Listening is the new reading

[leebase]

Originally Posted by drjd

I think our brain has to work extra to create an imaginary scene while reading a (fiction) book according to the situation presented in text, whereas a video game presents the already conceived images, making the process simpler to adopt by one's mind. Therefore it makes it more engrossing and captivating than books, perhaps. Brains tend to find the shortest route.

Shall we provide you with a good,Star to put on the wall for each book an adult reads?

And, fwiw, lots of video games are incredibly involved and take lots of time, effort and thinking.

[f00l]

Just logged onto MobileRead for the first time in nearly a decade. Have missed so much.

"Reading" (strict definition, eyes)
vs
"reading" (strict definition, eyes, or fingertips using Braille)
vs
"reading" (loose definition, close to the meaning of "consume written words [not intended as theatrical scripts] through various means")
vs
"listen-as-form-of-reading" (strictly defined in this example as applicable to TTS consumption)
vs
"listen-as-a-form-of-reading" (definition expanded to allow narrated books for the sight-impaired, as supported by the Library of Congress since before WWII, check out some of the Scourby recordings sometimes) vs
"listen-as-a-form-of-reading" (include the modern world of audiobooks)

It's all good. (To me).

As for listening being a different physical activity and an alternative way of getting words into the brain? Sure. So is Braille, obviously. Or translations. Or using alt alphabets or alt signaling. (Someday someone will be able to read Catcher In The Rye [English version] in 1's and 0's.)

Let's call Dr Pinker and ask.

Since audiobooks involve listening, whereas conventional or braille reading involve visual or touch perception of forms that make letters or words, is one form or word absorption so different from another that the word "reading", used colloquially, cannot or should not encompass both?

Is one definition of the word "reading" to rule forever, even if many, esp among newer generations, typically use the word in a more flexible manner? (Ain't happening.)

Show me a word that has not colloquial, alternative, or slang or "drift" usage, and I'll show you a strictly technical, scientific, tightly academic, organizationally constrained, or mathematical word. And no promises the word will stay formal and tightly defined, either.

To me, that's a plus.

And that's language. Love it or leave it, as they used to say in the 1960's.

As for the dangers of constant shifts in word usage; (some might point to recent loaded politically charged language and the world of "alt facts" as an example); language has always been corrupted and spun for political, religious, cultural, and power agendas. The tools to deal with this and with the corruption of language as a promo tool could use some ongoing developing. 'Nother topic.

In the meantime, for those who are disurbed by the user of "reading" as inclusive of "listening to words read aloud" - altho your opinion may have its arguments, you can hardly impose it on others. And I think that the argument that this usage somehow indicates a loosening of intellectual standards of precision is pretty weak. Context is all. Or the necessary extra info can be sought, when it matters.

*And this is what language, as operated by humans, does, anyway*. Good luck stopping it, if that is your desire.

As for cognitive differences in understanding, based in input method, I would kinda guess insufficient research to say anything much with certainty. People who are are not accustomed to audiobooks will find it a very different experience. People who have listened for almost as many hours and years as they have read physical text may be flexibly able to switch easily back and forth. I have been a reading fanatic for my entire life since early years. I have been an audiobook fanatic for more than 20 years, since I came to be able to acquire unabridged editions more easily.

I have seen a sight impaired person use TTS tech to get thru portions of a pure abstract math curriculum at a graduate level in a top 10 program. Did he not "read" the material? It's news to me.

As for the narrator's presence creating an altered environment: Anyone practiced at audiobooks can learn to "listen through" and "listen past" the narrator if they wish to. For abstract material, I usually do this. For fictional and light material, I usually don't. Varies by the narrator, the book, my purposes, my mood.

My eye-reading habits have altered somewhat the manner of my listening-reading habits, and vv. I have seemed to learnt to merge the result. Or I kid myself. I hope the brain scientists get at this.

So audible uses a marketing slogan disturbing to purists.

Even if audible is part of the hateful corporate takeover of the universe, I love them. And they seem to be fond of me, insofar as a member of the info-data-finance-military-industrial complex can be. Or they fool me and I am willing, in this instance, to allow the fooling to continue. I will forgive.

