The hilariousness of this comment thread is that children first learn to read by listening to books being read to them. The more you read to your kid, the faster they become literate.
I am Anthony M. Grimaldi of JourneyManDesigns. I am very interested in collaborating with writers who require illustration & digital design to visually interpret and express their written work. Visit my portfolio at https://journeymandesigns.artstation.com/.
I can be contacted at [email protected].
How do blind people read in the sense that you are arguing with how you are diffenciating the sensory organ being used. With their eyes, or is it to a different sensory organ like touch? What is hearing if not just a different sensory organ to receive information?
Blind people can read through touch. And they can listen to audiobooks. And if you actually talk to someone who is blind they might actually inform on you on the differences. Instead of mischaracterizing their lived experience.
Most can though. I had a blind professor and I two close friends who are legally blind and all of them can read. Audiobooks are great but I don’t understand how people who don’t know how to read are being discriminated against by saying listening to audiobooks isn’t reading.
My son can read, but he has vision impairment and ataxia. Braille is out of the question. Audiobooks allow him to consume books much easier. It took him months to read 10000 leagues under the sea on his computer with the font increased.
I don't care what any of you say, if I listened to a book and someone asks if I read it, I'm not going to say "no, I listened to it." I'm going to say yes and then continue the conversation like a sane person.
There are multiple, and possibly conflicting, goals here. 1) skill acquisition; 2) accessing information; 3) appreciating art & culture. There are probably more. I’d argue that 2 & 3 are important & 1 is a means. Don’t confuse the ends & the means.
I can drive my car and listen to an audiobook, I can work while listening to an audiobook, I cannot do either while reading a book. Fundamentally different.
Doesn’t stop it from being reading. Are you going to tell a blind person listening to an audio book that they don’t know how to read and aren’t reading a book?
Why is being able to say you’re “reading” so important? If I listen to an audiobook I enjoy it or learn the same info in a different way. Imo it’s a nice modern alternative to reading that’s not inferior.
I feel sorry for your friends & family. You only half listen? FYI on brain research, you cannot half listen, your brain switches modes. So listening absolutely requires attention or you won’t comprehend it.
Reading is second nature for me just like listening. I see words and my mind reads them, just like hearing words. I have read pages and realized I was distracted and had to go back, same with an audiobook. Active attention is needed to absorb either.
I would agree 💯. I don’t have the time to physically read like I used to so I listen to books while I’m cleaning the house and driving the car etc, which allows me to enjoy so many more books than I would be able to otherwise.
Audiobooks are better than reading! You can be twice as productive! The only downside is that I have to go look up how things/names are spelled so I feel whole! 😂
That’s you. I have a dramatically different experience. Don’t belittle the experience of others just because it isn’t your own! Reading is supposed to help you expand your mind, not wall up. “Read” is developing a new meaning, just like “google” and “snowflake” have in recent years.
They are. For example, I read Christopher Paolini’s Eragon at least 3c from 2002-2005. It was a favorite & I re-read each right before a new one came out. Then…the audiobook. The narrator was wonderful (at 1.75x speed) the 5+ times I have audiobooked it in recent years. Better than my head voice.
I’m happy you’re such an avid listener. But I t wouldn’t hurt to pick up a book once in a while and try it out. People who read braille are actually reading. They also listen. Seems like you have a grudge against books because - thou doest protest too much. What’s your point. There’s more going on.
Mmm be careful. Reading isn't accessible to a lot of people. Telling them to "pick up a book once in a while" isn't really fair. Audiobooks are amazing for people who'd like to do that, but for whatever reason, can't.
If we employ your logic then there is no need for you to post your opinion in the form of text, instead you should simply say it not write it. It’s also interesting that you “sigh” using text rather than an audio imbed.
So a spontaneous poem recited by a street poet but never written down in text form can be literature? That conflicts with the dictionary definition of the word. We can all agree that the capital of France is San Diego but it doesn’t make it correct.
The audiobook is far more permanent I can rewind it. I can share it. I have a library of the stories I can read again on my phone. I think you’re trying too hard for an argument but so long as you’re having fun no worries! 🤭
If you have access to a library card, get on Libby and/or Hoopla. I have three library cards and almost unlimited access to any digital/audiobooks I want. I'm also a walker. Sometimes up to 3 hours a day (8 miles) so I listen while I walk.
Yeah. People are needlessly pedantic about whether having listened to an audiobook means you’ve read that audiobook. Whole debate is making me realize that twitter has honestly never that good to begin with.
I love to read, but my poor eyesight, even with glasses, I get horrible headaches. So I listen to my books now. It's great too because I can putter with my plants and crafts, or just recline and still enjoy literature.
I knew a short term relationship wouldn’t last because she insisted that audiobooks shouldn’t count as reading. And when I brought up Braille, she just got annoyed.
You’re not becoming literate by listening to stories….reading a book and listening are not the same nor will they ever be. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Maybe think next time before attempting an own.
The meaning of words does change over time. Think of the word snowflake, or fag. “Read” is the new way to say you consumed a book. Consumed as in read, not as in ate, or used up. It’s a new meaning and makes sense in real life convos when you’re speaking about a book to another person.
When I read I listen to my voice in my head, when I listen to audiobooks I listen to someone reading outside of my head. Is the definition of reading all about voice location. Not for me
Same hear. I give characters different voices, they are acting in my head; meaning it uses the brain differently than listening to audiobooks.
