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!

I don’t understand the idea that “listening is passive” and being “fed” an interpretation by the narrator. When I consume a book, my enjoyment, understanding, interpretation and recollection of it are influenced by my mood, where I am at the time, whether I’m hot, cold, tired or hungry. A character that reminds me of an ex will get on my nerves. A beautiful passage on motherhood will make me weep. A violent scene will make me cringe. A good narrator may sweep me along, but a font I dislike will jar. Yes, the narrator influences my experience, but a myriad of factors influence my experience.

And perhaps pertinent to add that if I can’t concentrate, I listen to a podcast, not an audiobook. Books command the same level of attention whether on paper or in earphones (and I have been known to walk down Oxford St reading the paper version).

@Voice0fReason I completely understand that and agree but just by saying listening to an audiobook isn't technically reading doesn't come under that for me- I don't think one is better than the other, in fact I don't care how other people enjoy books at all, it's never crossed my mind until I read this thread.

If you query the point of fiction it's storytelling and storytelling in the oral tradition is as old as time. One might argue that these new fangled written book things are the lesser way of experiencing the story. In an audio version the author can impart the content in exactly the way they wanted to, or they can employ a more talented performer to give the audience a better experience. Failing that they must leave it to the reader to do their best with the print.

Who gets to decide the superior medium? The individual. Better to have experienced it one way than not at all. Live and let live. You do you.

Pedants' corner is that way >>>

Your controversial opinion is also ableist. HTH.

Listening is not that passive. I have to actively listen or my mind wanders and then i have to go back a chapter.

Some books ive listened to, they had demonstrations on EFT and guided meditations do they felt interactive more than passive!

I think reading and listening are as passive as each other, i.e. not all that passive. You're brain decodes and interprets spoken words/intonation/narrative structure or written words/narrative structure is all. And in fact your brain is probably more used to decoding spontaneously spoken words like conversation than heavily edited narration so that's extra work too.

Have a look at reader response theory which is all about how reading is not passive but is not really talking about decoding symbols. After all listening is decoding symbols too.

*your

Of course it’s reading in the sense of afterwards you can count it as a book read. The way it’s done is different but you still get the same material.

For me listening to audio is harder as I sometimes tune out so it definitely requires active attention from me.

I both read and listen to books (I listen to books when I'm running). I enjoy both and think that I have 'read' the book, whichever method I've used, I don't differentiate.

I will say that when I read a book I am often guilty of skipping or skimming lengthy descriptive passages, but when I am running I enjoy them and I feel like they enhance my surroundings (I run on country lanes and tracks, very pretty). So many books are more thoroughly 'read' by me when I am running.

This isn't so much a controversial thread as an unnecessary one - if you like reading, it is a wonderful and life enhancing to enjoy a good book. It seems to miss the entire point of literature to get hung up on how different people engage with it. Just get reading, however works for you.

OP I wonder if parents reading to their children is equally as disapproved of by you...?

Are we in year 6? Who is counting what other people read?
What snotty nonsense!

Well if you are listening you are using the auditory route, your brain still has to interrupt and understand the words . If you are reading you are using the visual route, but your brain is still having to decode the words. So really not a lot of difference. Ultimately your brain is having to decode language. I learn a language best by listening to native speakers, not be reading foreign texts (I'd almost certainly get the pronunciation wrong if I relied purely on the written word😂)

Then again I apparently can't get my grammar right in written form so...

I don't think one is automatically more worthy, just different, so the fact that listening isn't reading doesn't really matter.

I tend to fall asleep listening to audio books, so largely listen to favourites I have already read. However, there are things I've "got" when listening that passed me by when reading.

I've just finished listening to "The Thursday Murder Club" by Richard Osman. I hadn't read it before and snoozed/slept through so much that if anyone cares to pm me a clear explanation of whodunit and why I'd be grateful 😁.

Audiobooks are a godsend to people who are visually impaired. The only difference from a learning point of view, is that audio, can’t help with the incidental learning, of spelling and grammar. However, this would be difficult anyway for a partially sighted person and certainly for a severely visually impaired person.
Listening and absorbing is a skill in itself and once a person can read, I think it’s irrelevant how you access a book. For children, reading is still important but a good narrator can bring a book to life. For example, Stephen Fry and the Harry Potter books. Who cares as long as a person is enjoying books!

Audiobooks are brilliant, I never used them, but DD has dyslexia and they allow her to access the books her friends are reading. She still physically reads, but can;t always access the books her friends are talking about, so this way she’s discovered Harry Potter, His Dark Materials and other books she loves. I could read them to her, but as a tween she wants independence and to hide in her room with a book like her friends. Given her knowledge these books, she’s definitely listening and taking in the story, often far more than I do with my usual speed reading.

Have to agree “it’s not the same and it’s not as good” is just ableist, audiobooks allow you to access, read and fall in love with a story, or understand some interesting non-fiction, and learn about someone through an autobiography, which is exactly the same outcome as reading it.

Listening to an audio book is not passive if you actually want to follow the story. As someone else said I have to concentrate or go back a chapter.
I like to walk and listen to books while doing so. I count myself as having 'read' that book. I can recall it and discuss it just as if I had actually read the words myself. It is not likened to watching the film of a book, that is not the same as listening or reading. A film would be the 'highlights' of a book.

My dyslexic daughter listens to audio books and a 'friend' and a teacher told her it wasn't really reading.
I thinking enjoying books is an amazing thing. I knew people had snobbish opinions on what are good and bad books but I was shocked people care about how you read them.
Listen or read who cares!

I agreed OP. But I am biased because I usually cannot stand the voice of the person reading ...

I have been reading (and for me, re-reading) the Harry Potter series to my autistic son. He is also dyslexic and would not manage to read and understand the books for himself. It has been a pleasure to witness his enjoyment and growing enthusiasm for the stories. He has engaged with them, and asks so many questions, thinking deeply about the plot and characters.

I am a regular audio book listener and consider that I have read a book if I have either read it or listened to it. I often find my powers of concentration are better when I listen to a book now, without interruption.