Thread 24625244

Audiobooks, are they reading? Do you include how many audiobooks you listened to when asked how many books you've read this year?

>>24625244 (OP)
>Audiobooks, are they reading?
Yes
>Do you include how many audiobooks you listened to when asked how many books you've read this year?
Yes
Audiobooks help me break through some barriers when I dont have it in me to make myself read a text.

>>24625352
So wait, when people say they've read 100 books this year, they have just meant that had those playing in the background??

Listening to audiobooks made me realize how much attention some authors paid to how their text flows and sounds when spoken out loud. I've decided I prefer them over authors who didn't.

>>24625244 (OP)
Two so far, I use Hoopla to borrow them. Kind of want to read Foucault's History Of Sexuality, but 1) its four volumes and 2) im ill-prepared to hear a bunch of gross shit i don't want to hear. However I might have to do this in tandem with books by Freud and anthropologist JD Unwin so I can figure why the incel thing happened the past several years for a personal writing project of mine which also touches on the urban/rural/educated versus non-educated class divide. Sigh...

>>24625366
I don't count them as read unless I actively listened to them and that usually means multiple rewinds.
Likewise people may say they read a book and only skimmed the pages or did a "mechanical" reading with no understanding.
Is all based on the honor system.

Non fiction is fine to listen to though I still prefer to read it. I feel like literary fiction should be read to fully appreciate it. I couldn't imagine getting the same feeling from Faulkner or Joyce by listening to it.

>>24625244 (OP)
By the strict technical definition of the word "read", no. But if you can use it to effectively absorb the content does it matter?

>>24625244 (OP)
>Audiobooks, are they reading?
No.
>Do you include how many audiobooks you listened to when asked how many books you've read this year?
No.

>>24625244 (OP)
I read most books by listening to them, the ones I loved the most I basically consumed over and over, like music. It does make me a better writer, but most importantly writing makes you a better writer. If you strive towards merely being a reader there is no meaningful distinction to be made for either, what difference does it make? You can take very little out of reading and a lot out of listening and vice versa.

>>24625244 (OP)
>are they reading
no
>>24625244 (OP)
>Do you include how many audiobooks you listened to when asked how many books you've read this year
nobody has asked me that

I like listening to nonfiction, mainly history, while taking long walks. the retention rate, at least for me, is much worse as I like to look at nature and get distracted by birds constantly

>>24625371
I wonder what it's like to NOT be able to determine the text and sound flow inside your own head.

>>24625244 (OP)
There's 2 types of audiobook listeners, those that put it in the background doing chores etc, and those who actively listen for 20-30 min when they have free time. I exclusively I do the latter and count those as read because I am paying attention.
The former is podcast territory.

they are absolutely not fucking reading
you are gaining knowledge for sure
but you are not fucking reading
how the fuck can you people be this fucking retarded
reading is looking at words on a page and internally understanding the words
sound, voice, etc. is not fucking reading

>>24626537
And most movies today aren't made with any actual film, but we still call them "films". Almond milk doesn't come from a tit, but it's been called "milk" in English since the Middle Ages. Words get extended from their original meaning based on something fulfilling an analogous role or function.

>>24626545
you're fucking retarded holy shit
>films
are you saying there are movies not "filmed" on a camera?
you are on a completely different planet of logic. i'm not even saying audiobooks are "bad." but they're objectively, factually, not fucking reading. you can absolutely retain the knowledge you gain from listening to an audiobook. but it is not READING WORDS ON A PAGE. how can anyone be this fucking dense

>>24626520
why can't you just count them as listened, consumed, or something else that actually has something to do with the way you absorbed the contents of the book?

>>24626555
>are you saying there are movies not "filmed" on a camera?
It's called "filming" because of... wait for it... film. Like the physical material. The usage of "filming" for a digital camera is by metaphorical extension from that. A digital camera is objectively, factually, not "filming", because there is no film in it. Or, you know, words get extended by analogy.

>>24626569
ok
you fucking retarded ignoramus
you tell me
does filming on a classic film camera, vs filming on a digital camera...
does that produce a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT METHOD OF CONSUMING THE CONTENT?
are the fucking filmwatchers getting a RADICALLY DIFFERENT SENSORY EXPERIENCE than the DIGITAL filmwatchers?
you actually braindead consoomer.

>>24626562
If someone asks me if I read , and i listened to it. I'm going to say I've read it because I have enough understanding of it.

>>24626574
Reading in Braille is a radically different sensory experience than reading in print (tactile with fingertips vs. visual with eyes, and Braille has different rules regarding spelling and such; in some languages it works completely differently, like in Chinese where normal writing is logographic and Braille is phonetic), is it lying to say you've read a book if you've read it in Braille?

>>24625244 (OP)
They are good for multitasking. For example, while working on a hobby you can have them playing in the background. It kills two birds with one stone. I do this only with non-fiction, however.

