Listening is the new reading

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On the contrary, it's an inescapable consequence of the statement that listening to a book is the same activity as reading it. It's an elementary application of formal logic: if "A" and "B" are equivalent, then any conclusion resulting from "A" must also result from "B".

Of course they are not the "same activity," and I am unaware of anyone claiming that. The claim is that whether one absorbs the content visually or aurally, one is reading.

If I say simple arithmetic is mathematics, and calculus is mathematics, does that mean that simple arithmetic = calculus?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Of course they are not the "same activity," and I am unaware of anyone claiming that. The claim is that whether one absorbs the content visually or aurally, one is reading.

If I say simple arithmetic is mathematics, and calculus is mathematics, does that mean that simple arithmetic = calculus?

For some people yes.

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Reading uses our eyes, listening uses our ears, two different senses utilizing two different body parts.

Neither of which compromises our comprehension of the material.
...

Except for the inherent speed difference. Spoken word is so much slower, that I require another mostly-mindless activity (driving long distances on the highway) to avoid mental wandering. Which DOES affect comprehension!

Originally Posted by crich70

But A and B are not equivalent in this case are they? When you read text you have to visualize solely in your head what is happening. ...

You don't *have* to visualize it in your head. I rarely do. That requires slowing down and forming a mental image. Until a detail about the setting *matters* (to the story), I don't stop to visualize it at all. Nor do I have anything but a vague blob image of the characters. I don't care what they look like, only what happens next.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Tarana

As to the 'cheating' issue that others have commented on, this was discussed in another thread and I think the idea came about because before the late 1990s, most audiobooks were abridged. So a book that took you 20 hours to read, could be narrated to you in 4-5. Clearly, not the same thing.

I remember my first audiobook, "Nerve" an early book by Dick Francis. I happened to see it as I was checking out at a book store and asked about it and bought it. I had a Walkman at the time so I listened to it. It was a single 60 minute tape. The book, which I read recently, is 322 pages long. You'd think I'd guess that it was abridged but that just never occurred to me. I think I listened to 3 or 4 of them before I realized I wasn't getting the whole thing.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I don't like using the same word for two very different experiences.

How about "fast", meaning either moving rapidly or not moving at all, as in tied fast.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Quote:
------
Originally Posted by MikeB1972 View Post
No, you just said that listening to a book is the same as reading it, therefore :-

If
Listening to a book = reading a book
Then
Knowing how to listen = knowing how to read
-------
That's absurd, and you know it.

I thought it was pretty clever. I don't agree with it but i like it.

Barry

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by barryem

How about "fast", meaning either moving rapidly or not moving at all, as in tied fast.

Barry

Add to that - a person went on a "fast", meaning not eating food.

[sun surfer]

And people say 'do you read me?' and 'I read you' where 'read' equals 'hear and understand what is communicated aurally by'.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

And people say 'do you read me?' and 'I read you' where 'read' equals 'hear and understand what is communicated aurally by'.

I always assumes that was left over from the days of long distance telegraphs, in the same way you "tape" a tv show. Anyone know for sure?

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by barryem

I thought it was pretty clever. I don't agree with it but i like it.

Barry

I don't agree with it either as it's obviously rubbish, just proving a point

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I always assumes that was left over from the days of long distance telegraphs, in the same way you "tape" a tv show. Anyone know for sure?

It's a usage that everyone accepts as valid where reading is something done with the ears.

I think it's ungenerous not to accept reading as something that can be done with an audiobook even without other accepted usages of reading relating to listening, but with other valid usages such as this it borders on the absurd.

The resistance may stem from stories told aurally through the ages often being condensed as needed or changing while a printed book is often more comprehensive and finite, and the first big push on audiobooks some decades ago often featuring very abridged (and sometimes unlabelled as such) versions of printed books. Now however we are entering the new age of unabridged audiobooks where what is spoken equals what is written word for word, and thus reading an audiobook is wholly appropriate and supported by other usages of the verb.

[barryem]

I wonder if the demeaning of listening is because the first experience of books for most of us is listening to our parents read to us, planting in our minds that being read to is for children.

Barry

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by barryem

I wonder if the demeaning of listening is because the first experience of books for most of us is listening to our parents read to us, planting in our minds that being read to is for children.

Barry

Nobody in this thread has demeaned audiobooks, Barry. All anyone's questioned is whether or not it's reasonable to say that you've read a book yourself when what you've actually done is listened to someone else read it. Some people are happy with that usage, some not. It's a personal choice.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nobody in this thread has demeaned audiobooks, Barry. All anyone's questioned is whether or not it's reasonable to say that you've read a book yourself when what you've actually done is listened to someone else read it. Some people are happy with that usage, some not. It's a personal choice.

Of course it's demeaning to say that listening to audiobooks isn't REALLY reading. It's on a par with saying an e-book isn't REALLY a book.

"Reading" encompasses more than simply using one's eyes; the most important element of reading is comprehension. If I painstakingly look word by word at a page of Greek or Chinese or Russian, none of which I know, have I "read" it?

There's visual reading, there's aural reading, there's touch reading (Braille). It's foolish to claim that only visual reading is actual reading.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Of course it's demeaning to say that listening to audiobooks isn't REALLY reading. It's on a par with saying an e-book isn't REALLY a book.

We aren't saying it's not REALLY reading, we are saying it's not reading.

In the same way swimming is not walking, it's not better or worse, just different.

There is a perfectly good word for what you do with an audiobook and it isn't read. As far as I can tell absolutely no one has any problems with audiobooks themselves, I prefer audioplays myself but that's just my preference.

Originally Posted by Catlady

"Reading" encompasses more than simply using one's eyes; the most important element of reading is comprehension. If I painstakingly look word by word at a page of Greek or Chinese or Russian, none of which I know, have I "read" it?

No, you've looked at it, like a picture. If it helps I'm willing to accept viewed, studied & scrutinised as well

Originally Posted by Catlady

There's visual reading, there's aural reading, there's touch reading (Braille). It's foolish to claim that only visual reading is actual reading.

That aural reading is called listening