Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

I think musicians generally write music for their audiences to listen to, and authors generally write books for their audiences to read. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with reading sheet music or listening to audio books, but I'm just saying, that in most cases, that was probably not the intent of the creator of said work.

The difference between reading music and listening to music is similar to the difference between reading the word "red" and looking at the color red.

The difference between reading a book and listening to a book is similar to the difference between reading the word "red" and hearing the word "red."

 

[darscot]

I listen to audio books everyday while I drive, but I am careful not to say I have read a book I have listened to because book readers get all snobby about it.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

Some audiobooks are just better than the book. The Veronica Mars book with Kristen bell narrating significantly improved my enjoyment. I have also finished books (Feast for Crows) by reading and listening gasp.

 

[SnakeSlashRO]

How is it "reading a book" ? It's listening to a book, that's why its called an audio book.

How you consume the medium really doesn't matter though.

 

[Damerman]

This is what happens when you swap books for audio files, people.

lol that was my mistake.

 

[Goldenroad]

The difference between reading music and listening to music is similar to the difference between reading the word "red" and looking at the color red.

The difference between reading a book and listening to a book is similar to the difference between reading the word "red" and hearing the word "red."

The big difference between reading a book and listening to a both (and I do both, so again, I'm not judging), is that when reading you are ACTIVELY engaged with the material, whereas when listening you are, generally, PASSIVELY engaged with the material. I think you can gleam the same information whether listening or reading, but reading actually teaches you something about the format of writing that listening does not...if that makes sense.

Also, to speak more to your example, if you didn't ever read, you would not know the difference between the word "red" or "read" when it is spoken out of context. So maybe, that's what I'm trying to describe with my second point.

 

[Sheroking]

If "no", I don't read that much.

Listening to an audiobook while playing a game like Harvest Moon 64, or sitting in Street Fighter training mode, is a much better experience to me than simply reading.

I listen to audio books everyday while I drive, but I am careful not to say I have read a book I have listened to because book readers get all snobby about it.

Sounds like more reason to say it.

 

[darscot]

Some audiobooks are just better than the book. The Veronica Mars book with Kristen bell narrating significantly improved my enjoyment. I have also finished books (Feast for Crows) by reading and listening gasp.

I could never have read Song of Ice and Fire, they are too damn long and slow at times, trapped in a car is the only way I got through them.

 

[zoukka]

No of course it's not the same. Hearing and reading aren't the same thing. You can listen to stuff and not remember a thing. Reading like that usually results in you stopping reading and trying again later.

 

[Piecake]

Of course, the point of 'reading' is to experience a good story and/or learn new information. Listening to the book does the job just as well as reading it.

 

[Rootbeer]

reading and listening aren't the same skill, as long as people understand that the actual decoding of the symbols is a valuable skill that needs honing, especially in younger readers, then I think either method is a good way to consume the material. One way might be better than the other depending on the material in question.

 

[Alavard]

No of course it's not the same. Hearing and reading aren't the same thing.

So the blind never read books when they use braille?

 

[Husker86]

Absolutely it counts.

If you think I'm not imagining the world in my head as I'm listening to an audiobook, then you are sorely mistaken.

I've read books as well, sometimes ones in the same series, and besides the extreme convenience of audiobooks, I couldn't tell you a difference. Some that I've read (not listened), thinking back, I can actually hear in the narrator's voice (I haven't had a bad narration experience yet, thankfully).

It's all the same to my mind. Except, again, audiobooks are so much more convenient. I wouldn't have many books under my belt if I had to read them instead of listen.

 

[Conkersbadfurday]

Yes. Hell, in some ways, it's actually better. When you get a good actor that can fucking nail the emotional parts right, they hit extra hard.

 

[AkuMifune]

No of course it's not the same. Hearing and reading aren't the same thing. You can listen to stuff and not remember a thing. Reading like that usually results in you stopping reading and trying again later.

