Ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Sigh. Nevermind. I can see you are so desperate to score internet ego points you are tripping over your own words. Go have some tea and take a breather.

Now that's funny. You do the same. You've not actually had a salient point to your arguments for a long time now. I'll happily let the internet determine the score of this little dust-up you've envisioned yourself as "winning."

Originally Posted by sealbeater

if you like audiobooks, more power to you! I really mean that. I don't care how you assimilate info. Just don't call it reading.

Your reading comprehension (or retention--c'mon, focus) seems to be a bit lacking. I've already told you I don't like (or use) audiobooks.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Now that's funny. You do the same. You've not actually had a salient point to your arguments for a long time now. I'll happily let the internet determine the score of this little dust-up you've envisioned yourself as "winning."

Ok...

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Your reading comprehension (or retention--c'mon, focus) seems to be a bit lacking. I've already told you I don't like (or use) audiobooks.

Wasn't talking to you. That last statement was meant for a wider audience. I would have thought that would have been clear, next time I won't assume.

EDIT: Also, I prefaced my statement with "If". As in, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't force it on your foot.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

A question I asked earlier, anyone can respond. If audiobooks are just as good, why bother to learn how to read at all?

Because reading is an essential life-skill that has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's preference for reading novels or listening to audiobooks. One might, for example, have a job that involves reading and writing throughout the working day, and then come home and choose to listen to an audiobook for relaxation.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because reading is an essential life-skill that has nothing whatsoever to do with a person's preference for reading novels or listening to audiobooks. One might, for example, have a job that involves reading and writing throughout the working day, and then come home and choose to listen to an audiobook for relaxation.

I agree reading is an essential life-skill. One that should be honed constantly but that's just my opinion.

Do you know of anyone who had a job reading/writing who then goes home and listens to audiobooks to relax perchance? Because reading isn't a chore to me at all, I wish I could read all day. I do read all day but not always the things I enjoy reading. That's one of my life goals, just have a garden, smoke some weed and read all day long until I die. That would be heaven for me.

Listening to some gurgly old man after his 6th sip of water reading to me? Not so much.

But hey, different strokes for different folks. Some folks are fine not being two literate.

[sealbeater]

And with that, I will try to leave this thread. Happy reading or listening or watching or whatever, all!

[jackie_w]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

That's one of my life goals, just have a garden, smoke some weed and read all day long until I die. That would be heaven for me.

Whilst tending to this hypothetical garden you'll find that 'reading' is not possible. Listening to audiobooks/TTS ... perfectly feasible. As for the other dubious pastime, I hear it can rot the brain.

[kyteflyer]

Horses for courses as someone already said. I read a lot (not as much as some of you) but I listen to audiobooks in places where I can't read. I find I do better with an audiobook on the train, for example, or when driving short distances. I tend not to do audiobooks on long trips because I become very absorbed and that distracts me from safe driving. And sometimes my eyes are just too tired for reading, so I listen instead. I listened to Stephen Fry reading Harry Potter (the first 6 books) when I was doing the exercise bike thing in the early morning before work. Theres good reason for both.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I do know a large portion of the population doesn't read and hasn't practiced their ability to read and it's a loss.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with the read/listen debate. Through most of history the vast majority of every population didn't read. And even when a lot of people learned how to read most of them did it as little as they could get away with.

However, during most of history, recent and otherwise, people have listened to stories.

I think reading/not reading/listening is something we all get to decide for ourselves. I read for pleasure. I like learning so that's part of the pleasure. Others like learning less and read for other reasons, such as love of stories, a love that I share. Some read to keep up with what's going on in the world. Some read just enough to check their bank statements. Some don't even do that.

We all get to decide that for ourselves. It's a silly debate. Yes I've been participating because I enjoy this debate but I make no claim that I'm not being silly when I do it. I've participated in other nonsensical things as well, such as reading Shell Scott mysteries.

The one thing to take away from a debate like this is that nobody has an answer. Or maybe that we all have equally silly answers.

Barry

[issybird]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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).

Exactly. I consider myself literate (and I'd be willing to apply any objective standards to establishing my literacy), but I also listen. In part, because it's an entertaining and edifying way to while away the time when my hands or eyes are otherwise occupied, but also because there are books where I find the narration so compulsively entertaining that I listen in preference to reading. And why not? I am large, I contain multitudes.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

So, there's no point in learning how to read right?

Pretty sure that’s a straw man or a red herring. But let’s run with it anyway.

There is great importance in learning to read. Learning to read is a foundational tool to ALMOST every other kind of learning.

Encouraging children to read books, any books, is so important because learning to read anything is important....important to having the ability to read to learn almost everything else.

Having learned to read as a child....there ceases to be any importance to reading for pleasure...verses doing anything ELSE for pleasure. You don’t forget how to read and even if someone doesn’t read books for pleasure, they are reading all the time. They read signs, they read social media, they read as they shop, they read at their jobs.

Some adults never learned to read well at all, and as such, they are in the same category of a child where reading for pleasure should be encouraged because reading is the key to almost all other learning.

But NOBODY participating here is illiterate. Illogical, some for sure...but not illiterate. You aren’t any better, any smarter, any more literate when you read vampire love stories than someone else listening to vampire love stories, or watching cat videos on YouTube.