Interesting that someone brought up Beethoven's 5th. What about his 9th, by which time he was deaf? He heard it in his imagination, I presume, before or during his composition of the score. And, I presume, he heard it again when he re-read the score. It may take some time and practice for those of us not at his standard to catch up. ; )

If the world is going to shortly end (I like split infinitives) in either ice or fire, I don't think this sort of linguistic drift, ongoing since the inception of language, will be the tipping point. But who knows?

Brave New World, huh?
; )
-
PS this post does not display properly if the viewer is using Tapatalk with IOS [smartphone certainly, tablet possibly].

Most of the top of the post gets cut off. If, for some reason, someone wants to read all of the post, using tapatalk on IOS, tap the post and select <more>, then select <web view>. Then you can see the entire thing.
(Tapatalk for Android appears not to have this problem.)
-
PPS. Is there are decent way to user MobileRead on a mobile device? Something better than the desktop version [fine for browsing but terrible for text entry]?
-
I suck at text entry on mobile devices and I suck at proofreading.

Am going to do it anyway. All apologies. ; )

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by f00l

Just logged onto MobileRead for the first time in nearly a decade. Have missed so much.

"Reading" (strict definition, eyes) vs
"reading" (strict definition, eyes, or fingertips using Braille) vs
"reading" (loose definition, close to the meaning of "consume written words [not intended as theatrical scripts] through various means") vs
"listen-as-form-of-reading" (strictly defined in this example as applicable to TTS consumption) vs
"listen-as-a-form-of-reading" (definition expanded to allow narrated books for the sight-impaired, as supported by the Library of Congress since before WWII, check out some of the Scourby recordings sometimes) vs
"listen-as-a-form-of-reading" (include the modern world of audiobooks)

It's all good. (To me).....

Good post. About covers it. Did you really do it on a mobile device? eewww!

[f00l]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Good post. About covers it. Did you really do it on a mobile device? eewww!

Yeah I do a lot of things on mobile, in spite of the entry pain and my hopeless swiping and proofreading. And in spite of the constant mobile privacy issues.

I looked at Tapatalk this morning. It's really bad (or there is some glitch) and people using it don't necessarily know.

It cuts off long posts at the top. And doesn't tell you it may have just killed off the top 3/4 of a given post. It did this to my post. Or else I don't know how to operate Tapatalk. N00b here, so the latter is quite possible.

Thx for comments.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by f00l

Yeah I do a lot of things on mobile, in spite of the entry pain and my hopeless swiping and proofreading. And in spite of the constant mobile privacy issues.

I looked at Tapatalk this morning. It's really bad (or there is some glitch) and people using it don't necessarily know.

It cuts off long posts at the top. And doesn't tell you it may have just killed off the top 3/4 of a given post. It did this to my post. Or else I don't know how to operate Tapatalk. N00b here, so the latter is quite possible.

Thx for comments.

I don't use Tapatalk, I just type on my Samsung tablet.

[Catlady]

I've just finished an audiobook, and after the final credits, the narrator intones, "... and thank you for being a Recorded Books reader." Yes, READER.

The word had never struck me before, and I even wondered if it was something new-ish. But I spot-checked a few other of my Recorded Books titles, and even back in 1999, the tagline was the same--Recorded Books has been referring to those who listen to their audiobooks as readers, not listeners. READERS.

[Pizza_Cant_Read]

Originally Posted by Larla

I found an interesting web-piece that seems appropriate for this discussion.

As Far As Your Brain Is Concerned, Audiobooks Are Not ‘Cheating’

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/08...-cheating.html

This was a really good article. One thing I thought of prior to reading and the author was perhaps leading to, is that when I take my time with a novel there is a lot of subvocalization. So I can easily understand why listening to a book and reading a book might utilize the same mental process. It just so happens that having a text in front of me makes it easier to focus.

