Listening is the new reading

[Apache]

For me reading a book is like watching a movie. I am almost all about visualization and am unaware of my surroundings when I read. I definitely could not read while walking.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

I definitely visualised more when I was younger however, and I'm not sure if that's because I read more absorbing books then or because the ability has weakened as I've become older.

I visualized what I was reading when I was younger, too. But in my case, it had nothing to do with the ability weakening with age. I just stopped doing it because visualization was slowing me down. It became a hindrance to my reading; an extra, distracting layer. I watch a movie if I want that kind of stimulus.

[Lemurion]

To me it comes down to this:

You have two people together in a room. One person is reading a book out loud to the other.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both people gain the same benefit from the book. I'm simply stating that they are doing different things. One is reading, the other is listening.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Larla

Do you mean a 20+ page soliloquy by John Galt is easier to get through by listening?

Absolutely!

I listened to "Atlas Shrugged" maybe a decade ago. I'd read it every 10 or 12 years since I was a teenager. That long speech, and as I recall it was quite a bit more than 20 pages, was fun to listen to. It wasn't that much fun to read.

I listened to the narration by Christopher Hurt, which was done in his own unique manner and it was so well done that when I read it again I'm sure I'll listen. I've always admired Rand's writing if not her philosophy but in this narration it struck me for the first time that this was a little like viewing a black and white comic. It was extremely visual. I usually visualize in color but this came through in beautiful black and white. it was quite an experience.

There aren't many audiobooks that I prefer to reading but there are a few and this was certainly one of them.

"The Fountainhead", my favorite Rand book, wasn't that way at all. Reading it was a lot like listening.

Barry

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I visualized what I was reading when I was younger, too. But in my case, it had nothing to do with the ability weakening with age. I just stopped doing it because visualization was slowing me down. It became a hindrance to my reading; an extra, distracting layer. I watch a movie if I want that kind if stimulus.

It does seem I read slower than people around here or other heavy readers (though maybe not slower than the average joe) so I wonder if what you say has anything to do with it. I'm not sure I could control it though. The visualisations usually just pop into my mind's eye (here and there) as I read without purposely trying.

I will say this though- I visualise the most with really absorbing books, but I also seem to read the fastest with really absorbing books. I still think there could be a case for visualising slowing down my reading with anything less than the most absorbing books, however.

[Catlady]

I didn't visualize when I was younger and I don't visualize now. It's as foreign to me as it would be to sit in a movie theater and turn the images into words.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't visualize much at all when I read. That's probably why I tend to get annoyed when an author spends much time at all on descriptions of people/places/clothes/architecture, etc...

Plot, character development/interaction, cleverly turned phrases, and/or witty dialogue are the things that I value most when reading. Very little visualization necessary to enjoy those things.

There are different kinds of visualization when reading. I'm pretty bad at following descriptions well enough to follow action sequences that depend on them. I get pretty lost in those and just keep reading somewhat mechanically till i learn the outcome.

On the other hand if they're describing a place to set the mood or to point out it's beauty I can usually see that.

I think it falls apart for me if I have to understand the spatial relationships.

I don't really think I visualize any less with an audiobook than with visual reading. Of course that depends on the narrator.

One not too serious way to look at all this is that if the narrator is better than our own internal voice listening is superior. If not, reading is.

Barry


Barry

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Apache

For me reading a book is like watching a movie. I am almost all about visualization and am unaware of my surroundings when I read. I definitely could not read while walking.
Apache

I have been known to have the same problem. Back when I was in High School. I'd read during Study Hall period and would have to remember to look up at the clock to make sure that the bell hadn't rung for the end of the period without me noticing it. And when I really focus on a book (paper or ebook) I can find myself looking up after what I think is just a few minutes but which turns out to be several hours at times.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

To me it comes down to this:

You have two people together in a room. One person is reading a book out loud to the other.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both people gain the same benefit from the book. I'm simply stating that they are doing different things. One is reading, the other is listening.

Yes, precisely this.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by crich70

I have been known to have the same problem. Back when I was in High School. I'd read during Study Hall period and would have to remember to look up at the clock to make sure that the bell hadn't rung for the end of the period without me noticing it. And when I really focus on a book (paper or ebook) I can find myself looking up after what I think is just a few minutes but which turns out to be several hours at times.

