Listening is the new reading

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In my opinion, they have effectively read the book (I'm referring to literate adults here, of course). They've only not (possibly) semantically read it.

If someone's experience with a work allows them to summarize it, write a personal review of it, discuss its various plot points and character development, and generally discuss it with others who have "partaken of the contents" of that work, then it seems fairly petty to me to deny their notion of having "read" the book for purely semantic reasons.

When the question means, "have you experienced Stephen King's latest book", then why the heck shouldn't someone answer "yes"?

"Hey Bob, have your eyes perused the words to Stephen King's latest book (on paper or screen) from beginning to end yet?"

I find it hard to argue with you. To be honest, I'm not as dense as I'm coming off. Partly I'm filling out a lackluster Friday at work. I don't really care if someone reads a book or listens to an audio book.

But I will admit, if someone told me they read Stephen King's latest book and then later I found out they listened to the audio book, a little voice inside me would be saying 'You haven't really read it!' That little voice is an uncharitable jerk.

Here's a question: If you watch the How The Grinch Stole Christmas special and over the course of it Boris Karloff has narrated the entire book (I don't remember if he does, but let's just say he does), could you say you've read the book?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I find it hard to argue with you. To be honest, I'm not as dense as I'm coming off. Partly I'm filling out a lackluster Friday at work. I don't really care if someone reads a book or listens to an audio book.

But I will admit, if someone told me they read Stephen King's latest book and then later I found out they listened to the audio book, a little voice inside me would be saying 'You haven't really read it!' That little voice is an uncharitable jerk.

Here's a question: If you watch the How The Grinch Stole Christmas special and over the course of it Boris Karloff has narrated the entire book (I don't remember if he does, but let's just say he does), could you say you've read the book?

Awesome choice for the Grinch.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think one of the fundamental differences is that you're relying on the interpretation of the narrator, rather than seeing the material first-hand, and interpretation can make a world of difference.

That is true to a great extent, but also I think because reading and listening uses different parts of the brain. Story telling is a art form that probably predates writing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That is true to a great extent, but also I think because reading and listening uses different parts of the brain. Story telling is a art form that probably predates writing.

Absolutely, yes.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's an extremely odd definition. Using that definition, would you describe listening to a piece of music as "reading" it? You are, after all, "consuming and comprehending the content". I don't think many people would say "I went to a concert and read Beethoven's 5th symphony"!

I've read music since I was a teen. A lot of people do.

I've both listened to and read and played many classical guitar pieces. I won't pretend that listening and reading them are the same thing but they both have their value.

I think this is an exaggeration of the difference in listening and reading a book. A book is words and reading and listening gives us the same words. We take them in in different ways and no-one really knows if that matters or how much. Music is sound and I doubt anyone will claim that difference doesn't matter.

What about the blind, who have no choice but to listen? Haven't they read the book? They do call it reading in most cases.

Barry


Barry

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by barryem

I've read music since I was a teen. A lot of people do.

I've both listened to and read and played many classical guitar pieces. I won't pretend that listening and reading them are the same thing but they both have their value.

Agreed, but the point we were discussing was not whether they had value (which clearly both do), but whether they were synonymous. Ie if you listened to a piece of music, would you then say that you'd read that piece of music? To me, the acts of reading and listening are completely different.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My point is simply that reading and listening are not the same activity. Not better. Not worse. Just different. Audible's marketing slogan that listening to an audiobook is "reading" doesn't make it true.

My brother spent most of his life in real estate and we had a running argument for about 40 years about what is a lie. He says that if he says only true statements that are, nevertheless designed to deceive, he hasn't told a lie. I argue that the lie is in the intent to deceive. We've never changed each other's view in 40 years.

I invented an example for him that i think illustrates the lie. A used car dealer takes in a junker that really looks very nice. He calls his grandmother to come drive it to the grocery store and back. Later that day he sells it by explaining that it was driven by a little old lady to the grocery store. Has he told a lie?

Marketer's main job is lying. Most do so by telling the truth. I think this particular slogan of Audible's may be more true than most but it's also a lie. Who cares! It's a marketing slogan. It's not about truth!

It's better if it's Westinghouse.
Snap Crackle and Pop.
Because you're worth it.
A diamond is forever.
it keeps going, and going, and going ...
Finger-lickin' good.
America's storyteller.
Bet you can't eat just one.

Barry



Barry

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Chocolate diamonds?
I hear they sell well in some areas. I also heard they don't resell well.

They are not even chocolate colored. They are basically brown diamonds. They used to be used only for industrial purposes and in inexpensive jewelry. Change the name and now major designers are using the stones in their lines and charging astronomical prices for them. They are still an ugly diamond compared to white and true color diamonds. One company, Le Vian, controls almost 90% of the production of "Chocolate Diamonds ®" and have registered the term. Brown diamonds come from mines allover the world although the Australian Argyle Mine is currently the largest producer. Brown diamonds are the most common diamond in the earth and should, ands used to be, the cheapest to buy. Also, Chocolate Gold, is a coating just like rhodium plating and will wear off.
Now back to our regularly schedules programming.
Apache

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Apache

They are not even chocolate colored. They are basically brown diamonds. They used to be used only for industrial purposes and in inexpensive jewelry. Change the name and now major designers are using the stones in their lines and charging astronomical prices for them. They are still an ugly diamond compared to white and true color diamonds. One company, Le Vian, controls almost 90% of the production of "Chocolate Diamonds ®" and have registered the term. Brown diamonds come from mines allover the world although the Australian Argyle Mine is currently the largest producer. Brown diamonds are the most common diamond in the earth and should, ands used to be, the cheapest to buy. Also, Chocolate Gold, is a coating just like rhodium plating and will wear off.
Now back to our regularly schedules programming.
Apache

My better half would love talking to you.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that using "reading" as a synonym for "listening" is one of those things that irritates some people (and I'm in that camp), while others will happily use it. Fortunately we can all use words in the sense we wish to.