While it is not reading, there is nothing wrong with audiobooks.
Reading is defined as a cognitive process that involves decoding symbols to arrive at meaning. Reading is an active process of constructing meanings of words.
We listen to audiobooks in the car. It has opened up literacy for both me and my husband. We discuss what we listen to and have found our tastes maturing over the years.
Oh I still devour books at home, but people shouldn't devalue audiobooks as a source of literature.
I have always loved to read but at 73, with a cataract, it had become too difficult and ended with eye strain and headaches. I now read “with my ears” !
I love reading normal books but with how busy my job is it takes me weeks to finish a book. Audiobooks fix that and even give me a chance too hear it twice in a week if I feel I missed something. Some reason some people in the reading community can be real rude for something that doesn't effect them
Audio books, braille and reading are 3 different routes for the brain to access the words written by the author to appreciate their art form. They are of equal merit.
Agreed in terms of accessing artists work but audio alone doesn't develop literacy. But reading is still a fundamental skill we all need. Hearing alone doesn't develop reading. In an age of misinformation being able to read is more important than ever.
Listening isn't literacy. Enjoying a story that way is fine. But it's not literacy. You can't learn how to spell new words by listening. Illiterate people can ingest books by listening. Doesn't make them literate.
Real question: If there’s no even unconscious gatekeeping or moral superiority involved in saying audiobooks don’t count as reading, why are folks so strident about it? A belief in a slippery slope where if the meaning of a word isn’t restrictive enough, we’ll all eventually devolve into babbling?
Its not gatekeeping. Nobody is being discriminated against for thinking audiobooks isn't "reading". That's what gatekeeping is. Its discrimination.
You listen to audiobooks. Someone else is reading the book to you.
If you don't know how to read, that's being illiterate. Listening to audiobooks
Yeah, if that's how u choose to see it, just like its fair to say u didn't read the book but you did listen to the audio version.. there's nothing harmful about either viewpoint. My issue was regarding ppl accusing others of "gatekeeping". Its not causing discrimination which is what gatekeeping is.
There’s actually different categories of reading by definition, the important ones to this discussion being: A visual reader (what you’re referring to) and an aural/auditory reader. Reading simply is the act of absorbing information from written material. While reading via listening may be slower…
..it doesn’t mean the listener is absorbing anything less than a visual reader. My mother is blind and probably gets through like 3-4 books a week while I average maybe one a month. Also, the Cambridge dictionary defines reading as “the skill or activity of getting information from books”
Also if you want to get real nerdy and granular, our brains don’t even experience a difference between listening and visually reading information which means, to our neural pathways, they’re basically the same thing: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326140
Fortunately, language isn't set in stone! The point of language is to convey a message, so if you understand what was meant, the message was successfully delivered. And when words come into being, disappear, or morph, the dictionary receives an update. Such changes begin somewhere.
If someone doesn't know how to read at all but they listened to the audio version, they clearly didn't READ the book cuz they can't read. That's an opinion I & others hold & its a valid perspective. You can choose to ignore being factual & just be like "you know what I meant" & thats fine, too. But
to say that holding the literal meaning of the word "read" to be true is "gatekeeping" is simply nonsense. There's nothing harmful about either viewpoint. Its not causing discrimination which is what gatekeeping is.
And I still assert its a stupid hill to choose to die on.
Yeah, no. Everyone can interpret the word "read" in this context as they choose. Im not upset ppl see it differently. So much so that I'm accusing others of "gatekeeping". Thats literally not what THAT word means. There's no semantics argument about that. Its not gatekeeping, point blank. Again, one
could ignore that fact & stay outraged by some imaginary injustice if they choose... but, its a foolish hill to choose to die on bcuz it isn't going to undo said imaginary injustice. That's what that phrase means. To die on a hill refers to when soldiers fight a war for what they believe in.
The
I don't see how its relevant to my point. Its not gatekeeping. People are allowed to see things differently. Its literally an opinion that doesn't affect anybody, either way. You can argue whether its considered reading or not and it doesn't matter. Its the same as arguing how to pronounce .gif .
I teach braille to an elementary school student, I would disagree. Audiobooks have their value, but if you can’t read/write (with your eyes or fingers), then you are illiterate. You can be the highest thinker, but if you can’t read or write 🤷🏻♀️. Braille is literacy. It can be read & written.
Braille is reading because you are still interpreting symbols just receiving them through a different means. You could argue the phonemes of speech are similar, but you wouldn’t call hearing a lecture or having a conversation “reading.” It’s just a different activity, that’s not gatekeeping.
thank you! those of us with legit ADHD find creative ways to read all the time... audio books is one way while also reading in chunks... I need both options.
literally no one is "gate keeping literacy" in this conversation. comparing listening to sounds emitted from an audio source to actual reading from written words is just beyond stupid.
But it's not the same as reading and that's okay. It doesn't have to be. By design it isn't. There's nothing offensive about this and I don't know why people are choosing to die on this hill. Do you still consume the content? Of course. Is it the same as reading? Literally and categorically no.
Both boiling as frying is cooking food.. the outcome is cooked food, sure there is a difference but so there is with reading and listening an audio book. In the first your brain will imagine the tone of voices of characters and intonation and in the later the narrator has a huge influence.
they are both FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. let's not kid ourselves here. a fried egg, for example, is not the same as a boiled egg. yeah, they both make food hot, but their results are completely different
when I discuss books I usually don’t distinguish between reading or audio. Unless there’s an in depth conversation. BTW ! Listen! to James by P. Everett.