>>24626586
>is it lying to say you've read a book if you've read it in Braille?
OK, this is a much better argument, thank you
so let me give my context now: i'm a musician with perfect pitch. the reason i mention that is i often experience sensory overload through listening from the unconscious analysis aspect. therefore, i am highly, highly attenuated to the difference between listening and reading.

my argument would actually be that braille is the same thing as reading whereas audiobooks are still another universe.

the thing about reading, whether printed words or printed braille, is it is an abstract form of communication that arrived out of civilization. it was not a Darwinian model for communication. as a result, it is a completely different process for the acquisition of knowledge. looking at words on a page, or "touching" words on a page, is not something apes did in the wild.

however, apes in the wild did listen for certain calls, certain roars, or other audiological phenomena to identify threats, friends, food, etc.

as a result - to me, anything related to listening cannot be considered in the same category as an abstract, sociological form of representation like braille or printed word.

>>24626599
I suppose I see what you mean, but still, people refer to listening to an audiobook as "reading" because it fulfills the same goal (absorbing the book). "Read" has a lot of other extended uses too, like reading a room, reading someone's mind, "do you read me?" over the radio...

>>24626614
to be clear, i have no problem with people colloquially, in conversation, saying they "read" a book when they really listened to it. it would be pedantic to correct that usage and you're right, in that case "read" means to have consumed the content.

however, there needs to be a better understanding from the culture at large about what is lost from listening rather than reading. like I said, I'm very aware of the extremely different mental processes between the two mediums. the reason I am so emphatic in my defense of specifically reading or touching words on a page is because for me it is - and I use this phrase very intentionally - a different universe of expression and experience.

in music, it is very easy to hear something and give a rough approximation of what you heard. it is another matter, and far more difficult, to look at a page of music you have never heard before and accurately perform it.

>>24626647
I mean, the experience in the moment is different, but I'm not sure if the end result is all that different insofar as you end up with the same ideas in your head. (Though for literature that was originally performed orally like Homer couldn't you argue that the audiobook is what's more authentic to the original intent?)

>>24626661
>(Though for literature that was originally performed orally like Homer couldn't you argue that the audiobook is what's more authentic to the original intent?)
well sure, but isn't that also part of what makes the written Iliad so different from the idea of the orally repeated version of it?

>>24626672
I suppose? I was under the impression that the written copies we had were thought to be pretty accurate transcriptions of the poem as it was orally performed.
Incidentally, an anecdote: When I was in college, I was assigned to read the Apology of Socrates, and decided to listen to it while walking back to my dorm (which was a couple miles' walk). It seems like one of the texts it makes more sense to do that with since it's a transcript of what was originally an oral speech. If I closed my eyes, I could almost imagine that I was there in the Athenian Assembly, hearing him speak. (Well, leaving aside that women weren't allowed in the Assembly and that he would have given the speech in Greek rather than English, but I think that can be lumped under suspension of disbelief.)

>Audiobook length: 3 hours
am I crazy or is that absurdly short
I don't listen to audiobooks normally, 3 hours for a whole book seems like nothing at all. mike nelson's book podcast is like 2 hours an episode and they'll do like 5 eps on a single book

>>24626692
3 hours is roughly 80 pages

>>24626513
It's a sliding scale, obviously a trained speaker is much more capable of teasing out and producing the intended effect. There's also the fact that a two-page run-on sentence is a chore to read regardless of how much a /lit/ anon might wish to posture, but from the mouth of a voice actor who has mapped it out and practised it beforehand it flows like sweet honey.

>>24625244 (OP)
>Audiobooks, are they reading?
Listening
>Do you include how many audiobooks you listened to when asked how many books you've read this year?
Yes.

>>24626683
yes we're definitely in agreement that there are sectors and times when listening is actually BETTER than reading for some media. again though, i think the replacement of reading for audiobooks/listening is very, very bad.

>>24626797
Isn't how the individual best absorbs information a factor too? Some people absorb information best by reading it, some absorb it best by hearing it.

IT HINGES UPON THE DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION THAT IS APPLIED TO THE MEDIUM. WRITING TYPICALLY DEMANDS A SINGLE POINTEDNESS OF MIND AND EXERTION OF MENTAL ENERGY, HENCE ITS RESPECTABILITY. LISTENING CAN BE A PASSIVE PROCESS. IF YOU LISTEN WITH A CONCENTRATION, APPROACHING PRAYER, THE TWO ACTS ARE EQUATABLE. IF NOT, YOU ARE A FRAUD.

>>24626799
>Isn't how the individual best absorbs information a factor too?
people certainly have different strengths and weaknesses. the point is to build up your weaknesses though isn't it? especially with hobbies involving exercise. sure you can fully just lean into lifting and strength but if you never work cardio are you really developing your full body?