I want to be contrarian on this issue to. The way you read information and process it is different than how you listen to someone tell it to you.

Though maybe not by much.

 

[Aiii]

How is it "reading a book" ? It's listening to a book, that's why its called an audio book.

How you consume the medium really doesn't matter though.

Sending an e-mail isn't actually sending mail either, its digitally transmitting a bunch of binary through cables and routers.

It's reading a book because that's what we call it when you consume this particular media, if you get what I mean.

 

[brotherbean]

Either way, you've experienced it so I think it's a bit pedantic to argue whether or not you're truly "read" it. Of course you haven't "read" an audiobook, but you've consumed it none-the-less so whatever.

Yes. Hell, in some ways, it's actually better. When you get a good actor that can fucking nail the emotional parts right, they hit extra hard.

On this point, most of the time I really with they'd just read the damn book. I'm listening to a 28 disc reading of A Game of Thrones right now and the guy's voices for every character are killing me. I just want to be read to when I'm in the car, I don't need them t dramaticize it.

 

[Mumei]

I don't count it for myself - I'm not "reading" it - but I wouldn't begrudge someone who does.

 

[darscot]

No of course it's not the same. Hearing and reading aren't the same thing. You can listen to stuff and not remember a thing. Reading like that usually results in you stopping reading and trying again later.

Not everyones brain or memory function the same. Technically I have never really read anything in my life. I simple hear it in my head, I never read a damn thing in school, because why bother when the teacher says it and I can remember almost everything I hear and only half of what I read.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

I could never have read Song of Ice and Fire, they are too damn long and slow at times, trapped in a car is the only way I got through them.

Haha yeah especially the last 2. I love what the show is doing with them.

 

[Goldenroad]

Many authors read their own books in audio format. Some also have veto power in terms of narration.

Storytelling is thousands of year old and has been primarily an aural medium.

That was before the majority of people could read, however. I worry to a degree that we could devolve back into that society if everyone stopped reading books and just listened instead. How would people ever learn to write if they weren't able to read? Kind of a chicken and egg argument, but I still contend that the best writers probably read a lot more books than they listen to. Would you argue that point?

 

[entremet]

No of course it's not the same. Hearing and reading aren't the same thing. You can listen to stuff and not remember a thing. Reading like that usually results in you stopping reading and trying again later.

It just shows that listening skills are lacking for many.

Heck. I'd admit it took me time to get used to listening to audio books, but after doing for a while now, I prefer it since it's easier on my eyes.

 

[Fusebox]

So the blind never read books when they use braille?

Reading braille is reading. You're focused on the book. It isn't like having someone else read it out loud to you.

it counts.

If you think I'm not imagining the world in my head as I'm listening to an audiobook, then you are sorely mistaken.

Most people who are using audio books are doing it so they can do something else at the same time, their attention is split between imagining the book and managing whatever task is at hand.

 

[Lord Error]

If it doesn't count, then using Braille doesn't either.

I would say that's a false equivalency. Using braille you're still consuming the world of he book using your inner voice. That is where the difference is between reading and listening. Yes, the information is the same, but it's your inner voice vs. someone else's voice being forced on you. Imagine if someone like Mr. Bean was reading some serious matter to you - his very inflection would ruin the whole thing with every new sentence he reads to you.

 

[crooked spin]

They don't seem exactly the same to me.

It'd be interesting to have half of my book club listen to a book and the other half read the book. I have a feeling that the half that listened would be unable to retain nearly as much information as the readers.

 

[Kurita]

They're two different ways of getting the same information.
So I guess in the end they're both the same to me.

 

[LocalE]

It's listening.

 

[Piecake]

The big difference between reading a book and listening to a both (and I do both, so again, I'm not judging), is that when reading you are ACTIVELY engaged with the material, whereas when listening you are, generally, PASSIVELY engaged with the material. I think you can gleam the same information whether listening or reading, but reading actually teaches you something about the format of writing that listening does not...if that makes sense.