Totally agree. I listen to a lot of books while I am doing other stuff. I find that I really enjoy it. What I find really interesting is that if I was reading the book out loud and someone else was listening in the room we would be "reading the book together" But when listening by myself- odd!
So do you contend that blind/low vision and other print disabled people who rely on audiobooks are having an inherently inferior experience to that of people without disabilities?
Damn, I didn’t know this was so controversial. I used audiobooks (for my textbooks) in grad school. I buy the audiobook for all the books I read. Just fuck my ADHD, then.
According to most of the people on this thread, you apparently completed grad school without ever reading a word, regardless of how obviously absurd it is to think that.
I “read” a few hundred books a year on average. All of that learning and experience is part of me now. How you ingest facts and stories is irrelevant. Why does this keep coming up?
That might be too extreme, but we could use walking vs running.
Someone who takes a walk after dinner doesn’t usually call him or herself a ‘runner’ like their neighbor who runs 5Ks. Both count as doing exercise, but differently.
Also to the people in the back, spoken word stories were the OG stories, and audiobooks are a medium that can technically tell stories to almost the entire population.
I am 71. Back in my elementary school years, our school librarian “caught” my mother buying a comic book for me and reprimanded her. Mom told her that ALL reading was good. It didn’t hold with the school district. Via forced book reports, they killed my 💖 of reading for 60+ more years. Struggling
So I get your point, but I think you're associating words incorrectly. Literacy is the ability to read and write. Listening is neither while braille is in fact a form of reading so it's a false equivalence. I agree that we need to stop looking audiobooks as a medium, but this is just incorrect.
Reading books helps improve spelling. People hear new words and know how and when to use them but falter when it’s time to spell. Readers pick up new words faster and better
That's only true for some types of learners. I'm sure you know readers who are terrible at spelling. Many authors are terrible at spelling. But readers who don't read with their ears struggle with pronunciation. How many people mispronounce words because they've only seen them in print?
Honestly, as a teacher, I value students’ listening skills as much as their reading skills. And, they go hand in hand. Kids today struggle to be active listeners and this is often reflected in their reading skills.
I completely agree. I think audiobooks and reading in general are outstanding for comprehension and for success in life. The reply was much more a clarification of terms than an rebuttal of the point.
You don't have a good argument for either comprehension or language association/deciphering models in the brain. Did you actually think there are different parts that deal with language by sense used? Try researching the biological mechanisms of language/literacy/communication it will help.
The neurological rabbit hole would definitely put a twist on it, but it's important during debate, to agree on definitions of terms to reach conclusion. As it stands, OED (2023) would be noted as the primary source for definitions, which defines literacy as "the ability to read and write."
Neurological is related to nerves. Not linguistic comprehension. When agreeing on terms maybe first not get so up our own arses on ultra-defining words. Because you might not mean terms you might mean linguistic registers. The ability to read and write does not define the mechanism used.
I can see that point but wouldn't the medium itself dictate whether something is writing or speech? If we ignore definitions & its all just language then how do we determine what others mean when we receive info? And again, this isn't from a perspective of how the brain reacts, but the activity.
You are unfortunately looking at the top of the iceberg and saying a bullet makes a bigger difference than a grenade. Sure it does. But the iceberg is mostly the same as it is much more massive than the very tiny part of it you are talking about.
Nope. The medium has an impact, sure. But it is irrelevant when we consider the huge number of other factors involved in communication. You are basically looking at the construction of a car and saying if it is manual it has different wheels to an automatic. It's that stupid.
So I'm going to have to be a troll 😜 and disagree with you here. It lists listening and understanding along with reading and writing as important to literacy, but not literacy itself. It points to audiobooks being used as a tool to encourage kids to pick up books not as a replacement.
Quoting them isn't an 'interpretation. Again, a failure of understanding by directing the complaint to the wrong source, and thus a failure of literacy. If you think THEY are wrong, tell, THEM. Kids know not to direct that 'intentionally'
Literacy is finding meaning in symbols about something that is not happening in the moment. If I hand you an empty cup I am communicating that I want a drink. Object symbols are concrete symbols. Letters are abstract symbols. Both are literacy.
That's an interesting definition. So far as I'm aware literacy was either a) the ability to read and write or b) ones level of skill in a specific field. I've never heard it defined the way you have but you've piqued my interest.
Who cares about definition. The language sections of the brain are the same no matter what sense you use as an interface to that. Communication on a deeper level uses the same mechanisms. You are discussing the steering wheel to work out why petrol combusts.
See that's also a false equivalence. What I'm saying is that if we're discussing a Tesla, for example, and you believe it is an internal combustion engine and I believe it is not then our arguments, even though we may use the same words we would not be talking about the same things.
It is a fact that the occipital (visual) lobe lights up when reading both print and braille. People have learned to read braille with their lips. The brain is amazing
Oh now THAT'S cool!! I wonder then if, and I'd have to speak with a blind person to know, if the sensation of the braille itself dictates context and mood like font style does for folks who can see or if if it's all in the construct of the sentence. What an interesting topic...