This seems to be more of a problem with the language than anything else. If the content consumed is word for word then one could mark it as 'read'. The idea of reading is already super subjective as some people skim and other people linger with the subvocalization and imagery. I still remember my horror when I realized one of my best friends (with a phd) was one of those GoodReads people (I won't use the word that comes to mind) who would check out books from the library, maybe skim them and/or read a synopsis online and write seemingly pretentious reviews. It was a statistics thing, an ego thing and she later quit playing Words With Friends because she realized that also brought out a bad competitive side.

Of course there are merits to each method of consuming books and the author acknowledges this. Last year I read 7 of Ian Fleming's James Bond books and was able to see the way the spelling and use of words since the 1950s has changed. As an American, being exposed to a British author from that period was informative. I also love that I can highlight words on my Kindle, read their definition and save them to a list for later review.

I read a dozen of R.A Salvatore books before I was 10 years old, and periodically play catch up with Drizzt. To see what the audio book craze was all about I pirated a random R.A Salvatore audio book (before my Audible trial). I only made it 10 minutes because it was terrible but found out I have been saying the author's name wrong for nearly 20 years. I am sure there a dozens of other words that I was caught saying incorrectly because I had only read them in books and never heard them spoken out loud.

When it comes down to it, you know how well you were listening to that book just like I know if I really read the book we are discussing in class. Like the author says, there is no free pizza for meeting your reading goal. If we are reading for personal growth then arguing semantics is only a method of avoiding being honest with ourselves.

[rdfry]

I'm self employed and listen to audio books during the day and read books at night. I love both.

[barryem]

I've been thinking a bit about this since my last post. I'm a Kindle reader mainly but I used to listen to audiobooks. I still listen to a lot of short story readings on audio. I'm an old guy with diabetes so my guess is I'll eventually have to go back to audiobooks but that's okay.

Personally I think the content is what matters. How we partake of it matters to some people and not to others. It doesn't matter to me. It matters to HarryT and some others. I doubt there's any way to settle this. Perhaps a duel.

I'm reading Ken Follet's new sequel to "The Pillars of the Earth". This is mostly during the first Elizabethan era and is much about the protestants slaughtering catholics and the catholics slaughtering protestants. Maybe they had the right idea and a bunch of us who think audiobooks are the equal of paper books should gather a vast armada and attack those who don't.

It also brings to mind "Gulliver's Travels", in which the Lilliputians fought bitter political battles over whether it was proper to crack an egg on the large end or the small end. That's of a lot more consequence than how we input our books, of course.

Barry

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I've just finished an audiobook, and after the final credits, the narrator intones, "... and thank you for being a Recorded Books reader." Yes, READER.

The word had never struck me before, and I even wondered if it was something new-ish. But I spot-checked a few other of my Recorded Books titles, and even back in 1999, the tagline was the same--Recorded Books has been referring to those who listen to their audiobooks as readers, not listeners. READERS.

My current audiobook is billed as "Phineas Finn performed by Timothy West." Since I obviously can't read a performance, I must be listening to it.

[AnotherCat]

If "listen to" and "read" are synonyms then why can we not listen to paper books or eBooks?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

If "listen to" and "read" are synonyms then why can we not listen to paper books or eBooks?

. I like this!

[Catlady]

The words are not synonymous, and to the best of my recollection, no one's claimed that they are. But sight-reading a book and listening to a book are equivalent, and both fall under the umbrella word "reading."

Anyway, take it up with the Recorded Books people, who for 20 years or so have been telling audiobook users that they are readers.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The words are not synonymous, and to the best of my recollection, no one's claimed that they are. But sight-reading a book and listening to a book are equivalent, and both fall under the umbrella word "reading."

Anyway, take it up with the Recorded Books people, who for 20 years or so have been telling audiobook users that they are readers.

Wow, you sound angry and defensive.

Perhaps if you had "listened" to my post a little better and took the time to "listen" to the wink at the end of it you may have ended up taking it in a lighthearted manner rather than "hearing" it as a threat to your world view on the matter.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Wow, you sound angry and defensive.

Perhaps if you had "listened" to my post a little better and took the time to "listen" to the wink at the end of it you may have ended up taking it in a lighthearted manner rather than "hearing" it as a threat to your world view on the matter.

Oh please. Perhaps if you didn't descend to ad hominem argument I might listen to your opinion.