If you listened to an audiobook, do you say you "read" it? (1 Viewer)

[Scorpius the Allfather]

You say ‘audiobook’ not wav file?

Are they wav files? I've downloaded some ebooks and they aren't wav.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That girl?

 

[saints4eva]

My vote is listening does not equal reading. Reading is active, where you digest the content in your own internal voice; listening is passive, digesting content in someone else’s voice.

Likewise vice versa, where if you read the transcript of an interview (or deposition), for example, you wouldn’t say you listened to it.

ETA: And there is nothing wrong with saying “I listened to” a book — it’s a very common activity, especially for people who spend a lot of time commuting.

I have a different take on this. There are those for whom "reading" in the strict conventional sense is not an option or possibility. I am speaking of books specifically. I have lost quite a bit of the function of my fingers and hands and turning pages is extremely difficult, nearly impossible. I have come to rely more and more on audiobook technology as a result.

I think my listening is every bit as active as someone else's reading. In fact, I often rewind to repeat a section for better understanding. To me that's just like re-reading a passage for the same reason.

In the end it's just semantics but that's my 2 cents FWIW

 

[Scorpius the Allfather]

I have a different take on this. There are those for whom "reading" in the strict conventional sense is not an option or possibility. I am speaking of books specifically. I have lost quite a bit of the function of my fingers and hands and turning pages is extremely difficult, nearly impossible. I have come to rely more and more on audiobook technology as a result.

I think my listening is every bit as active as someone else's reading. In fact, I often rewind to repeat a section for better understanding. To me that's just like re-reading a passage for the same reason.

In the end it's just semantics but that's my 2 cents FWIW

Semantics are important, wars have been started over them but I would like to think that if you are unable to read then no one would care if you said that you read a book that was really an audiobook or something similar.

 

[Paul]

“Read” Chuck’s new book, “Professional Lying”, in stores now!

 

[Scorpius the Allfather]

At the end of the day, we're all supposed to say what we mean.

 

[Paul]

If it’s a traditional or e-book, I just say that I read the book.

If it’s an audiobook, then I say that I listened to the audiobook, fell asleep at the red light, and woke up in El Paso next to a shepherdess named Eartha.

 

[mjcouvi]

I listen to the Joe Rogan podcast sometimes, and he says he "reads" books when really he listens to them, and I admit that bothers me a bit. If you didn't actually READ the words in the book, I think it's misleading to say you read it. You can just say "I listened to the book" and that would be a better explanation of how you consumed content, as I see it. Reading is not the same as listening. The definitions are clear, so if you listened to a book, rather than read it, just say you listened to it.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

At the end of the day, we're all supposed to say what we mean.

And Chuck is saying that when he says he ‘read’ a book he means he consumed and hopefully digested the content
You used ‘book’ which implies a physical object (as its etymology indicates), when in reality you were describing audio 1s and 0s
Communication is a dynamic between transmission and reception

 

[Optimus Prime]

I listen to the Joe Rogan podcast sometimes, and he says he "reads" books when really he listens to them, and I admit that bothers me a bit. If you didn't actually READ the words in the book, I think it's misleading to say you read it. You can just say "I listened to the book" and that would be a better explanation of how you consumed content, as I see it. Reading is not the same as listening. The definitions are clear, so if you listened to a book, rather than read it, just say you listened to it.

I think it’s just semantics and to me it’s an unnecessary distinction

If there’s a book club and book XYZ is assigned and half the members read it and the other half listened to it the conversation and discussion about the book is no different than if they all had “read” it

 

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

If you read an actual book, did you read the book, or did you read the words on the pages of the book?

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

If someone wants to discuss a book they read with you, and you say you listened to it, it sort of changes the topic of conversation. They just wanted to discuss the contents of the book with you, not quibble over how you consumed the contents.

Just say you read it, and let the other person make their point. Don't confuse pedanticism with integrity.

 

[superchuck500]

I listen to the Joe Rogan podcast sometimes, and he says he "reads" books when really he listens to them, and I admit that bothers me a bit. If you didn't actually READ the words in the book, I think it's misleading to say you read it. You can just say "I listened to the book" and that would be a better explanation of how you consumed content, as I see it. Reading is not the same as listening. The definitions are clear, so if you listened to a book, rather than read it, just say you listened to it.

In casual conversation we often say things that aren’t literally true. But this gets to the heart of the issue, I think. Is that really “misleading”? Why is listening to a book not the same as reading it for purposes of discussing the content?

I suspect that there’s some judgment or bias underlying this idea - I sense it within my own thinking so I’m not any different. What I’m questioning is whether that judgment has merit. If it’s an empty bias, than we shouldn’t cling to it. And I can’t come up with a reason why it’s wrong to say you read a book that you listened to. Would you tell a blind person that listens to audiobooks that they “shouldn’t” say they have read them?

I get that people who read books might think reading is just more pure, requires more effort (perhaps intellectual effort), and is therefore superior. But I can’t figure out why that matters - so what? There’s no awards being given out here, just people talking about books. If you take away the same content and the thought it inspires, I don’t see a difference that warrants such judgment.

 

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

In casual conversation we often say things that aren’t literally true. But this gets to the heart of the issue, I think. Is that really “misleading”? Why is listening to a book not the same as reading it for purposes of discussing the content?

I suspect that there’s some judgment or bias underlying this idea - I sense it within my own thinking so I’m not any different. What I’m questioning is whether that judgment has merit. If it’s an empty bias, than we shouldn’t cling to it. And I can’t come up with a reason why it’s wrong to say you read a book that you listened to. Would you tell a blind person that listens to audiobooks that they “shouldn’t” say they have read them?

I get that people who read books might think reading is just more pure, requires more effort (perhaps intellectual effort), and is therefore superior. But I can’t figure out why that matters - so what? There’s no awards being given out here, just people talking about books.

Are we really talking about books, or are we typing/posting about them?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

In casual conversation we often say things that aren’t literally true. But this gets to the heart of the issue, I think. Is that really “misleading”? Why is listening to a book not the same as reading it for purposes of discussing the content?

I suspect that there’s some judgment or bias underlying this idea - I sense it within my own thinking so I’m not any different. What I’m questioning is whether that judgment has merit. If it’s an empty bias, than we shouldn’t cling to it. And I can’t come up with a reason why it’s wrong to say you read a book that you listened to. Would you tell a blind person that listens to audiobooks that they “shouldn’t” say they have read them?

I get that people who read books might think reading is just more pure, requires more effort (perhaps intellectual effort), and is therefore superior. But I can’t figure out why that matters - so what? There’s no awards being given out here, just people talking about books. If you take away the same content and the thought it inspires, I don’t see a difference that warrants such judgment.

while I'm no longer a fan of Woody Allen, i do love that the plot behind "Zelig" is about a man who physically blends in to conform to the groups around him and the triggering event was that he lied about reading Moby Dick at a dinner party
i think Norm MacDonald had a bit about lying about having read books too
i mean we used to get gold stars when we read a book when we were 5 - maybe we're continually trying to chase that high