Does the gamma wave that occurs in the optic nerve get triggered by braille? As it might indicate a response reaction and not a determinant in comprehension/interpretation, hence the reaction may be associative. Honestly not my area and I skim read the papers on this.
Humans communicate through symbols. Aural symbol sounds, visual symbols (print, gestures, pictures) and object symbols. If writing is communicating to another using symbols, than speech, texting, and using objects is writing.
I see your point there, but I would disagree and state that aural sounds are not writing. Those are speech. So yes, people who are illiterate can communicate and interpret, but they still can't read or write. And again, I want to be clear, that I see nothing wrong with an individual who can't.
I don’t understand why people have such a strong need to divide and subdivide and categorize everything that every other person does into little tiny boxes. WHO CARES IF SOMEONE PREFERS AUDIOBOOKS? Or digital readers?? Or paperback vs hardback?! ENJOY THE CONTENT!
Braille IS reading, but audio books are not.
It's not 'gate keeping', it's just what it is.
No disrespect for storytelling, it's been around a LOT longer than reading & writing, but it ISN'T the same thing as Braille.
I'm sorry, but blind people READING braille is not the same thing as you LISTENING to a book. No one should be telling you that listening isn't a legit way to consume books. The fact is tho, it is simply not reading by definition.
Not an accurate comparison. Reading teaches different skills than listening. Both are good. But not the same. Braille is reading with fingers, not eyes.
Exactly. Reading is about understanding and experiencing stories or information, not the medium. Audiobooks, braille, or traditional text—it's all valid. Literacy is about accessibility and connection, not arbitrary rules. Let’s celebrate every way we can engage. 📚🎧✨
Not quite, reading, whether through text, braille, or audiobooks, engages comprehension and imagination in a way that translates written language. Watching TV is more about visual and auditory storytelling. Both are valuable, but they serve different purposes. 📖📺✨
Listening to a play on the radio, ie an acted and produced play, isn’t reading, but audiobooks differ because they deliver written language through audio. Whether read visually, through braille, or heard via audiobooks, the key is engaging with the language and processing it meaningfully. 📖🎧✨
Seriously, my child is savagely dyslexic. If it weren't for audio books her learning capabilities would be limited. Sometimes it can take her an hour to get through a paragraph. Audio books are just one more example of a tool we can open peoples worlds with.
This is one of the most ridiculous, confected arguments I have ever seen. Words have meanings. What is the premise for pretending that two different words, reading and listening, mean the same thing? Is this just a pointless, manufactured culture-war?
A book is nothing but words and sentences combined into thoughts. It doesn’t matter how anyone comes to know and comprehend those those thoughts. It only matters that they do.
Literacy actually meaning reading. you can easily listen to a book but not know how to read, so yes it's not reading. I'm a fan of audio books but that's background entertainment.
Negative. Denigrating the experience as merely “entertaining” misses the whole point. The point is not the mechanics of eye-trace, it’s about engagement with ideas.
The value of audiobooks can be defended without mangling the definition of reading. There are *distinct* benefits to reading, which by definition requires interpreting symbols as language. Yes, braille counts. But audiobooks do not - they can be a great source of learning regardless.
I don't really understand the need to conflate the two. For one, audiobooks also have distinct benefits, like improving auditory processing skills, which reading does not.
As for literacy, the ability to read and write, that's knowledge-based. A blind person can learn to spell, learn grammar, build vocabulary, and read using alternative symbols like braille. And a deaf person could be fully literate but non-verbal.
Acknowledgement of limitations is not gatekeeping.
But I get it. You need the lies. So you keep them. No one else needs to hear em. No one else wants to hear em. You want to be gullible you do you booboo
Let’s discuss this from perspective you may not be aware of. As a special education teacher, I have had students who could decode words but not understand or recall what they decoded.
Some cannot hold a book. Some need movement to retain information (hard while holding a book).
Reading comprehension, interpretation, and neural connections to the literature is literacy. The visual component is one part but doesn’t negate many other important aspects.
Maybe you should operationally define both. In order to read, one must absorb, connect and understand the words. (Aka listen). This may or may not be auditory. However, some like this sticking point as a way to feel intellectually superior. So I doubt facts will help.
In good faith I'll assume maybe you are replying to the wrong person. Re-read my post, please. Nowhere did I say that reading was more beneficial than listening to audiobooks. I said both had distinct benefits. Not going to defend an argument I didn't make.
School age children spend 1-2 years tops learning to decipher the symbols and 12 years learning to understand the storyline & analysis of books and literature. The semantics on how it is consumed is purely for the purpose of those without hinderances to reading
I am FULLY literate and I LOVE audiobooks! My love of audiobooks has nothing to do with my ability to read, but everything to do with my ADHD need to do two things at once. I listen to books while I drive and do chores. Audiobooks allow me to read and experience more with my limited free time.
I'm losing my sight. I have been a voracious reader since I was 4 yrs old. I can't read the type in books anymore so I buy audio books. I'm still reading! Absorbing Information. That's what Reading IS! You Don't need EYE'S TO READ. Get Real!
Congrats on your expensive pieces of paper but that doesn’t change the definitions. Those are from the Oxford Dictionary via google. A very reliable source on the matter.
To me, thinking of language processing, it's an entirely different skillset, listening vs reading. There's no gatekeeping implied, one isn't superior to the other, they're just different. When it comes to the goal, understanding something, the difference doesn't matter, but "words mean things".