Also, to speak more to your example, if you didn't ever read, you would not know the difference between the word "red" or "read" when it is spoken out of context. So maybe, that's what I'm trying to describe with my second point.

Actively engaging with the material requires you to think, process, and form views and opinions on the material that you are consuming. That can be done with either listening or reading. Conversely, reading and listening can both be very passive if you are just simply reading it for the sake of reading without reflecting.

 

[timetokill]

Of course it's the same thing.

 

[Jack Scofield]

It doesn't count. Otherwise I would just close my eyes during the evening news and then tell people about all the news I've read that day.

 

[ZoronMaro]

I'm sorry, but i think thats bullshit. Investing yourself in the material is really the hard part of any novel. Try listening and engaging a highly technical audio book about a subject matter that doesn't interest you. It's not gonna happen, whether you are reading or listening.

If anything, i think i have more respect for someone who is able to fully understand and follow an audiobook. But thats from the perspective of someone who understands better from reading.

I agree that investing yourself is the hardest part, but that was why I was poo-pooing audiobooks. But I was focusing on how to actually read you need to make time for it and you usually make it the main activity. Audiobooks people usually listen to while doing other things, you're not dedicating yourself to the book the same way, unless you're actually just sitting there doing nothing but listening.

And I'll reiterate I'm only poo-pooing the idiots I know who like to think themselves as superior for "reading" (either with eyes or ears) more than me. I actually love audiobooks myself because of how much easier it makes things, and I generally don't have a problem with people saying they've "read" something via audio.

 

[| Praxis |]

Some audiobooks are just better than the book. The Veronica Mars book with Kristen bell narrating significantly improved my enjoyment. I have also finished books (Feast for Crows) by reading and listening gasp.

Definitely, American Psycho narrated by Pablo Schreiber being one.

 

[entremet]

That was before the majority of people could read, however. I worry to a degree that we could devolve back into that society if everyone stopped reading books and just listened instead. How would people ever learn to write if they weren't able to read? Kind of a chicken and egg argument, but I still contend that the best writers probably read a lot more books than they listen to. Would you argue that point?

I still read regular books. And do think sight reading is a crucial skill.

However, audiobooks allow me to read 24 more books per year. I still remember key concepts from books I listened to years ago.

 

[spectral_method]

Semantically, no. Practically, yes.

 

[Goldenroad]

Actively engaging with the material requires you to think, process, and form views and opinions on the material that you are consuming. That can be done with either listening or reading. Conversely, reading and listening can both be very passive if you are just simply reading it for the sake of reading without reflecting.

I can listen to an audio book while driving or cooking or playing a game, the same can not be said for reading. That's what I mean when I say reading is active and listening is passive.

 

[zoukka]

So the blind never read books when they use braille?

They read more intensively than seeing people do.

 

[Kurita]

I can listen to an audio book while driving or cooking or playing a game, the same can not be said for reading. That's what I mean when I say reading is active and listening is passive.

You can read while listening to music though.

 

[Aiii]

They don't seem exactly the same to me.

It'd be interesting to have half of my book club listen to a book and the other half read the book. I have a feeling that the half that listened would be unable to retain nearly as much information as the readers.

As someone pointed out before, not everyone's brain works the same.

I have a (near) auditive eidetic memory, for instance. I have a bachelor degree and I have literally studied for a test only once in my entire life, because I could remember every lecture I ever had almost word for word and learned that way instead of studying from books.

 

[wamberz1]

I can listen to an audio book while driving or cooking or playing a game, the same can not be said for reading. That's what I mean when I say reading is active and listening is passive.

But what if I sat in a chair, closed my eyes and focused on nothing else but the audiobook while giving it my full concentration. Is that still passive?

 

[TheExecutive]

You can read while listening to music though.

I can't study without listening to music.

 

[Goldenroad]

You can read while listening to music though.

Yes. Exactly. I would be actively engaged in reading, while passively engaged in listening to music. I can not however, make a quilt or play a game or do some other activity that I am actively engaged in while reading a book.

