Listening is the new reading

[Catlady]

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'.

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.

Yes! Listening to an audiobook is totally different from listening to music, for example. When I listen to any instrumental music, I passively let it wash over me; I don't consciously engage with it in any way. Something's presumably going on in some part of my brain, but there's no comprehension as is a necessary component of listening to an audiobook--active listening to a book is equivalent to reading.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yes! Listening to an audiobook is totally different from listening to music, for example. When I listen to any instrumental music, I passively let it wash over me; I don't consciously engage with it in any way.

For me personally, active engagement and comprehension is the fundamental difference between "hearing" and "listening to".

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For me personally, active engagement and comprehension is the fundamental difference between "hearing" and "listening to".

Oh? Didn't you say earlier that listening to an audiobook was passive? Now you're saying it's active?

In which case "listening to" and "reading" are equivalent.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Oh? Didn't you say earlier that listening to an audiobook was passive? Now you're saying it's active?

No, you're misunderstanding me. It's a passive act, in that I'm not the one doing the reading, just as when I listen to music, I'm not the one playing the instruments. But there does of course have to be active comprehension involved, or else one gets nothing from either activity. For me, if I let music (or words) "wash over me", as you described earlier, then I'm not listening to it, I'm simply hearing something I don't understand.

In which case "listening to" and "reading" are equivalent.

Both "listening to an audiobook" and "reading a printed book (or ebook)" are activities which result in you gaining knowledge of the book's contents, but the knowledge is gained through different input methods, to which the English language assigns different verbs.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, you're misunderstanding me. It's a passive act, in that I'm not the one doing the reading, just as when I listen to music, I'm not the one playing the instruments. But there does of course have to be active comprehension involved, or else one gets nothing from either activity. For me, if I let music (or words) "wash over me", as you described earlier, then I'm not listening to it, I'm simply hearing something I don't understand.

Both "listening to an audiobook" and "reading a printed book (or ebook)" are activities which result in you gaining knowledge of the book's contents, but the knowledge is gained through different input methods, to which the English language assigns different verbs.

Philistine that I am, I thought I could listen to Tchaikovsky without understanding one damn thing about music. I've been playing Swan Lake and stupidly thinking I was getting great enjoyment from it, but no, because of my appalling lack of musical knowledge, I was getting nothing. Oh well.

Considering that you're being a stickler for exact meanings, aren't you being a little loose with your meanings of "active" and "passive"?

Previously you said, referring to visual reading:

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's "active" in the sense that you're in control of the process. When you listen, you are playing a completely passive role; the narrator is the person doing the reading, and you're the audience. [Emphasis added.]

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. [Emphasis added.]

In addition to redefining "active" and "passive" to suit your argument, now you've decided to insist on a semantic distinction between "hearing" and "listening"--one you have not adhered to previously.

It seems to take considerable verbal gymnastics to deny that listening to an audiobook is equivalent to reading.

[Lady Stardust]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yes! Listening to an audiobook is totally different from listening to music, for example. When I listen to any instrumental music, I passively let it wash over me; I don't consciously engage with it in any way. Something's presumably going on in some part of my brain, but there's no comprehension as is a necessary component of listening to an audiobook--active listening to a book is equivalent to reading.

So if someone listens to Beethoven's Symphony 9 and thinks about historical context, stories surrounding it, implications today including use of Ode of Joy, how would it be called then? Listening or active listening?
Also if this is applied to anything, nor only classical music.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Philistine that I am, I thought I could listen to Tchaikovsky without understanding one damn thing about music. I've been playing Swan Lake and stupidly thinking I was getting great enjoyment from it, but no, because of my appalling lack of musical knowledge, I was getting nothing. Oh well.

Of course you can enjoy something without understanding it. You can, for example, listen to this rather beautiful reading of Homer's "Odyssey", in ancient Greek, and get enjoyment from the sound and rhythm of the poetry, even if you don't understand a word of it:



But I, who do understand ancient Greek, will probably get more from it, because I do understand what the words mean. I'm sure you'd agree that you can comprehend more about something you understand than something that you don't understand?

It seems to take considerable verbal gymnastics to deny that listening to an audiobook is equivalent to reading.

Not at all. It simply depends how you define the words. I don't personally choose to regard the act of listening to be reading, whereas you do. We're both equally entitled to our opinions on the matter. I suspect that neither of us is going to persuade the other to change their mind about it!

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Larla

I was thinking of the effort involved in stop, rewind, and re-listen as opposed to virtually instantaneous stop and rewind while reading text. People are generally lazy if too much effort is involved. In the case of listening while driving, obviously stop and rewind is actually dangerous.

Depends on how you listen. I listen via the Audible app on my phone. I do rewind if my mind has wandered or something more important took my attention (like driving).

I also have the AppleWatch and it's very easy to go back 30 seconds.

I don't think anybody means "there is NO difference between reading a book and listening to an audio of the book". It's just that both amount to "having read the book".

