Are books on tape still considered reading?

[Senior2315]

I have a light hearted question and I am curious how readers feel about it. I am starting to listen to books on tape for my daily hour commute, but when someone asks me the question have you ever read "insert title here" how am I to respond? Sure I listened to the whole story, but without actually reading it. Do you snub your nose at someone who listened to a book rather than put in all the labor straining your eyes?

[hazelk]

To read or listen, to me the same thing. My husband only listens as he is unable to read anymore due to a vision problem.

On long bus trips I play my walkman with tapes from my local library, it is easier than trying to juggle a book.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

when someone asks me the question have you ever read "insert title here" how am I to respond? If somebody asks that question, I would venture to guess that the true intention is to find out whether the two of you will be able to discuss the book in question or not. I would simply say yes, and maybe add that I listened to it if I feel so inclined.


Sure I listened to the whole story, but without actually reading it. Exactly. You took the information in somehow, and who gives a tiny toss about how?


Do you snub your nose at someone who listened to a book rather than put in all the labor straining your eyes?Most certainly not. I happen to read a lot faster than anyone can read a tale to me, and as a consequence I prefer the written word....thus far. My eyesight is not all that great. Nor is it getting any better and some day I may be better off listening instead. The problem is that my hearing is not all that great either, and seems to deteriorate faster than my vision. Time will tell.

All things considered maybe I don't regard listening to a book as reading but as I said, who cares about the input method as long as it works?

/Claes

[dfloyd]

since I now have to protect my eyes. Also, listening allows you to not waste the time you spend driving or doing some household tasks. And it does require an effort to listen to a book, perhaps more so than when reading. To answer your question, I would say yes, I have read it if I had only listened to to it. I get as much out of listening to a book as reading one. I have listened to some long unabridged books, including Crime & Punishment, PickWick Papers, Gone with the Wind, Don Quixote, For Whom the Bell Tolls, and many others. I have found that only the very young who have no eye problems as of yet, disparagingly treat listening as inferior to reading.

[spookymulder93]

I find that I remember more when I read it myself versus when I listen to it.

That could just be a sign of my weak attention span though lol.

[Delta40]

I think you can simply because your imagination has been swept away almost in the same manner as reading it which means you can probably discuss the book as good as the person who read it with their own inner voice.

Having said that, I seem to have a problem with people on trains 'reading' books on ipad. It actually offends me and I am not sure why....

[dfloyd]

then when you listen ..... The problem is not listening versus reading, but because you haven't developed your concentration powers.

[LMK]

I have a friend who suffers from narcolepsy which gradually grew over the years to the point where it is severe.

One of her favorite things was to read, but it was an early trigger for her, so reading in bed was fine, but she'd miss her stop if she read on the bus, for example.

She began listening to the tapes, CD's and books downloaded to her mp3 player . It took her a while before she felt comfortable saying something like, "I read that" or "I listened to that" and she uses them interchangeably.

She does tell me that a reader can blow it for her. Occasionally, she can find more than one "as read by" but says it is uncommon.

Our local library group offers a wide selection of downloadable books for check out from their web site.

I have used them on long driving trips with the family; they make for a wonderful referee from whose music to listen to and makes the drive seem less stressful for lack of bickering and boredom, but also gets some interesting conversations going at rest stops and before bed wind down.

[hazelk]

If one is ever in the convalescing mode there is nothing better that finding a nice shady or sunny spot and listen to a good book.

Also if one is confined to indoors with others and the TV is playing just sit in front with you ear-plugs in, it does work.

[spookymulder93]

then when you listen ..... The problem is not listening versus reading, but because you haven't developed your concentration powers.

That's what I was thinking too. I was contemplating getting a few audio download books, and maybe they would help me with my attention span while I'm in class.

I know I can listen to a song one time and almost remember it line for line.

[Aragorn Elessar]

Audio tapes are meant more for people with physical problems who can't read (such as blindness or other visual problems). But there's nothing stopping able people from listening to them. They relay the same information, so you'll understand it just as much as reading it, most likely, but I personally prefer to read it.

[LuggageFan]

She does tell me that a reader can blow it for her.

A reader can blow it, but can also enhance a story, IMO. Humorous fiction, especially, is one genre where I prefer to read it myself, such as Discworld. For example, I've tried watching some of the animated versions of those books, and it's just not as funny. At the same time, some genre books that are strongly plot-driven lend themselves well to audio narration.

[PeterL]

Reading and listening are very different, but for most people the end result is the same.

[Taliesin]

I think that I would like to listen to a novel in French - I can read novels in French that don't use very complicated vocabulary, but understanding the spoken word is still difficult for me - I guess that's another option why listening to a book might be a good idea.