>>24626805
I suppose, but I think some people may still always be better at the one even if they improve on the other.

>>24626577
Why lie? Say you listened to it. Audiopeasant.

>>24626813
Nope I read it as much as you did. Let's see who retained better and maybe show him his ways are retarded

>>24626818
You literally didn't read it.

I simply think there should be a separate term for "consuming the contents of a work consisting of words" that is more general than "reading," which means to use your eyes to decipher written symbols, and "listening," deciphering auditory data. With this word, the entire semantic trouble disappears.

>>24626826
IT IS CALLED "CONSOOMING"

>>24626819
You literally didn't post this. You didn't write it on paper and stick it to a bulletin board, you caused your computer to send a series of electric pulses to another computer. These have nothing in common other than their end result (another person seeing your words).
>>24626826
The trouble is that since there isn't a separate term for this "read" is the word that ends up being used, for lack of a better one.

>>24626829
Within the definition of the word post I did in fact post that, and this, and also this: you didn't read it.

>>24626829
>>24626826
Why can't you just say listened to it? There is a word that exists for what you did.

>>24626837
If the word "read" is broadly used that way, then it also has that meaning now.

>>24626843
It's only broadly used wrongly because audiopeasants are insecure and can't say what they actually did.

>>24626846
The word "explode" means "to drive out by clapping". The uses of it to mean "combust rapidly" are just wrong.

>>24626854
The word "read" means to read words written down on a page with your eyes, not listen to audio through your ears. That is called listening.

>>24626860
And "explode" means "drive out by clapping", not "combust rapidly". It is simply wrong to say that gunpowder "explodes". (If you think word meaning isn't decided by use, then what external criteria exactly are you going by?)

>>24625244 (OP)
Audiobooks aren't the same as reading which is fine. Not everything has to be reading to be valuable or important. This only happens because of people's views and audiobook enjoyers' own view of the activity of listening to an audiobook. It's the same reason that people call all comic books "graphic novels" or why Fantano feels the need to call albums anything but albums. Audiobooks enjoyers and comic book readers are trying to avoid labels like "lazy" and "childish" respectively. By trying to call audiobooks reading, audiobooks enjoyers are conceding that if it's not reading then it's a "lower" medium of enjoyment; this doesn't have to be the case however. Audiobooks can be both not reading and an acceptable medium to engage with.

>>24626860
Based missed the point poster

>>24625244 (OP)
I don't keep count of how many books I read.

When finishing my doctoral studies I listened to several books at 1.5-2x speed and would credit that decision with being able to maintain my sanity and do what needed to be done. It’s not the same as reading, though, not at all.

>>24627125
I get the point it just barely applies and is a reach when the word "listen" is right there for you to use.

>>24625386
>so I can figure why the incel thing happened the past several years
Look into Steve Bannon and his dealings with World of Warcraft. A lot of it is seeds planted early on being ready to harvest.

>>24627275
There's also a difference between using "read" yourself and responding in the affirmative to someone's "have you read...?" "No, but I've listened to it" doesn't convey much more useful information than a simple "yes", because to your interlocutor it's not very relevant how you took it in so long as you did.

>>24625244 (OP)
my mind wanders when i listen to audiobooks.

>>24627198
That just means you're reading way fewer than you realize.

>>24627451
It wouldn't matter if the medium didn't affect how you took it in. Reading and listening are different things that will inevitably result in emphasis on different aspects. Depending on who's asking, it very much could matter if you read or listen to it.

>>24626803
Despite the psychopathic nature of this post, this is correct. Listening is passive. Reading is active. Audiobooks are not reading.

>>24626867
It is decided by use. If I told you Paul is an avid reader, he reads every day. You wouldn't assume Paul only listens to audiobooks like some people. Sure Paul might like audiobooks but the use of the word "reads" typically implies Paul is looking at words and sentences not listening to them.

>>24627508
Won't different people also get different things out of a book based on their character and prior experiences, even if they take it in through the same medium? I'd expect that to be at least as large a difference.

>>24627640
you could say the same thing about literally anything. That doesnt devalue the act of making comparisons or distinctions

>>24627662
Yeah you could say that about everything that's why we have distinctions to delineate things like reading and listening so we know what we're talking about specifically.

>>24627640
Yes, but by elimintating confounding variables, you get closer to the nearest identical experience possible.

>>24627725
Here here! Indeed!

>>24626751
Anon........ I don't know what to tell you.
If you can't determine the intended cadence in literature without listening to someone else speak it out loud.........
it's like being colorblind and not knowing it.

Audio books destroy tonal ambiguity. Tone, pacing, intonation etc are flexible in the headspace of readers. Authors know this, and may even rely on that ambivalence for effect.

>>24627922
Not to mention, whoever narrates an audio book not only limits the tone down to a single linear interpretation but also inevitably introduces their own flavor into their performance