Braille is yet another skillset, which is processed in another, different way (at least the tactile version is). I'm ok with calling that "reading" since the processing also happens in the visual cortex.
If it comes to be that people start shoving all those skills into "reading", I'll deal ;).
Braille is clearly reading as the reader is directly interacting with the words without mediation/interpretation by a third party. With audiobooks, a third party does the reading and you listen to that.
By your definition, listening to a podcast is 'reading', which it clearly isn't.
Audiobooks will always be an interior experience to direct reading because of the interpolation of the third party, whose inflection, emphasis, pronunciation and characterisation will inevitably influence the interpretation of the text for the listener.
The wonderful thing about audiobooks is that they make a world of literature available to people unable to access it otherwise, either due to disability or illiteracy, but let's be honest and stop pretending that it's the same as direct reading - it isn't.
Audiobooks have another distinct disadvantage in that they can often be a far more passive experience than reading. You can't really read a book while doing something else, but many people do consume audio books while doing other things, meaning that they're not concentrating on the book.
The popularity of audiobooks has grown as our culture has become more time-pressed, rather as the popularity of food replacements like Huel have grown for the same reason. This isn't a good thing. We should be challenging a culture which says we haven't the time to read or eat properly.
Oh, and another thing, if you want to talk about literacy, let's talk about the negative impact of audiobooks on literacy.
People develop their literacy through reading and writing. We learn words, their usage, grammar, sentence construction, etc, literally through reading and seeing how it's done.
Also consider that audiobooks can be great as adaptive ways to take in a book are necessary for some of us. I can read just fine, but sitting down to enjoy a book is VERY difficult for me. I need to keep my hands busy to focus. Audiobooks are perfect for me.
When you read a book to a child that can't read, is that child now reading? Do you consider that a three year old child is reading while they are lying in bed listening to someone read aloud to them? IF NOT, an audio book CANNOT be considered true reading.
Apparently, a lot of people can not understand that words have multiple meanings and context matters. The post is attacking those putting down audiobook (AB) listeners and a bunch debate perverts pointing out that reading is verb. Catching bullets like they are the ones that look down on AB listener
Debate Perverts are people that will look at a message, interpret it so that there is an argument to be made.
Perverts because they are engaging in bad faith as their interpretation of the original post is clearly flawed creating an easy argument against a point that was never made.
Ohhh I was confused. I thought you were saying that they had an argument kink.
Now I understand you're saying that audiobook listeners are horrible scum WHO deserve to die in a fire while chewing bugs. Interesting stance, but I feel like you didn't have to go that far. We're all just people man.
Very rarely is a movie the same exact content as the book. This is about people saying you didn’t “read” a book if you listened to the audiobook, which is wrong because you consumed the content and “read” is now being used as a word for “consumed.” Consumed like read, not like ate.
I love Forrest Gump movie, really one of the best movies ever made. However the book is probably the worst book I’ve ever read, there were almost no similarities to the movie. Normally books are better but not in this case
In the 80's and 90's, I read every Stephen King ( And Bachman) book written. And I read none of them. My wife used to read them to us on trips in the car...except The Drawing of the Three...Stephen read us that one.
There are studies done as to determine the varying degrees of efficiency with which to instil knowledge and the propensity of recollecting it.
Listening, iirc, was the least effective.
It’s better than no knowledge at all, certainly, but it’s not structured and repeated sufficiently for aptitude.
*sigh* The person reading in an audiobook infuses the words with their interpretation by how they read it and then passes the info along. Braille and reading allow the person to infuse their own feelings/thoughts/experiences in the interpretation of the text without outside input.
There's clearly strongly-held opinions on both sides here, but what I don't understand is what's at stake. What does it mean to say audio books "count as" reading? What does it count towards? No-one's giving out prizes.
My niece is dyslexic and loves books. She just can't read them on paper as quickly or easily as she would like. She's been made to feel stupid by a system that prioritises transmitting information in writing. I think needing it to "count" comes from that place of hurt.
She will improve as she gets older. I have a friend who's dyslexic and she's an attorney, went to a top 10 school, passed the CA bar on her first try. She has never been held back, she's had extra time on tests, that's it. It's just practice.
It literally activated the same parts of the brain. Audiobooks are reading. Period. There is no argument to counter it. None that can be made in good faith at least
Braille if literally reading. Audio books can be listened to by those who literally can't read. I'd venture a guess and say you have never met someone who can't read or write because they never went to school.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks and read a lot of books. When recalling information from them in many cases I could not tell you if a read the books or listened to the audio book. The information is still deposited where it needs to be
I also read a lot of books and I recently figured out how to ‘do’ audiobooks without my mind wandering- now I have a lot of trouble remembering if I ‘eared’ the story or ‘eyed’ the story when remembering the book. I don’t think the difference is important, at all.
Keep your hands busy- but with a tedious/repetitive task (laundry, dishes, knitting, etc.) and putting the speed at around 1.5x (it mimics the speed ppl converse at so I’m continually engaged)
I read and listened to a bunch of PG wodehouse books last year and couldn't remember if I read or listened to a particular story. Maybe my brain translates it to written word idk, it all goes to the same place.
I always have 1 audiobook and one kindle / paper book going. By the end of the year I often forget which was which. Generally plot and overall retention is superior with audio but phrasing and text appreciation is better with written. YMMV.
