Controversial opinion: audio books aren't "reading"

[PussyMalanga]

Am I alone in thinking so? When people say "I read fifty books this year" then reveal that half were ones they'd listened to. No!

@ClinkyMonkey

Too many people are being touchy about this. Reading and audio are two different ways of experiencing books. But they are not the same. One isn't better than the other.

If I completed a 5k circuit on roller skates or a pogo stick, it would be a bit of a push to claim I had run it. I would have expended my energy and achieved the same goal, but in a different way. All good

I think that’s fair. Santa is also bringing a pogo stick to my eight year old, it has just occurred to me. I hope he’s not making a terrible mistake...

Of course it isn’t reading. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable, particularly for those with impediments to reading. It’s not ableist either - reading in Braille is reading too.

Reading is active; where the inflection, tone, voice, weight given to particular words etc are all created by the reader. Listening is passive, much like watching a film - an artist has done the interpreting for you, you are consuming their interpretation.

That doesn’t mean audio books aren’t great - family holidays without them would have made for grim journeys in our household! - and it isn’t snobbery.

Different activities, both matter.

@AnonymousAuroch

Anyway, no, listening to an audiobook is not reading. Reading is the act of using your eyes (or fingers) to interpret text from a page. But you're getting the same information from audiobooks as when you read. We just don't have a good word for it. It sounds weird to say, "Oh yeah, I listened to that book last year."

So are you going to tell a blind person that they haven’t read a book then?

Actually, I’d add that equating listening to audio books to reading it yourself is to ignore the amazing work of voice actors.

Cressida Cowell’s Hiccup books are made richer for David Tennant’s narration. Ditto Terry Pratchett via Tony Robinson, Lauren Childs via Claire Skinner etc etc.

This is a polarising one. I’m a very fast reader and find audio books painfully slow. I also find I tune out and don’t concentrate in the same way. Ultimately though both ways are imparting the same story.

@ClinkyMonkey

Too many people are being touchy about this. Reading and audio are two different ways of experiencing books. But they are not the same. One isn't better than the other.

If I completed a 5k circuit on roller skates or a pogo stick, it would be a bit of a push to claim I had run it. I would have expended my energy and achieved the same goal, but in a different way. All good

I don’t think you have the right to tell people who may be partially sighted that they are being touchy. I am shocked at how ableism is acceptable on mumsnet. Would you tell a person of colour they were being touch if someone made a racist joke? Of course not.

I don’t think listening is a passive activity.

Listening is a complex skill with many layers. It’s also a skill some people don’t bother to develop past a pretty basic stage.

Evidently.

@buffyp yes the degree of blatant and carefree ableism is absolutely disgusting

@HuckfromScandal and it’s enraged me too. Absolutely mind boggling.

They aren't reading in the sense of "I spend a lot of time reading" because you're generally doing something else at the same time. But they are most definitely reading in the sense of "I've read that book".

This sums it up nicely for me. But also, I read and listen to lots of books and don't really care/mind what anyone else calls it.

Ahh, so young children and VI people have never read a book? Brilliant.

Yes, to answer your OP-I do think it’s reading.

@Destinysdaughter I just listened to five minute sample on that Ben Elton one you enjoyed. I am going to buy that now. He is very good at narrating, and I liked the snippet I heard.

Luckily I don't care if a few people look down on listening to audibles! Phew! I probably would have cared once upon a time.

@buffyp Some people will look in every dark, dusty corner until they find something to be offended about. Glad you found what you were looking for.

I use audible to read books because I need large print and majority of books are not accessible. I studied for a degree with OU with audible text book what a shame my degree was given despite me not reading a single book!! I must have it cancelled immediately.

[quote ClinkyMonkey]@buffyp Some people will look in every dark, dusty corner until they find something to be offended about. Glad you found what you were looking for.[/quote]
Glad you agree this is a dark, dusty corner.

Very dark.

WiseOwlWan Oh good, hope you enjoy it! It would be a great distraction from these trying times right now.

This isn't even an original question, it is asked daily (sometimes twice/thrice daily) on the FB book groups.
It is pure snobbery and ableist. You will have the pedants going "aha but...", but on forums like this, we are not talking about the science of the brain and how the written word is interpreted differently to the audio, it is about the enjoyment of books and stories. I sure the hell am not going to tell a blind person they are not allowed to join in the those discussion, or any other person whose disability means they access reading through Audio.

The same going for people being sniffy about e-books. People pile in with "oh no, I must turn a page to be reading" - fine for them, but don't be so dismissive of other people, FFS.

And @HuckfromScandal this has irrationally enraged me too.

And while I am at it, what do you mean "count"? - who is counting? The Book Police? Do you think someone is checking.

This section of MN is easily one of the nicest places on the internet. We have nice cosy chats about books. Please keep it that way, and stop with the judgey "I am better than you" implications of the post.

@BookWitch Hear hear!

@Bookwitch Well said!

Bookwitch has it!

I too interpreted many responses to this question as superior. There are so many benefits of literature but I need hardly spell out here, among friends. There is increasing evidence that attention spans are decreasing as we as a society spend more time scrolling social media and less time persevering with difficult novels. Let's welcome anything that counteracts that by making it possible or easier for people to access books! The vehicle is hardly the issue at hand.

I don't need anyone's permission or even reassurance here but if I've spent 50+ hours listening to an audiobook, I'm going to "count" it. In fact, I "count" it off of my Goodreads reading challenge. I had never considered that a controversial action but I shall consider it from here on in a small act of rebellion against the snobby few gatekeeping a hugely enjoyable pastime that should be available to all.

P.S. My objections to the notion that listening is a passive activity are also strong and numerous.

As the first person on this thread to call out the OP for being ableist I'd like to draw a parallel, if we're talking about whether listening is passive or not.

1% of people who listen to music can read music. Does it mean they can't understand the nuance? Not appreciate the music as much as people who can read music? No, because music only comes alive when you listen to it.

In Victorian times, people would read aloud to each other for pleasure. Did this mean they didn't have the same appreciation for the bits they didn't read?

Audiobooks are books, and listening to them is reading.

Well, I was accused of being ableist, even though I specifically said that both methods of accessing books were equally valid. I wasn't allowed to say they were different, because this was interpreted as me suggesting that somehow partially sighted people were participating in a 'lesser' way than those who were able to read text. I never said this. Never even hinted at it. Aw well, I'm off to load the dishwasher with my audiobook blaring in my ears - same as every other night of the week.

I'm shocked to see people are saying this view is ableist too? It's just a fact!
It's ableist to suggest that reading using your eyes is superior to reading using your ears. Different but equal.

So are you going to tell a blind person that they haven’t read a book then?

Did you miss the part of my post that said "eyes (or fingers)"? Braille is a thing, it's been around for ages.

It doesn't matter how you enjoy your books. Yes, some are better listened to (I won't read anything by David Sedaris, I only listen to the audiobooks because he's hilarious). Audiobooks are great. It's just not the same as reading.

I use audiobooks because I'm sight impaired. But they are used by people with a lot of other disabilities. Not everyone has the ability to hold a book or kindle. Not a passive exercise for most disabled users.