[Modest Proposal]

then when you listen ..... The problem is not listening versus reading, but because you haven't developed your concentration powers.

Well to be perfectly fair, this is not scientifically true. Though there are no hard and fast percentages, the human mind DOES retain more of what is read then what is heard--just as it retains more of what it writes then what it reads. Can a dedicated concentrator retain a complex story through listening? Of course! But to tell someone that the discrepancy they experience is willful is not true, that the discrepancy exists is biological.

All that said, reading and/or listening are incredibly variable. One could spend any number of hours on a page of Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and not have gotten half of the things contained therein. We are constantly balancing our time, desire and mood when we read. If you skim something a little faster then others, because you want to finish the book before a lecture, that is NOT 'bad' reading versus 'good' reading, it is situating your level of commitment somewhere on a spectrum.

It's similar to the debate: how fast should I read? Well, the question really depends on your interests. To appreciate the subtleties of poetry is a delight, but so is the voracious devouring of novels for a breadth of experience. Again, it is a matter of balance.

In the same manor listening to books, though provably less absorbent, is just one more decision we make in the balancing act. Yes you can occupy the time on the bus wisely by listening to a book, but no you cannot read with a pencil handy and easily underline passages and reread--which is required for the most engaged reading. If you are blind obviously your options are limited and your ability to discern nuance and retain will incrementally flourish with practice and dedication.

[The Comedian]

If you want to "count" a book in your mental check list, then I say sure, what the heck? I'll give you a book on tape as a "read".

But if you want to talk pages, passages, quotations, study, analysis. . .then probably not.

[Delta40]

in the age of technology, do we now say 'you're alright in my ipad'?

[lyni]

I love having the choice of either reading or listening to a good book.

and now we have ereaders as well as paper books.

just enjoy whichever.

lyn

[de Renal]

Are books on tape still considered reading?

No.

Personally, I don't like the idea of "listening to the "books"".
It's great to hear the story, if you are travelling and have no reading possibilities, for example, BUT: if you listen, are you sure you will be able to spell it correctly later? For me it's like telling stories to the children - they are auditive at first, but eventually they have to learn how to write and read!
And, of course, writing is a way of expressing your creative side - if you can't write, listening will not help you much.
There are, of course, exceptions (illness, problems with sight, etc.), but under normal circumstances I think everyone should read, read, read!

[fetish]

Hell no!

[ladderandbucket]

I have listened to and enjoyed audio books in the past but I find it is quite a different experience to reading. I think reading words with my eyes allows a more personal interpretation than hearing someone else narrate them.
And isn't one of the joys of reading the freedom to read certain passages over and over again? Or to flick back a few pages to reread that section which has now transpired to be the pivotal moment?
I don't like having someone else decide how fast I am going to read or what emphasis is going to be put on certain words.

That said, I think it is fine to say you have 'read' a book after listening to the audio. I suspect everybody reads in a manner which is peculiar to themselves as it is.

[Fuzzy_duck]

I tried listening Neuromancer for a while. Didn't work for me. Audio books are great for learning new languages and I use them in that way quite a lot. But if I listen to a novel, I can't seem to keep up or remember details.

I guess you can say you read the books although you technically heard them, the information is in your brain after that, how it got there is less important.

Audio books can be terrific if they are done by talented people. I listened some stories by HP Lovecraft and I was tripping.

[Serena03]

It is more like second-hand reading through the readings of the speaker. However, reading is considered a visual way of comprehension which not everyone works well with. Some interpret better through auditory, so it still qualifies. But storytelling as well has been an ancient art, molding history to the best of our understanding today.

[togre]

I think the greatest strength of books on tape is at the same time their greatest weakness. When someone is reading, they are interpreting the story. Now maybe they aren't over-interpreting it with voices and sound effects, but it is happening. Which is good--it helps you understand things about the story/book. I've listened to some Shakespeare while driving and that highlights the need to make a book or play(esp. a play) alive before you can really get it. A reader begins that process.

But that is also the downside--someone else begins the interpretation. While this helps you understand things, it also makes you work and engage less to bring the words to life and grapple with them. There is also the nightmare scenario of a reader getting the interpretation wrong (ie. interpreting it differently than I would).

I would still consider someone who listened (really listened, not coexisted with the sound) to a book to have "read" or completed it. I would also urge someone not to give up actually reading whenever possible.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I feel the experience is not the same.

It's like with foreign cinema. When you're reading what's going on (the subtitles) rather than listening, you are more involved, focused and engrossed in the film and I feel you get more out of it.