This rubbish again! Many of us are super busy and listening to a book on a commute, during workouts etc. is a great way to increase the number of bks. that we consume. I read hard copy, e-copy and listen to audio depending on my situation.
Exactly, you READ the hard copy and e-copy but LISTEN to audio. The verb choice is all anyone is debating here. I haven’t seen anyone—literally—say that enjoying audiobooks themselves are bad.
Nope. Toddlers are not reading at bedtime, the parent is. Just like I've never read the story of the haunted mansion at Disney just because the narrator read out scripted lines
assuming you focused and comprehended the material within the book, be it read or listened to, the material is still consumed and you did in fact read the book directly or by proxy.
Listening to an audiobook is akin to listening to storytelling. That is the point of books. Deciphering the written word is a skill but it isn’t the point of literature. Passing on a story to others is the point. Reading is just decoding symbols. The story is the point.
Comparing braille to audio is a cop-out. Recognizing that we *listen* to audio books doesn't diminish their efficacy or enjoyment, it simply accepts reality. Come down off of your high horse
Conflating braille and audiobooks is silly, esp when the position is to defend literacy. Braille is literacy—it’s a writing system. Audiobooks aren’t, ergo not a question of literacy. They’re tremendously valuable for what they are and there’s nothing insulting in the verb ‘listen’.
Librarian here. When we read, we activate the same part of our brain that handles auditory communication. So ... yeah we hear books when we read. Audiobooks are reading.
We hear books when we read is correct but hearing alone isn't reading. If a child grew up on only audio books would they be able to "read" a newspaper put in front of them without audio?
So early literacy is multifaceted. You're talking about decodification, taking symbols and translating it into language. Wanna know how we learn decodification if the child is hearing? Sound. Children associate letters with sounds, sounds make words. Reading is just a complex audiobook
Now I don't know enough about Deaf culture or literacy to comment, but early literacy is a combination of decodification, phonetics, and conceptualizing cause and effect. Writing is just sound on paper, no different than sheet music. This argument is like you can't read music, you can only listen.
I'm talking sound symbol correspondence. If a child only ever listens. No words on a page (braille or written) Just listens. I then need them to fill in a paper form as an adult for medical treatment for instance, would they be able to do it without audio? That is my point
So not really literacy is all connected. From music to writing and physical expression. So an audio book is not in general making you more literate. Open a book YOU have to take action my reading the words and understanding the written expression italics can create a separation in between thought
My dissertation for my Masters in Ed is on L2 acquisition through listening. I 100% understand the value of listening please don't misunderstand me. All I'm saying is that "reading" taking words on a page and converting to sound and processing into words is different skill from listening alone.
Taking a pause from discussion to enjoy the fact that we have 2 different schools of thought and our education levels are evenly matched XD it's like Literary Ironman vs Linguistic Batman in here lol
I'm a linguist by profession. Language acquisition is of course multifaceted. All I'm saying is that without the visual link to the decoded sounds listening alone is not reading. It's why we teach phonics. To associate the phoneme with a word they still need to see the word!
And I got my masters degree specialized in early literacy and children's literature. Unless you're just learning to decode, it's moot.
If I read game of thrones on audio, the book club isn't going to throw me out. It only matters in theory.
This is as pointless as arguing graphic novels aren't books
I was talking with a librarian about this very topic in relation to children (under 16yo). I wondered if audiobooks for youth contributed to illiteracy and she gave me 100 reasons why it did not, including that audiobooks introduced children to reading books and expanded their vocabulary.
Audiobooks are listening, not reading. Both visual and non-visual use of symbolic patterns (visually or by touch) is reading. Otherwise, when we talk to one another we would call that "reading". We don't. Text and emails are read. Text-to-voice is listening, not reading.
It's STORYTELLING, not READING.
If it's super important to believe that you've READ a book by having it read to you by audio-book, then sure ... it's reading.
Not everyone can sit and read. Some people have work to do that keeps their hands busy but not their minds. Splitting hairs about sounds sort of classist
If anything, people insisting that listening is the same as reading are disrespecting oral storytelling.
The oral traditions go back MILLENNIA before the invention of writing ... our primitive ancestors told stories by a campfire.
People are getting offended by being associated with it?
You are free to be offended and can believe that you are a voracious reader because you listen to audio books.
But that doesn't mean that I have to censor my opinions for your sensibilities, or to accept that a passive activity is actually an active one, when it clearly isn't.
But we’re not talking about the terms we use for the experience of narrating an audiobook. We’re talking about the terms we use for the experience of reading and/or listening to it. Conflating the two doesn’t make any sense in this context.
Is anyone claiming literacy by listening to the book? They are claiming to have read the book. That isn't claiming literacy. No one is claiming to be a musician because they are listening to music. They may claim to be a music connoisseur. Your analogy doesn't stand up.
You can’t read a book and be illiterate but you can listen to one and be. And I think that’s what OP is claiming. That listening and reading are the same thing. They’re not.
For goodness sake! Stop Arguing over such a petty point!
The author wrote the words, the customer purchased those word in different forms, one of those just happens to be an audiobook! I know lots of seniors that have a difficult time reading but enjoy those authors words through and audiobook!
Excellent point! 👏🤩
The important thing is to enjoy what the author is sharing with the world. Whether you're reading it, listening to it, or tactiling it. Enjoying it and appreciating it is what counts.