 

[Piecake]

I can listen to an audio book while driving or cooking or playing a game, the same can not be said for reading. That's what I mean when I say reading is active and listening is passive.

But that really doesnt tell you anything because what is important is how your brain consumes the material and how you think about it. Listening can be passive and so can reading. Listening to an audiobook can also be very active if you are focusing on the material, reflecting on what you are listening to, forming opinions, thinking critically, and creating long-term memories.

I mean, I certainly would disagree with someone if they said were actively engaged when they quickly read a textbook chapter just so that they said they read it

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I know a few people who always brag about recent books that they've read, but then I find out that they actually listened to the audiobook in the car. This type of distinction rubs me the wrong way for some reason. Reading a book is an active thing-it takes effort and you imagine the world in your head, and you process it in your own manner. With an audiobook, someone is reading to you-it's a passive thing and it doesn't take effort.

Depends one what you're doing. If you're "consuming" a book for some kind of critical, analysis type thing, I definitely think you'd want the text version. But if you're just "consuming" a book to get the gist of the book, audiobooks are just as good as actually reading it.

edit: This isn't to say that you can't do a "critical reading" with an audiobook. Only that I think it would be harder.

 

[shadyspace]

No. Reading is an active experience.

 

[darscot]

As someone pointed out before, not everyone's brain works the same.

I have a (near) auditive eidetic memory, for instance. I have a bachelor degree and I have literally studied for a test only once in my entire life, because I could remember every lecture I ever had almost word for word.

Is that's what its called? My whole life people have asked me, are you going to write that down, or why don't you take notes. It always seemed pointless.

 

[Xyber]

The big difference between reading a book and listening to a both (and I do both, so again, I'm not judging), is that when reading you are ACTIVELY engaged with the material, whereas when listening you are, generally, PASSIVELY engaged with the material. I think you can gleam the same information whether listening or reading, but reading actually teaches you something about the format of writing that listening does not...if that makes sense.

Also, to speak more to your example, if you didn't ever read, you would not know the difference between the word "red" or "read" when it is spoken out of context. So maybe, that's what I'm trying to describe with my second point.

Well, let's say you stumble upon a strange word you had never heard before. Then you might not know how to pronounce it instead.

But yeah, actually reading can benefit you more when it comes to learning new words. But that's really besides the point here.

 

[Kurita]

Yes. Exactly. I would be actively engaged in reading, while passively engaged in listening to music. I can not however, make a quilt or play a game or do some other activity that I am actively engaged in while reading a book.

Fair enough.

 

[| Praxis |]

I can listen to an audio book while driving or cooking or playing a game, the same can not be said for reading. That's what I mean when I say reading is active and listening is passive.

What type of games to you play whilst listening? I find, unless I'm doing a task that requires no thought I can't concentrate on the audio book. The only games I can play while listening are mmo's, and that's only when grinding. Other than that it's work or house work, anything else has a big effect on how much I absorb. I would also argue it's only a mechanical difference.

 

[Goldenroad]

But what if I sat in a chair, closed my eyes and focused on nothing else but the audiobook while giving it my full concentration. Is that still passive?

No, but again, my point wasn't that it's not possible to be actively engaged in listening (I will often sit and listen intently to music/podcasts/books), but merely that it is possible to be passively engaged in listening, while it is not possible to not be actively engaged in reading. Does that make any sense? I mean I guess you could be kind of skimming a newspaper without really reading it, but when you're sitting down reading a story, you kind of have to be doing that as your main active activity.

I hope someone understands my point here.

 

[Fusebox]

But what if I sat in a chair, closed my eyes and focused on nothing else but the audiobook while giving it my full concentration. Is that still passive?

Congrats, you've come up with the one scenario that brings the listening experience as close as it will get to the reading experience.

How many people actually do this though compared to the people who listen to their audiobooks while engaged in other tasks?