Americans are reading fewer books

[LDB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's a tired argument. It's also a giant non-sequitur.

A conclusion you are welcome to, incorrect though it is. Reading is a visual activity, not an aural activity. One reads with eyes and listens with ears, and not vice-versa. Reading has been adapted to the sightless through their sense of touch. Nothing aural is reading.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by LDB

A conclusion you are welcome to, incorrect though it is. Reading is a visual activity, not an aural activity. One reads with eyes and listens with ears, and not vice-versa. Reading has been adapted to the sightless through their sense of touch. Nothing aural is reading.

I implore you to read the many long discussions already present in the forum archive. Read however you want.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by LDB

A conclusion you are welcome to, incorrect though it is. Reading is a visual activity, not an aural activity. One reads with eyes and listens with ears, and not vice-versa. Reading has been adapted to the sightless through their sense of touch. Nothing aural is reading.

No. I was not incorrect. Regardless of what you or I believe should be deemed "reading", your argument IS actually a) old; and b) the portion of your post I quoted is, in fact, a classic example of a non-sequitur.

[Apache]

I know I am reading less. Damn work has kept me super busy.
Apache

[LDB]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. I was not incorrect. Regardless of what you or I believe should be deemed "reading", your argument IS actually a) old; and b) the portion of your post I quoted is, in fact, a classic example of a non-sequitur.

Ok, it's old. I guess that shows people have known for some time that reading is visual not aural and no reading is done with the ears. Listening, and tangentially, consuming books by listening, is done aurally but that isn't reading. It is consuming. And I confirmed this with she who knows all. Literally.

And it's an interesting and very enjoyable discussion.

[DiapDealer]

You enjoy that dogma you've got happening.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by LDB

Ok, it's old. I guess that shows people have known for some time that reading is visual not aural and no reading is done with the ears. Listening, and tangentially, consuming books by listening, is done aurally but that isn't reading. It is consuming. And I confirmed this with she who knows all. Literally.

And it's an interesting and very enjoyable discussion.

I agree, reading and listening are both legitimate ways to consume literature but reading is visual and listening is aural.

Look at it in reverse - What if someone makes a speech which is recorded on audio and then transcribed for written publication. If I consume only the written version, would anyone say I had listened to the speech?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by LDB

A conclusion you are welcome to, incorrect though it is. Reading is a visual activity, not an aural activity. One reads with eyes and listens with ears, and not vice-versa. Reading has been adapted to the sightless through their sense of touch. Nothing aural is reading.

Given your opinion,. how can the sightless read given that they cannot see?

I consider reading to be digesting the material be is by hearing, seeing, or touching.

[Sydney's Mom]

I am probably reading less, because I am no longer reading during commutes to work, waiting for an appt, etc. But I still read before going to sleep, at least an hour most nights. So a couple books a month. More if the book is really good, as I am reading at 3 am.

I met someone last week who casually mentioned they never read. I am still pondering how I feel about that, although it is not for me to feel anything.

[LDB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Given your opinion,. how can the sightless read given that they cannot see?

In my original reply I specifically mentioned Braille for those without sight.

No, reading a transcript of a speech isn't listening to the speech.

There is no overlap between aural and visual (visual being ocular and/or touch).

[spacepope]

I'm thankful for audiobooks - I'm relatively young (late 20s) and audiobooks were my gateway drug. Even when I had trouble paying attention to reading, I could get into a book on tape.

It wasn't until the pandemic that I actually tried to read books physically out of my severe boredom, and now it's blossomed into an obsession.

But the amount of entertainment available to us is astounding nowadays, both amateur and professional alike. I'm not surprised by lower reading rates. Though with social media, I imagine people are still reading in large volumes, just of disjointed content rather than actual narratives.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by spacepope

I'm thankful for audiobooks - I'm relatively young (late 20s) and audiobooks were my gateway drug. Even when I had trouble paying attention to reading, I could get into a book on tape.

For me, it is the opposite. If I listen to an audiobook while doing something else, my concentration will drift.

I do listen to Old Time radio shows and have no trouble following them. But they tend to be half hour plays and I tend to listen to them at night, before bed.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

For me, it is the opposite. If I listen to an audiobook while doing something else, my concentration will drift.

I do listen to Old Time radio shows and have no trouble following them. But they tend to be half hour plays and I tend to listen to them at night, before bed.

If you can find it, find Sorry Wrong Number with Agnes Moorehead. It's excellent.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you can find it, find Sorry Wrong Number with Agnes Moorehead. It's excellent.

It's right here: Sorry, Wrong Number. Part of Suspense, the greatest of the old time radio shows.

It was also made into a pretty good movie starring Barbara Stanwyck and Burt Lancaster: Sorry, Wrong Number

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by LDB

In my original reply I specifically mentioned Braille for those without sight.

No, reading a transcript of a speech isn't listening to the speech.

There is no overlap between aural and visual (visual being ocular and/or touch).

Abelist, much? Why are you trying so hard to police how people with disabilities consume content that they literally cannot every consume by your definition of reading? None of us sighted folks have any business telling those with limited or no sight whether or not they are "reading" a book just because they do it differently than we do.

Also, I don't know why you feel that "touch" as reading qualifies it to be reading more than hearing.

Audiobooks are cheaper to buy than braille books, easier to store, and easier to find. This also ignores those who lose their sight later in life and are too infirm or otherwise incapable of learning how to read braille.