Thank you for this. As an author, my work comes in three different formats—book, e-book, and audiobook. I think policing and gatekeeping this issue is ridiculous and an incredible waste of time.
People seem to be desperate for the prestige of being a 'reader' ... as though storytelling isn't THOUSANDS of year older than the written word.
Oral history was ALL we had for MOST of our time as a culture.
I drove my car today, or as I call it, 'going for a walk'.
I’d argue it’s the people who claim that listening to audiobooks is “reading” that want the prestige of being a reader. Evidently they see reading as a superior skill and so want to shift the word’s definition to include them, instead of simply being content to be an aural consumer of books.
People who are consumers of audiobooks won’t insist on being counted among ‘readers’ unless they feel that reading holds some value or confers some status greater than listening. Why not just accept that one is a proud listener of audiobooks and that this is fine in and of itself?
THIS! This conversation only started because the listeners are insecure and don't want admit they're not reading. If they don't want to read, that's fine, own it instead of trying to make them the same. It's ridiculous.
Yeah you think it's ridiculous because having multiple ways for your book to sell is advantageous. But people read books and people listen to audiobooks.
No. Not the case. If “advantageous” means financial gain, I don’t make much money as an author. Most authors don’t. I do have stories to tell, and if people want to enter into those stories, I’m glad there are different doors open to them. I hope you have a good day.
Not that I think audio books don’t count but someone else does the reading. They just do it out loud. A person actually reads the little bumps with braille.
You don’t learn how to spell & use punctuation listening to a book. You enjoy it, get a lot out of it, can go to book club & talk about it, it’s not reading. There must be a different term for acquiring info that isn’t so fraught.
Librarians? Keepers of titles in multiple formats? Got anything?
Yes, former public and RNIB librarian here. Audio is the preferred method of reading for some people, as is e-reading, Braille, large print, or standard print. Hope this helps.
So? You don't learn pronunciations while reading. You don't learn punctuation either. You see it but that doesn't mean a thing.
There is no good faith argument for claiming audiobooks aren't reading. Unless you believe comic books aren't reading too. But then I can't help your gatekeepiness
You don’t read an audiobook, you listen to it. You still consume the content, it’s not reading. Graphic novels, comics are generally print media, you read them. Media Format Types are a thing, for access. You’re talking content, not delivery. Or we’d say we read a video.
And who is gate keeping? Having multiple formats is a basic library tenet. Making as much information as possible available to as wide an audience as possible is what they do. There’s no one stopping access except the book banners.
Braille is arguably the best way for blind kids to learn all that good stuff. I don’t believe the availability of that learning process dictates what is or isn’t reading (and I appreciate your recognition that it’s a fraught term). But if you wanted to say it did, you’d need to contend with (1/5)
the fact that many blind kids who can’t effectively read print and aren’t taught braille—which sadly is a large and growing number of them—learn spelling, punctuation, etc. with screenreaders and/or text-to-speech–based apps, which of course also involves
listening to content. While many (2/5)
leaders and braille users in the blind community believe, likely quite rightly, this is simply not as effective, it’s happening and there are kids who do great. Again, I do
think the fact that screenreader/TTS use constitutes reading, certainly
according to our common (3/5)
understanding of that word, is irrespective of whether it was also used to learn mechanics. It feels especially nuts to argue that a blind/disabled person perusing, say, an unwieldy legal document isn’t *really* reading because they’re perusing it with their ears, not their eyes! I’d be more (4/5)
Of course it does; literacy is the understanding of the use of language to convey meaning and concepts. Method of consumption is irrelevant. Blind people can be professors of literature.
Literacy is literally the skill of reading and writing, and it denigrates centuries of progress in education to suggest it’s the same as just listening. Teachers work their asses off to develop literacy skills in kids.
They can write in braille or dictate to someone who will then put those words down in written form, making them an author. The definition of literacy isn’t up for negotiation. It never means listening.
Braille is not used by many people at all and is useful only to others who can read it, a very small minority in fact. Voice to text technology has enabled people to write in their spoken language (and check their spelling and grammar when re-reading), so others can read it.
Straw man argument, not valid. Reading is literacy, braille is reading with your fingers, so it is literacy. "Listening" is not included in the definition of literacy
lit·er·a·cy
/ˈlidərəsē,ˈlitrəsē/
noun
the ability to read and write.
"tests of literacy and numeracy"
Disagree. Braille requires an action. A skill. It takes ability. Now, you can also make an argument that being a “good” listener is also a skill, and I agree. Question is does listening to a book being read, impart that? Is there any science comparing comprehension??
Braille is also interpreting symbols to understand meaning without a third party, just a different kind of symbols that uses touch rather than sight. Imo listening to someone else read is not the same. But not worse if you are listening with the same focus and comprehension.
Benefits of Listening to Books
1. Vocabulary Development
Listening to well-narrated books exposes people to new words, phrases, and sentence structures, which helps expand their vocabulary.
I'm not saying that audiobooks don't have a purpose or aren't beneficial to those who listen. I'm just saying that it does stimulate the multiple neural pathways that are necessary for actually learning and to retain information. One is an active form of learning, one is passive for the most part.
And my degree was in history, though I'm not sure why that is relevant. I also taught middle school & high school, before I started my own businesses, would you like the rest of my CV?