I had the same problems in school too.
Apache

[onewiththeanswer]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

We have taken some long car trips recently, and instead of listening to music (my husband doesn't understand why I cringe when he looks at his phone while we are driving at 80 mph), we decided to get some audiobooks. I used to check these out from the library, but you can't listen to them on your phone anymore.

I went to audible, and the tag line is "listening is the new reading." NO IT ISN'T. There is a time and place for audiobooks, but to replace reading? I know reading isn't terribly popular, but I didn't know it needed a replacement. I am just appalled at this. I guess it is consistent with my millennial daughter-when we were going over her budget, I questioned a subscription to audible. She said "Oh, you don't want me to read?"

This is like "estate tax" being rebranded to "death tax." When did reading become confused with listening?

I prefer reading the book rather listening, somehow the whole enjoyment from reading disappears, but listening to books while driving is a very creative approach. I am so sick of the same songs on the radio, I will try your idea for sure!

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

To me it comes down to this:

You have two people together in a room. One person is reading a book out loud to the other.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both people gain the same benefit from the book. I'm simply stating that they are doing different things. One is reading, the other is listening.

I agree.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by barryem

There are different kinds of visualization when reading. I'm pretty bad at following descriptions well enough to follow action sequences that depend on them. I get pretty lost in those and just keep reading somewhat mechanically till i learn the outcome.

On the other hand if they're describing a place to set the mood or to point out it's beauty I can usually see that.

I think it falls apart for me if I have to understand the spatial relationships.

I don't really think I visualize any less with an audiobook than with visual reading. Of course that depends on the narrator.

One not too serious way to look at all this is that if the narrator is better than our own internal voice listening is superior. If not, reading is.

Barry


Barry

I am like you. I usually just skim over any kind of action sequence such as a fight or chase because it's too hard to visualize it. I don't generally read books that have a lot of action scenes.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

To me it comes down to this:

You have two people together in a room. One person is reading a book out loud to the other.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both people gain the same benefit from the book. I'm simply stating that they are doing different things. One is reading, the other is listening.

It's a flaw in our language. There is no equally specific verb for consuming an audiobook. If we zoom out and look at it objectively, insisting 'listening' is the appropriate verb for an audiobook would be similar to insisting 'looking' is the appropriate verb for a visual text. Can any of you imagine feeling made to say, 'Did you look at the new Stephen King yet?'. Or, 'I've looked at 50 books so far this year.' Or, 'I looked at Pride and Prejudice last night.' It's not nearly as specific nor does it give the same higher connotation as 'reading'.

I think, for us curmudgeons who care about this sort of thing, it comes down to those who think it can be disingenuous to call listening reading versus those who think it can be condescending to insist that listening to an unabridged audiobook isn't more or less the same as reading a visual text.

The biggest point of contention I think is in using 'reading' as a verb for books one has completed or for what one is currently consuming, e.g. 'I read 10 books this month' or 'I'm reading three different books at the moment.' In my opinion, it can be needlessly pedantic to insist that people who listen to audiobooks use special clarifiers in all situations as god forbid anyone thinks one actually read a visual text instead of listened to it. 'Reading' in these very prevalent situations is more a code-word for consuming the book and so I think it's just as appropriate to use it for all books consumed regardless of method.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

It's a flaw in our language. There is no equally specific verb for consuming an audiobook. If we zoom out and look at it objectively, insisting 'listening' is the appropriate verb for an audiobook would be similar to insisting 'looking' is the appropriate verb for a visual text. Can any of you imagine feeling made to say, 'Did you look at the new Stephen King yet?'. Or, 'I've looked at 50 books so far this year.' Or, 'I looked at Pride and Prejudice last night.' It's not nearly as specific nor does it give the same higher connotation as 'reading'.

Interest. To me, "listening to" something has exactly the same connotation of paying attention that "reading" does.

Consider the different between "I heard loud music last night" and "I listened to a Beethoven Piano Concerto last night". To me, the first implies that it was simply intruding onto your consciousness, probably in an unwelcome way, whereas the second implies that it's something you did by choice, and paid close attention to.