And yet when talking to someone on the radio it's common to confirm that they've received the message with a question like "Do you read me?".

I read about a year ago a reference to the the idea that silent reading is a relatively new thing. The earliest mention of silent reading in Western literature is by St. Augustine expressing his surprise when he found St. Ambrose reading and not moving his lips or saying the words.

There's speculation that reading was done aloud before that.

I think there's plenty of room to call listening to a book reading. It's not common usage among most of us but it's not that uncommon either.

I usually say I listened to a book and sometimes I'll even say I read it and then correct that. That's mostly because I know some people care about that distinction and I like to be honest. I personally don't think it's a very important distinction.

Barry

[tomsem]

Speaking of silent reading, it turns out it is not so silent:

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/49/17554.full

We differ as to how different decoding speech is from decoding text, or Braille. They engage different senses for intake, but the ensuing brain activity engage more or less the same brain activity (visual/motor/auditory). It is a virtual reality summoned by means of language.

I can imagine some future technology which directly stimulates language centers, bypassing senses altogether. That would be reading, as well.

Practically speaking, there are of course differences in how one engages with the media.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Apache

They are not even chocolate colored. They are basically brown diamonds. They used to be used only for industrial purposes and in inexpensive jewelry. Change the name and now major designers are using the stones in their lines and charging astronomical prices for them. They are still an ugly diamond compared to white and true color diamonds. One company, Le Vian, controls almost 90% of the production of "Chocolate Diamonds ®" and have registered the term. Brown diamonds come from mines allover the world although the Australian Argyle Mine is currently the largest producer. Brown diamonds are the most common diamond in the earth and should, ands used to be, the cheapest to buy. Also, Chocolate Gold, is a coating just like rhodium plating and will wear off.
Now back to our regularly schedules programming.
Apache

So glad I am not the only one that finds them ugly. The commercials are atrocious too.
One was women love chocolate and diamonds so buy her a chocolate diamond for holiday. I have forgotten which holiday. Note that was from the jewelry store I mentioned in another post.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My better half would love talking to you.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

So glad I am not the only one that finds them ugly. The commercials are atrocious too.
One was women love chocolate and diamonds so buy her a chocolate diamond for holiday. I have forgotten which holiday. Note that was from the jewelry store I mentioned in another post.

I believe in giving customers the information they need to make an informed and knowledgeable purchase. This prevents misunderstandings and the customer is much happier with their purchase. The main reason there are horror stories about switched diamonds and fraudulent purchases is because most customers do not have the information to tell if their purchase is legitimate.
Apache

[haertig]

I don't really care if making use of an audiobook is called listening or reading. It's just a word.

I just wish I could enjoy audiobooks more. I find it very hard to keep my concentration up when listening to one in a car (the only place I've ever tried one). Maybe I just have stumbled across poor narrators. But many of then just seem to drone on and on. Others place emphasis on words, or do voice tricks (try to speak in a high pitch, etc.) that I find extremely annoying. Several of the books I've tried have British narrators. I have nothing against the British, but the accent is distracting to me.

With audiobooks, my mind wanders, and I find I've missed a lot of the story as time goes on. I could never finish an audio novel. Short stories are challenge enough. I wish this wasn't the case. But it is for me. So I prefer reading with my own eyes.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by haertig

I don't really care if making use of an audiobook is called listening or reading. It's just a word.

I just wish I could enjoy audiobooks more. I find it very hard to keep my concentration up when listening to one in a car (the only place I've ever tried one). Maybe I just have stumbled across poor narrators. But many of then just seem to drone on and on. Others place emphasis on words, or do voice tricks (try to speak in a high pitch, etc.) that I find extremely annoying. Several of the books I've tried have British narrators. I have nothing against the British, but the accent is distracting to me.

With audiobooks, my mind wanders, and I find I've missed a lot of the story as time goes on. I could never finish an audio novel. Short stories are challenge enough. I wish this wasn't the case. But it is for me. So I prefer reading with my own eyes.

The best thing to do is listen to them at "me time" find a comfortable place, stick ear buds in, close your eyes and escape into the story. It's the same way you listen to music you want to absorb. Every note, every beat, every lyric. You listen to audiobooks the same way and you'll see why we love them.

A good narrator goes a long way. My first audiobooks was Harry Potter and The Half-Blooded Prince but my first beloved audiobook was One for The Money by Janet Evanovich narrated by C.J. Critt. I have never stopped since then.

Sent from my Nexus 7