It’s like when you’re gearing up for a nice, home-cooked meal and end up with takeout instead. It’s not exactly what you expected, but you’re still getting fed, right?
Audiobooks and traditional reading both serve the ultimate goal of consuming and enjoying literature, just through different mediums. While some purists might argue that reading requires more active engagement, audiobooks offer accessibility and convenience, allowing multitaskers to absorb a story while on the go.
I’d reckon the essence is to appreciate the story’s journey, regardless of the mode of travel. But I do think it would be more honest to say you listened to it instead of read it. What’s your take?
by TheGildedHilt
49 Comments
a true *purist* must use the word CONSUME and eat the paper accordingly to put their money where their mouth is
/s
i don’t care.
its just one of those awkward common use language things.
see also your save button still being a floppy disk.
It doesn’t matter, they still got the story. Sometimes you don’t have time to sit and read but you have time to listen while multitasking, I’m not going to begrudge or judge someone for it. Reading is definitely more active, but again, I don’t think it matters too much in the end.
We have seriously got to stop doing this. Yes, advances in technology change how we consume things. Who knows, maybe in the future, we will get books beamed directly to our brains. Who cares. maybe I would be able to complete my TBR pile if that were the case.
Passively listening to an audiobook isn’t reading!!!!
Not that it is inferior but different! YOU’RE NOT READING.
If I listen to a hockey game on my headphones, I don’t say, “yay I watched the game..”
This is so infuriating to me, I am not going to type any more because I could rant on this all day.
Anyone who makes a value judgement along these lines is insufferable, and not somebody whose opinion I’m interested in.
I have a job that requires me to concentrate on words with my eyes literally all day. I don’t want to concentrate on words with my eyes any more once I’m done. But I love books. And I have a long commute. So audiobooks are a perfect solution. I have read/heard/consumed/absorbed countless books this way, and anyone who haughtily tells me I didn’t _really_ read them, frankly, can bugger off.
I suppose the same “purists” would argue that a blind person who reads using Braille didn’t really “read” the book?
Geesh
I don’t think I could honestly give any less of a shit. Reading is exercise for your mind, not for your eyes.
Why would you have any feelings about that?
It doesn’t bother me but I myself just cannot listen to audio books, they make me so sleepy. I need an actual book in my hands and not even an e-book but a book, otherwise it’s not a book at all.
They did read the book?
If someone says they read a book I don’t ask how they did it. If they say they listened to it I’ll ask the same as I would if they say they read it…. ‘did they enjoy it?’
> But I do think it would be more honest to say you listened to it instead of read it. What’s your take?
Who cares? Not me.
I am kinda on the fence about this one. As I speak/read/understand only English, I wonder if other languages differentiate between reading the old fashioned way and consuming the same information in an audio format.
I mostly don’t care, but apparently there are people who listen to the books on 2x/3x the usual speed and I just don’t understand how they can take it in properly. I’d still never say that to someone who does it unless they directly asked me the question, because it’s none of my business
Has there ever been a study that says physically reading a book is better than listening to one?
I so genuinely don’t understand why anyone cares about how other people read
No one is lying by saying they read a book just because they used an audiobook, it’s the same exact story just in a different medium
Arguing that audiobooks don’t count or whatever is such a ridiculous argument based in ableism and valuing a hobby based on how difficult it is instead of literally any other aspect of it
No one is deceiving you and frankly it shouldn’t matter to you because it doesn’t affect you in any capacity
Edit: lmao sorry I got a bit heated I’m just getting a bit sick of seeing people shit on audiobooks haha
Y’all are gonna flip your shit when you find out wealthy Victorians actually paid people to read books to them and write letters they dictated.
Apart from anything else, the attitude that you can only absorb a book through your eyes is ableist as hell.
The only thing I care about is if we can talk about the book. Or can we not call it a ‘book’ if it’s technically a MP3? /s
Damn, we keep moving the goalpost when it comes to gatekeeping, and it’s frankly impressive.
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson old man?
It doesn’t matter!
It doesn’t make me feel anything. Whether you read a book by reading the physical book, reading the e-book, listening to audiobook, or read it in braille with your fingers, you have consumed the content of the book, and that’s the important thing. Someone who have read the physical book can discuss what has gone on in the book with an audiobook listener.
Is this a joke? lol, nobody is this pedantic… are they?
I don’t care even a little.
If you went blind tomorrow and listened to your next TBR title, would you want your honesty called into question when you tried to jump into a book discussion?
You’re gatekeeping one of the goofiest gates.
Well, it makes me excited, because then I get to compare notes with them and ask them about directorial choices made in the audiobook. Was it read by the author? Did they do the characters’ voices? How did they handle footnotes? How is this name pronounced?
As for them specifically using the word “read” instead of “listen”, I can’t imagine what kind of person would care about that. It’s pretty common use that word to encompass audiobooks as well as printed books, anyway. I’d probably say “listen” myself, but I don’t even use audiobooks, so it doesn’t really matter what I’d say.
