If you've listened to an audiobook, do you say that you've read it?

Yes.

Yes.

I don’t listen to audiobooks, but if I did—and honestly, I’m not trying to sound “high-falutin’ ”—I would not tell people I had read the book.

Yes. I enjoy listening to audio books while driving on long trips. I will quickly admit to listening if that info is pertinent.

Curious as to why not, @Pachy ? Not judging, just wondering. When I listen to an audiobook (while driving, for example) I say that I read it, mostly due to convenience of language. When we talk about books, the delivery system is of much less importance to me than the content. My blind mother “reads” by utilizing audio books, and in the beginning would clarify that she “listened” to them, but then stopped, as it tended to divert the conversation.

I wouldn’t, mainly because of how I read and how I listen to audio books. When I read I immerse myself totally in the book. I’m somewhat aware of what’s going on around me, but not a lot. I listened to audio books when I was traveling for work, usually over an hour drive to get to the branch office I worked out of. When I drive that’s my primary focus, so I don’t retain the book quite as well.

It depends. If you’re talking with someone and they ask “Hey! Have you read This Book?” I’d respond “I listened to the audiobook,” or something. But, if I’m writing a list of all of the books I’ve read, I’d put This Book on there.

I’m a weirdo who finds listening to audiobooks much more difficult than reading. I’ve only gotten through two audiobooks, while I’ve read thousands of books in my lifetime. I have no idea why someone would think listening to the audio book wouldn’t count as reading it. SO… do blind people not read unless they use braille, which is not widely available in most of the country?

@canidmajor, good question. As a lifelong writer, I always felt that reading the written word is better for the brain than listening to it, though considering the ever-increasing amount of time these days I spend watching TV and not reading, I confess to being “slightly” hypocritical about that. I’m not against audiobooks—in fact, now that I’ve read your comment I may even try getting into them.

@keobooks: I am also much more likely to retain and enjoy a book if I’ve read it, as I sometimes get annoyed by the reader’s interpretation of where the stresses are, and a slightly different pronunciation of a word will make me nuts. But if I only have that method of enjoying a book, (as my mother does) I won’t pass on it. And your point about braille is a good one, as so many in our aging population are visually impaired by macular degeneration, and therefore really too old to effectively learn braille. My mom said it took her a long time to adjust to the listening.

As I have said before. I listen to audio books every night (often for a good part of the night) to stave off or counterbalance insomnia. I use an old-fashioned Sony Walkman (about to become obsolete), then put myself to bed, put in the ear buds and turn off the light.

My entire concentration is focused on the book. Because I actually fall asleep from time to time, I rewind and relisten to parts of the book

I find that I remember much more about a book after having listened to it rather than reading it. When I read these days, I often skip over parts.

I think audio books are often abridged so you are not getting the whole story (see what I did there?). So, although I get @keobooks‘s point about blind people, I would not say I had read the book if I had listened to an audio book. I’ve never listened to an audio book though.

@Stinley, more and more they are making unabridged audiobooks available, primarily because the visually impaired created such a demand. (Yay!) Otherwise, it would basically have been the same as a Readers Digest Condensed Book. Which I also, in most cases, would not consider reading.

No.

If I go to the theatre, I do not call that reading, either.

No because I think reading and listening are two different things. Reading implies that you have the text in front of you. To me, listening to an audiobook is like listening to spoken poetry or a speech.

Most (if not all) poets want and hope that their poetry will be spoken rather than read.

Most people do listen to speeches rather than read them (other than The Gettysburg Address.)

@gailcalled “Most (if not all) poets want and hope that their poetry will be spoken rather than read.”

Yes, but how does that affect what we call the act of taking in the words? If we read poetry, we call it “reading”. If we go to a poetry reading, we certainly don’t call that “reading”, even if the words are exactly the same.

I am not in any way disparaging listening to audio books – far from it. I think some people feel that calling this activity “reading” elevates it to respectability. I don’t think there’s any need to do that. It’s already respectable.

If I read a poem out loud, what do I call it?

A drag, man. A king-sized bust.

No, I generally say I listened to it. There are some audiobooks that I honestly prefer to reading. The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy and Harry Potter are two examples. Having these read to me by Douglas Adams and Stephen Fry is far more enjoyable to me than reading it. I also find that when listening to an audiobook since I’m not concentrating on reading my imagination runs more with the story and I can visualize stuff much better.

No, I would not say that I’ve read it, just as I do not say that I’ve read Shakespeare because I’ve seen a production of Hamlet.

That said, I find audiobooks dull as shit.

All the audio books in my local library are unabridged. I will certainly say I have read a book if I have listened to an audio book, it’s a different way of absorbing the words but the words are the same.

Most of the audio books in my very large interlibrary loan network are unabridged. I just recently listened to “A Tale of Two Cities,” having read it originally in book form when I was in high school. If asked, I would simply say that I had reread it.

An audiobook might be the same words, but listening to one is not the same as reading. Reading is active. Listening is passive.

The senses are equal opportunity employers. Listening is no less active than reading. One imagines the characters, settings and action in very similar ways. Whether I read War and Peace or listen to it, I still see Audrey Hepburn as the face of Natasha, triggered by the movie version I saw a very long time ago. The image still stands as does the sound of her voice, not speaking Russian.

No, listening is a passive activity. Or do you drive your car, check your e-mails, etc while reading a book?

@Darth_Algar : I missed where @gailcalled mentioned that she was doing other activities while she listened to (read) her audiobooks.

As wedded as you are to the idea that reading books is more active than listening to books, your premise is flawed in this case. Except for the very young users here, most of us have likely been reading from a very young age, and the process of visually processing words is so automatic now as to be passive. Because most of us have not become so used to the aural processing of words presented in book form it is much more active. Even driving we are engaged really not much more than reading at home, on the train to work, on the treadmill, etc when we must always have an awareness of our surroundings.
Simply because we can do some other activities doesn’t mean we do.

@canidmajor

That’s funny. I missed the part where I said that she was. A statement can be a general statement you know. It does not always have to be directed at a specific person (especially when no specific person is quoted or addressed).

At any rate listening is not reading, reading is not listening. It’s asinine to conflate the two and say that you’ve read a book when you’ve only listened to someone else read it.

Yes, I know you didn’t say that it was specifically about someone, coming right after her comment led me to believe you were addressing her.

Your commitment to the absolute of what you say has not missed my notice in my time on Fluther, and I’m sorry that you can never relax enough to enjoy the discussion aspects. I don’t see where anyone has said they were the same things, listening and reading, merely that they referred to having enjoyed the work as “reading”, maybe for the reasons I cited in my first couple of posts, as a convenience of language.

It is “asinine” to stand so on absolutes in the midst of a discussion on semantics.

“Absolutes”? Goddamn, I’m expressing a point of view. Same as every other person on this forum. Kinda goes back to something I’ve said before – people don’t actually have discussions to get other points-of-view, they merely want confirmation of and placid agreement with their own.