I keep track of all the books I read. This year 15 were on audible and only 2 were books I "read". I still say "I've read 17 books this year".

Listening is the new reading for me. Audible has extended greatly the amount of books I can consume in a year. This year was an exceptionally heavy listening year...but it's due to a change in how I go to and from work. I'm commuting an hour and a half each way now....instead of working from home.

So yes...one more time. Listening is the new reading....for me.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by barryem

I'm not sure this has any bearing on whether listening is reading. No-one has argued that they're identical experiences. With a poor narrator I don't think listening is as good a way to enjoy a book as reading. With a good narrator it can be every bit as good and sometimes even better.

One of my "read the bible in a year" efforts I accomplished via listening to an audio bible complete with different characters voiced by different people and a light amount of background sound (like if the setting was a market you could hear people and animals).

It wasn't a play. It was just the words in the bible. It added a whole new slant for me particularly with the book of Job and the book of Romans.

But I still "read the bible in a year" that year...just accomplished it by listening

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course you can enjoy something without understanding it. You can, for example, listen to this rather beautiful reading of Homer's "Odyssey", in ancient Greek, and get enjoyment from the sound and rhythm of the poetry, even if you don't understand a word of it:



But I, who do understand ancient Greek, will probably get more from it, because I do understand what the words mean. I'm sure you'd agree that you can comprehend more about something you understand than something that you don't understand?

Not at all. It simply depends how you define the words. I don't personally choose to regard the act of listening to be reading, whereas you do. We're both equally entitled to our opinions on the matter. I suspect that neither of us is going to persuade the other to change their mind about it!

You chose to ignore what I pointed out about your shifting definitions of "active" and "passive." I don't know why you seem to think imprecision is okey-dokey for those words, but are horrified by a definition of "reading" that encompasses audiobooks.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by drjd

I think I was not patient enough to carry on the efforts and practice the art of listening painstakingly. I guess nowadays I read the books (be it fiction or non-fiction) more casually and not like serious students who want to learn something out of them.

I guess there is an art to listening to a book that I hadn't thought about until your comments.

I can't listen to just ANY kind of book. Mostly just fiction...although I have listened to a few good histories. But I'm not listening to books I need to take tests on or really learn from. I don't think I'd listen to a technical book on programming...for example.

I also can't just "listen to a book". If I'm home and I try to listen to an Audible book...I'll fall asleep every time. I can read a book for hours on end. But I can't just listen to an audio book without falling to sleep in about 20min. Which wouldn't be so bad if I could get the book to stop playing the moment I feel asleep (or better yet...10 minutes before).

I have to be doing something else...THEN add listening to a book. I listen to a book when I take the dog for a walk. I can listen to a book when I'm in the kitchen cooking/cleaning up. I can listen to books when I drive. Driving without a good book to listen to anymore is torture

What a great time to live in with so many options. Watch tv. Read a book. Listen to a podcast. Listen to an audio book. Listen to music. Veg out to Facebook or twitter. Argue with strangers on Mobileread.com

[leebase]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, precisely this.

I think you folks are missing the intended meaning of the tagline. "Listening is the new reading" isn't "no needs to read now, listening as replaced it".

In this busy, fast paced world...you can get back what you loved about books because while you don't have time to read books, you can listen to audio books while driving, cleaning the house, picking up your kids from soccer practice.

Listening is the new reading.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by leebase

If I'm home and I try to listen to an Audible book...I'll fall asleep every time. I can read a book for hours on end. But I can't just listen to an audio book without falling to sleep in about 20min. Which wouldn't be so bad if I could get the book to stop playing the moment I feel asleep (or better yet...10 minutes before).

You can! With Audible, there is a sleep timer mode that automatically stops the audiobook after a certain time, such as 8 minutes, 15 minutes, or more, and if you're still awake you can just click to start the audio and timer again. It's a life-saver for me when listening in bed.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

You can! With Audible, there is a sleep timer mode that automatically stops the audiobook after a certain time, such as 8 minutes, 15 minutes, or more, and if you're still awake you can just click to start the audio and timer again. It's a life-saver for me when listening in bed.

Yes. I can also set the phone to go to sleep on a timer (I do most every night).

But I still don't know how much of the book played after I fell asleep. Podcasts are great because I don't really care all that much if I hear ever word. Of course...pity my wife to have to listen to my tech podcasts

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by leebase

Yes. I can also set the phone to go to sleep on a timer (I do most every night).

But I still don't know how much of the book played after I fell asleep. Podcasts are great because I don't really care all that much if I hear ever word. Of course...pity my wife to have to listen to my tech podcasts

I use the shortest timer (8 minutes) and keep restarting it until I fall asleep and then the next day I rewind 8 minutes. If I really feel like I heard a few minutes into that 8 minutes I can skip a bit forward but generally I just start from 8 minutes back and don't feel like I'm repeating much if any, and it's a simple routine to make sure I don't miss anything and can peacefully fall asleep while listening.