Can you say to have "read" an audiobook?

mariob_1998 · Post by **mariob_1998** » June 15th, 2010, 7:10 pm

I wanted to get your opinion regarding listening to audiobooks. When you talk about a certain book, can you conscientiously say you have "read" it if you've only listened to the audiobook?

I'm personally leaning toward yes; however, it somehow does not seem the same. Would you have to clarify it was the audiobook you heard rather than the book you read?

Norton · Post by **Norton** » June 15th, 2010, 9:52 pm

Would you have to clarify it was the audiobook you heard rather than the book you read?

Nope. The way I figure, if I'm talking about the book, it's to make an observation based on having read it. Whether and in what way I've read the book is for listener to infer, if they care to. The ability to make an observation is what matters- not the medium by which I absorbed the text.

Jonathan Awesome · Post by **Jonathan Awesome** » June 16th, 2010, 12:33 am

If you pay close attention to what you are hearing there is really no difference. And even when you read a paper book you can go out of focus and miss something. That being the main criticism of audio books that I've heard. So if you've taken in the information in the book it's not important by what means you did. It's simply more concise to say you've read it than to unnecessarily explain that you didn't interpret the written letter into sounds yourself.

If we used that level of precision in saying everything we'd waste a lot of time. For instance if instead of saying something was red you spoke of it as an object possessing qualities which interact with your eyes and the light between in such a way as to produce in you the sensation of red color (that being what one means when they say something is red) you'd be using about 26 more words than you needed to in that example alone.

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » June 16th, 2010, 2:03 am

I would certainly agree if we are talking about an unabridged audiobook, as all LibriVox books are. I do not agree that listening to an abridged audiobook is remotely comparable to reading the book.

When recording Lawrence's Women in Love, which ended up as 25 hours of audio, I borrowed an abridged recording from the library. It was on four cassettes and can't have lasted longer than three hours. Not the same animal at all.

Ruth

Post by **Availle** » June 16th, 2010, 2:53 am

I guess that's why so many people distinguish between, say, the book 'Jane Eyre' and the movie 'Jane Eyre' - you can never be quite sure what's left out.

So, I general I don't care whether I'm reading the book or 'librilistening' to it. Often, I don't even remember which language I heard the story in. Which is also true if friends tell me something. In the end, the story remains, that's all.

ETA: which leads me to the question: Who does the abridging in them abridged audiobooks? I mean, how do they decide what to leave out?

Don Stirno · Post by **Don Stirno** » June 16th, 2010, 3:12 am

It depends on the circumstances, if I'm asked what I'm currently reading, I tend to say what I'm physically reading, and then say what I'm listening to as an audiobook. But if I'm just discussing an audiobook I've already listened to I tend to describe it as though I've read it. Like, Jane Eyre is one of my favourite books, but I've never opened a copy of it. I do find some people look down on audiobooks though. My ex-roommate says they're lazy and my girlfriend says its not like reading a "real" book... I disagree - I've gotten through many more books than my roomie, and if my girlfriend was doing a history degree, she'd understand how hard it is to pick up a novel after spending hours delving through dusty old monographs...

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » June 16th, 2010, 4:11 am

I would add the proviso, though, that listening is not the same as reading. When listening, you are absorbing the 'middle-man' reader's views and opinions on the characters, whether conscious or not. Invariably, it is a little like watching the movie after reading the book. The people are not likely to be as you would imagine them yourself. That was one reason why I had considerable anxieties about recording a very well-loved book like Wuthering Heights.

Ruth

Post by **annise** » June 16th, 2010, 4:14 am

You can get abridged "real" books too - when I was young (yesterday of course) my father was given a subscription to "Reader's Digest Condensed Books" which I devoured from cover to cover.

Anne

peegee · Post by **peegee** » June 16th, 2010, 5:27 am

Don Stirno wrote:... I do find some people look down on audiobooks though. My ex-roommate says they're lazy ...

Lazy! That's priceless. "I listen to audiobooks because I can't be bothered to move my eyes. And don't get me started on that page-turning business!"

Jonathan Awesome · Post by **Jonathan Awesome** » June 16th, 2010, 5:31 am

I listen to them so I can do other things at the same time like workout or go for a bike ride. That's kind of the opposite of lazy.

ExEmGe · Post by **ExEmGe** » June 16th, 2010, 11:58 am

I agree with Ruth that listening to an audiobook is not the same as reading it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worse - sometimes it's better. I, for example can never get on with Terry Pratchett but I've listened to two or three audiobooks with great pleasure. Perhaps I'm not very good at creating a character in my own mind and need the input of a good actor.

jedopi · Post by **jedopi** » June 16th, 2010, 12:55 pm

Jonathan Awesome wrote:I listen to them so I can do other things at the same time like workout or go for a bike ride. That's kind of the opposite of lazy.

I do the same thing - I stick my earphones in and start doing my housework or go for a walk or some other definitely NOT lazy chore.

I do feel that listening to an audiobook is basically the same as reading a "real" book, but sometimes you do get more of the reader's personality coming through than what the author might perhaps have wanted.

Don Stirno · Post by **Don Stirno** » June 16th, 2010, 5:16 pm

jedopi wrote:
Jonathan Awesome wrote:I listen to them so I can do other things at the same time like workout or go for a bike ride. That's kind of the opposite of lazy.
I do the same thing - I stick my earphones in and start doing my housework or go for a walk or some other definitely NOT lazy chore.

Precisely! I listen to 'em when I'm cooking, cleaning, shaving, getting the bus/tube around London, etc, so its like I'm just trying to be as efficient and absorb as much literature as possible in the time given

I find that a good reader can bring a book to life... Like there are a few books which I'd started but never got far with because I just couldn't get any real excitement out of the author's words, I was maybe reading it 'wrong' or something, but then I tried the audiobook and the reader really brought it out.

Nullifidian · Post by **Nullifidian** » June 20th, 2010, 12:46 am

As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between listening to an audiobook and reading a regular book is that if I fall asleep with an audiobook, I won't be leaving the lights blazing all night long.

Darryl · Post by **Darryl** » July 20th, 2010, 4:56 pm

Jonathan Awesome wrote:I listen to them so I can do other things at the same time like workout or go for a bike ride. That's kind of the opposite of lazy.

I listen to them because reading in a moving vehicle makes me motion sick quickly

Not to mention that driving while reading is kinda a bad idea