activity (and believe more "listening" would naturally result in less literacy and more homonym misuse)--have used the word "interperting."

Really...a spelling mistake? At 5:31 AM my time? What a joke.

Correction: 4:37 AM.

EDIT: I can type fast and misspell a word but I've never confused to, too and two.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

If someone is a listener, then by definition, they aren't that literate.

This strikes me as a deliberately inflammatory statement.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by issybird

This strikes me as a deliberately inflammatory statement.

Oh? How so?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literate

able to read and write.
having or showing knowledge of literature, writing, etc.; literary; well-read.


I don't see "able to listen" in that definition.

Strikes me as a deliberately accurate statement.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Really...a spelling mistake? At 5:31 AM my time? What a joke.

Correction: 4:37 AM.

Yes it is a joke. As funny a joke as believing that you would have granted a "listener" the same reprieve had they made a similar "mistake."

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

This strikes me as a deliberately inflammatory statement.

You forgot to mention that it was hogwash, as well.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Oh? How so?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literate

able to read and write.
having or showing knowledge of literature, writing, etc.; literary; well-read.


I don't see "able to listen" in that definition.

Strikes me as a deliberately accurate statement.

Except for the part where you dismiss the possibility of one person being both very literate AND a listener. It's not an either/or thing. Some highly literate people listen to audiobooks. To deny that is pointless. The direct connection you're implying between literacy and how someone chooses to consume books is fictional (as well as being a textbook example of a non sequitur).