I ask how the narrator was and then talk about the book. If I’ve read it, compare opinions, if I haven’t, ask if I should.
How does it hurt you if someone reads an author or book you don’t like, or if someone listens to audio books instead of reading . This sub is becoming so judgemental lately.
should we bully authors if they say they are a *Writer* when in fact they are a *Typer*?
? I don’t care? As long as I get to chat about a story I like with someone, I’m happy
Why would I care?
I can’t imagine caring how other people read their books.
i truly, do not care. i will never understand this strange obsession of peoples reading habits
In a way, when you read, you are just being the voice actor for a one off audiobook.
Very bored of the “do audiobooks count as reading” debate
I’m visually impaired, if someone takes issue with me listening to books instead of reading them, I literally couldn’t care less
lol it’s like every hobby and craft community has a sect of “purists”. Probably every profession, too.
We get to pick and they get to decide that mom’s spaghetti definitely tastes better than the pizza from the brewery down the street. I don’t care, but I have laughed at friends who try to say audiobooks aren’t reading. A couple even came around + I had them listen to Good Omens. So much fun!
I think it should be respected just as much. Some people take for granted the skills built while listening to audiobooks and I think that’s a shame. It isn’t a passive experience. Auditory processing key.
Stop being a snob for no reason. This question is lame and anyone who thinks less of listeners is lame as well.
I completely understand where you’re coming from, and you make some valid points. It’s undeniable that both reading and listening to audiobooks serve the purpose of enjoying literature, albeit through different mediums.
Personally, I find there’s a significant difference in how I perceive a story depending on whether I read it or listen to it. When I’m reading, I tend to immerse myself more deeply in the narrative, visualizing the scenes vividly in my mind. This immersive experience often enhances my connection to the story and characters.
However, I acknowledge that this is purely a matter of personal preference. For some, audiobooks offer unparalleled convenience and accessibility, allowing them to enjoy literature in situations where reading might not be feasible. And ultimately, what matters most is appreciating the journey of the story, regardless of the mode of consumption.
So while I may personally prefer reading over listening to audiobooks, I fully respect and understand why others might choose differently. At the end of the day, it’s all about finding what works best for each individual.
Your first sentence is extremely condescending and completely undermines everything else you wrote.
Why in the world would I even remotely care?
So long as the words are getting into their brain, I figure it doesn’t matter how they get there.
Studies show that the brain reacts exactly the same way to reading a book as listening to a book.
If my brain can’t tell the difference then why should it matter?
I honestly do not care. It’s all the same to me. There are so many reasons why people read audiobooks: time, ability, learning style, and just preference. There’s nothing wrong with it and to me it’s no different from reading the book.
Yes, I do find it confusing that some people use the verb “read” when referring to a book they listened to … but I suspect that it’s to avoid being judged by “purists” for not being a “real” reader. If this wasn’t an issue and if we could finally retire that stupid argument people would be far less self conscious about consuming their books in audio format.
I don’t care. Stories are stories, each medium they come in has benefits and drawbacks depending on the **individual.** I’m not gonna gatekeep by implying one version is better than all others.
Humans have always loved stories, from oral-memorizing-passing on to others, through hieroglyphs and thousands of other written mediums using any number of surfaces, to acting out stories in all those permutations, now including now tv series and movies and documentaries and so on.
To a blind person, a book read out loud is just the current version of anyone reading a story out loud to anyone else, generally from a written medium, for centuries.
All that said, a friend of mine calls audio-book reading ‘ear-reading.’ She does that because it is a different experience FOR HER.
I don’t police other people’s reading habits. The story is the most important thing.
Your analogy is wrong. It’s like if someone else tells me they had dinner, and for some dumb reason in my head I automatically assume they’d cooked a complicated meal but it turns out they got takeout.
I couldn’t care less, because I don’t have a weird fixation about other people’s cooking skills. Or their testing habits either. These are things that literally do not affect me in any way
Storytelling existed for millennia before the written word. Audiobooks are infinitely more accessible than print books for many people.
How people choose to enjoy a book makes me feel zero sort of way.
Or not even audiobook but book summary in audio format 🙂
Not only will I allow people to read via audiobooks, I’ll allow them to read the room while on an audio-only telephone call, read the tea leaves without tea OR leaves being involved, and read someone like a book even if there are no words printed on them anywhere.
>It’s like when you’re gearing up for a nice, home-cooked meal and end up with takeout instead.
That quote perfectly describes how meaningless I think this is
I love my mother’s cooking. But my takeouts are absolutely amazing. A beaf burger, a chocolate cake, and a milk shake? Any time baby
“nah, but what I mean is…”
>But I do think it would be more honest to say you listened to it instead of read it.
When I remember, I say “I consumed X about of books” but in my mind they were just the same thing. It has nothing to do with honesty.
If you care, ask, “did you read it or hear it?”.