Do you count listening to an audiobook as reading?

[Sidebeforeself]

Honestly not being a book snob here. But Ive realised all those Insta book feeds that talk about having read “ 30 books in 2 months” etc include listening to an audiobook. I dont count that as reading. It’s just as valid ..but it’s not the same . I would say Ive read X books and listened to Y. Not sure why it matters to me but it does!

That's not what decipher means

I love that I can whip through audiobooks and benefit from losing myself in a good story, whereas I only really read my book at night and only manage a few pages before I fall asleep.
Both are valuable but quite different.
I tend to remember the books I've read more than the ones I've listened to.
I will choose the book version of something I really want to devour as I think I get more from it.
I'm also moving back to reading more physical books rather than my Kindle as I find the whole process more fulfilling.

Some books are wonderful in audio - Michele Obama reading her own book and some work really well in audio e.g. when there are lots of different characters read by different people.
It's great there are so many ways to 'read' books these days.

When you listen to an audiobook your experience is coloured by the way the narrator reads. This may enhance or diminish your enjoyment and understanding but either way, it's a totally different experience to reading, when it's just you and the author. One isn't inherently better or worse than the other but they are very different things.

What if it's narrated by the author? I suppose that would still be the text + narrator + me rather than just the text + me. But arguably if I listened to, say, Trainspotting narrated by Irvine Welsh, am I (an English woman) arguably "closer" to the authentic reading of the text than if I read it myself in my head?

Reading requires you to be able to decode the words. Luckily, I became quite proficient at that at age 4 and no longer need to show how good I am at it, so I consider listening to an audiobook and absorbing the content of the book to be the same. If you're still working on phonics then I can see why you might feel extra proud of yourself for reading the paper copy of the book.

No. Nothing wrong with listening to audiobooks, but it's not reading.

You can be as patronising as you choose, but reading and listening, in the context of literary works, are different activities. I don't do audio books because I lack the requisite skills, not because I need to practice decoding symbols

You said in an earlier post that "Reading is a specific activity done with eyes or fingers, not with ears".

Did you mean braille?

Even if you didn't, do you consider taking in a book via braille to be "reading"?

The average book is 300-350 pages. That's less than 2 hours a day for me.
I have no idea if thats "normal" but most people I talk to about books are reading a similar amount.

Studies have shown that audiobooks and print books have the same impact on the brain, so you're free to think what you want. Horrifyingly, many authors use speech-to-text, and nearly all of them type rather than handwrite, so I suppose by your definition, they're not writers either.

Don't be silly, you can't just feel a book and call it reading. Feeling and seeing are different activities.

But do you "read braille"? RNIB says yes!

Yes, that’s about three times the speed of most people. Average is about 40 pages an hour. You and your friends are unusual.

I meant 2 hours a day for 2 days, I read about 100 pages per hour, but wasn't aware that was particularly fast!

Yes of course. A lot of books I read in multiple formats.

I think it's the people who call listening to an audiobook reading who are being precious, as if they consider listening less than reading somehow.

It doesn't matter which you do, it doesn't matter how you take the info in, neither is better than the other. But reading and listening are different things.

A really good reader can make all the difference to an audiobook. The Phyllida Nash recordings of Georgette Heyer novels, for instance.

No I don’t count listening as reading. There’s plenty of evidence more to show that our brains process information differently, depending on the medium of delivery. But I don’t necessarily think it’s an issue. I would differentiate: if someone asked ‘have you read xyz book?’ I’d say ‘no, but I listened to it.’ And we’d accept that we might have responded differently to the story as a result.

i think there’s also increasing evidence that screens are a different reading experience to actual paper books. I know I’ve gone off my kindle and back to paper recently, and it’s definitely more absorbing.

What kind of books? I could speed read a trashy beach read in that time but something more weighty I would want to be taking time to really reflect and absorb the writing

I tried listening to War & Peace but gave up quite quickly because it was hard to keep track of who was who. MN recommended reading it since it’s easier to check back, which I think made sense - I’ll do it at some point.

Reading the My Brilliant Friend series in Italian was definitely a different experience from reading the translations & it was especially interesting to compare the two side by side sometimes.

I think it also depends what you are reading. I tend to read a lot of fairly complex, literary works and I understand that’s easier to digest on paper. Listening is maybe better for anything lighter, for me the temptation to do something else at the same time is great and it’s easy to get distracted - with a book I sit down and focus on that alone.

I find that listening to an audiobook while doing something physical like housework, crochet or exercise makes it easier to concentrate on both things. If I’m watching something then I can only concentrate on that, I think because both eyes & ears are involved.

I know I’m not who you asked, but I would say that reading with your eyes, or using braille are both reading. I guess the distinction I’d make with audiobooks is the involvement of another person/people. I read books and I listen to audiobooks and I personally find them quite a different experience.

But I do not think one is better than the other. I don’t think painting is the same as sculpture - not better, not worse, just a different medium.

I think people are being oddly pedantic and I’d be surprised if they were quite so ridged in ordinary conversation.

Sometimes it’s relevant - you are 5 years old and the question is about your ability to read “did you read your reading book with daddy yesterday?” Etc. or you are talking to someone about the state of your eyes “How have you been getting on with your book since you got your new specs?” But the majority of the time the question is really Did you enjoy…? Can we talk about the plot of…? What did you think about the way they changed that character in the miniseries? That woman is just like the character from this book and I want to know if you can relate…? Oh, you are interested in pike fishing/the 14th C.Mongolian court/Middle Eastern politics/Long distance walking - have you read….? So it’s a bit odd to declare “No! I’ve not read any of those things!” When you have listened to an unabridged audiobook. I completely understand “no, but I did see the film” or “I’ve read the abridged version” or even at a push “only the translation” if you think they are asking about the original language version but to say “no” is a bit like making a smoothie out of a whole punnet of strawberries and then denying that you ate them.