Stop feeling superior about an activity that any fourth grader can do.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Sure. However, I think it's a decent indicator. Absent handicap, if you prefer audiobooks to reading, I think that's because you aren't that versed in reading and you should probably go practice some more. That's just me, not trying to be inflammatory, just the facts. If you would rather listen to someone else read to you, well....

Lol! A truly ignorant statement. I have no handicap as it relates to reading. I enjoy both reading and listening to books. There is no relationship whatsoever to being able to read and whether or not one would enjoy audiobooks.

There likely is a subset of “people who enjoy audio books” that for some reason can’t read (illness, problems with their site, never learned to read in the first place). But those are not the only people who appreciate audiobooks...and Imsincerely doubt if they make up that big a percentage.

Audiobooks EXTEND my ability to read books. Yes, I am intentionally abusing the term read. I’ve enjoyed reading books since I was a kid. As an adult, there are times I’ve found it difficult to find/make the time for reading books.

What a joy it was to discover audiobooks when I used to drive more than an hour each way to work for a job I had for 7 years. I read lots and lots of books during my commute. Of course it was listening...but the enjoyment was the same. It was still stories.

Now I don’t commute so much, but I listen to books when I walk my dog, or when I’m cooking, or when I’m driving long distances, or flying on a plane.

I keep track of all the books I’ve read and I put a book on the list when I’ve finished reading or listening to it. Because, for me, it is the same.

[Alohamora]

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.

You think we aren't also interpreting the spoken word based on syntax and structure when we're listening? Really?

I'll spot you spelling practice. Homonyms require more mental acuity from the listener than the reader, not having the cue of how a word was spelled. Listeners figure it out from context.

"there are books where I find the narration so compulsively entertaining that I listen in preference to reading. And why not? I am large, I contain multitudes."

" I have no handicap as it relates to reading. I enjoy both reading and listening to books. There is no relationship whatsoever to being able to read and whether or not one would enjoy audiobooks."

" Homonyms require more mental acuity from the listener than the reader, not having the cue of how a word was spelled. Listeners figure it out from context."


I thought I'd said everything I wanted to say on this subject, and frankly I'm astonished (and a little sad) that this thread is being kept alive. But, as someone with an almost pathological aversion to audiobooks, I want to stand up and applaud the sanity and reasonableness of comments like these.

Issy's comment (1) made me jealous. There are times when I wish I could get into audiobooks for that reason. But I don't process sensory input as well as I'd like, and so live mostly in silence - I probably only listen to a couple of hours music a week, and I've never been able to get comfortable with audiobooks. Yet. Although, I do sing "a song to myself" when mowing "leaves of grass" if that counts?


Leebase's comment (2) reminded me of the fact that it really wasn't too long ago in historical terms that (for almost everyone) ALL reading was purely aural. And active, focused aural reading is every bit as involving a skill as visual reading. Which leads me to

Alohamora's comment (3) As a (strictly amateur) lover of languages and linguistics, I know for a fact that reading a non-L1 language is easier than hearing it read. This cuts both ways too. One of my ISP passwords was once the name of the place in (now) Pakistan where my Dad went to school. Several years when I spoke with a tech support guy who needed my password, he could NOT understand my attempts to say the word, despite it being in his L1 language. As soon as I gave the English, he said "Oh, you mean ..." He would have understood if the word was in a sentence, because the context would have made it clear. He also would have understood if I had spelled it out in writing. I've had similar experiences repeatedly with Italian, too.

In fact that point abot the different cognitive challenges of aural and visual reading caused me to reflect on the fact there is ONE area in which I do like audio reading: Focused reading and study. When studying material in any language, even my L1 English, I've become reliant on listening and reading to the same material togeher. I can't do this recreationally, but it's invaluable for forcing me to concentrate on the material and getting more out of it. In English, it slows down my reading and forces me to ponder, and in Hindi and Italian, it helps me learn how to pronounce and stress words naturally.

I think now I really HAVE said everything I have to say. Except to add that I think it is truly sad that anyone feels the need to bolster their own sense of self-worth by pushing some illusory notion of superiority over others based on something as trivial as whether one reads with the ears or the eyes. As opposed to GENUINE marks of superiority, like being left-handed.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Do you know of anyone who had a job reading/writing who then goes home and listens to audiobooks to relax perchance?

Sticks up her hand.

Me. I read the entire day and write too. Software still doesn't write itself. And I need to continually read what I've typed and what other have typed (what I must then write out in code).

And once I'm home, I'll grab my audiobook to relax, maybe doing some other mindless tasks, which require the use of my eyes and/or hands.

And later, I'll head towards my bed, and read from my e-ink reader.

[issybird]

An opinion piece in the New York Times yesterday weighs in: Is Listening to a Book the Same Thing as Reading It?

This sounds right to me:

So although one core process of comprehension serves both listening and reading, difficult texts demand additional mental strategies. Print makes those strategies easier to use. Consistent with that interpretation, researchers find that people’s listening and reading abilities are more similar for simple narratives than for expository prose. Stories tend to be more predictable and employ familiar ideas, and expository essays more likely include unfamiliar content and require more strategic reading.

This conclusion — equivalence for easy texts and an advantage to print for hard ones — is open to changes in the future.