You are speaking to reading without having studied it. This dogma is harmful to those who have differentiated abilities. I LOVE books, the smell, the texture, the look of the fonts. But…I cannot hold them for any period of time. Audiobooks let me read without focusing on pain in my hands.
Ok, have fun with your cats listening to books. We can agree to disagree. To be clear I am in no way against people acquiring information in whatever way suits them best, but I don't agree with the original premise, and your arguments do not persuade me.
Some neurodivergent students are more likely to retain information while participating in kinetic activities. You will
Become a better teacher if you understand not all students learn the same.
Holding and reading a physical book assumes the ability to see, hold, and manipulate the book. People with visual impairments, dyslexia, or physical disabilities may not have the same ease of access, making audiobooks necessary
Decoding is the neural pathway you are referencing. However, the ability to decode is a small
fraction of reading. I have used audio to teach reading while students looked at written words so they can memorize the shapes of the words (when their neural pathways can’t decode).
2. Comprehension Skills
It can improve listening comprehension, critical for overall literacy. Audiobooka teach how to process and understand spoken language.
3. Fluency and Pronunciation
Hearing proper pronunciation, tone, and rhythm in narration can help improve fluency in reading aloud and understanding the natural flow of language.
4. Engagement and Accessibility
Audiobooks are great for reluctant readers or those with dyslexia or other learning differences, providing access to stories they might struggle to decode visually.
Also, neurodivergent people who need stimulation while reading.
5. Cultural and Emotional Literacy
Listening to stories read with emotion and cultural context deepens understanding and empathy, which supports broader literacy. Autobiographies by the author are top notch!
I’m sorry you and I have different definitions. Mine is based on a degree as a reading specialist and a Master’s in Education and Learning. Phonics and character (the letters) awareness is a tiny piece. I prefer reading that is accessible to all.
Reading is reading and listening is listening. Why can’t you just admit that? Why must you be an obnoxious contrarian trying to force people to change the definitions of common words? What do you gain by insisting that listening is reading? Who is helped by this?
Hi, it’s clear you aren’t reading and comprehending what I am saying. I said I cannot argue with you as you don’t understand. Have a good day. I will take my
understanding of Reading from the experts who taught me not a troll with zero to add who keeps repeating themselves. It’s silly. 🤪
Well ... some people do, if this thread is to be believed, although I really can't understand why -- or why they're so insistent that "listening" is exactly the same as "reading."
It's not, but both are wonderful ways to enjoy storytelling, which is all that matters in this discussion.
Audio books are seldom listened to without being distracted by other activities, reading and reading via braille usually is not done while distracted by anything, especially driving. Audio books don’t improve literacy.
Yeah, no. That's not to say that ingesting information aurally is inferior to ingesting it via reading with the eyes or the hands. The difference here is that with reading either with your eyes or reading braille, you are constructing meaning from symbols. In listening, you aren't. Obviously (cont)
you construct meaning out of what you hear as well, but it's already packaged for you.
There's a reason why students don't say "I read the professor's lecture" or why none of us would say we "read" a podcast. We would say we listened, because that's different from reading. Not worse, but different.
Completely agree. I imagine people back in the day used to say the same thing about books not being a real way to transmit stories and that bards were far superior.
I think there is a valid argument for audiobooks not actually requiring your attention while both braille and text require your brain to actively process to progress.
That said, I agree. The gatekeeping is stupid. Audiobooks are super cool.
as an avid consumer of audiobooks, there's a huge requirement for your attention. you have to actively listen in order to interpret and understand the work.
it's mechanically different from visually reading in a lot of ways, but it does require attention and thought all the same
i'm constantly consuming audio entertainment of all kinds bc i have a job where my ears are unoccupied and the work is dull, and in my experience audiobooks and print books feel the same in terms of the "wait what, go back" factor
i do get what youre saying tho and i agree to some extent. i just think that the requirement to pay attention and meaningfully synthesize the information presented to you remains the same across mediums is all
again tho, def mechanically different. but similar enough imo!
Yeah I wasn't saying that if you are actually trying to fully comprehend and assimilate an author's work, that audiobooks would be any different. More that in the context of saying "I read this author", audiobooks can be very tuned out in the process of consuming them, compared to the written word.
Personally, I do think listening to audiobooks is a valid form of learning, but it is not reading (braille is). I noticed that when I started listening to audiobooks more and reading less, the quality of my writing took a hit. You don't consume an audiobook in the same way. (1/3)
You can listen to audiobooks without the book requiring all of your attention. You don't cross reference what you just read with the paragraph or chapter before to find where something was foreshadowed. You don't pause as much to think about the word choice and imagery. (2/3)
Anyway that's not to say people who need an audible component to read aren't capable of reading. Using one of those "read aloud" programs where you tab back and forth sentence by sentence does count in my opinion. (3/3)
How is the commonly understood definition of reading, which does not include listening, somehow misconstrued to be gatekeeping literacy? There are well-researched and documented benefits to reading over listening. But for those who can’t or don’t want to read, listening is great as well.
Couldn’t agree more. The argument she is making is like saying: If taking an Uber to work doesn’t count as walking, then neither does using a wheelchair! Stop gatekeeping excersise.
Neither counts as walking hun. But a person in a wheelchair gets exercise from just using the wheelchair( if it isn't electric) audiobooks are great but it isn't reading. I poison that can't read can still listen to a book but they can't read that same book.
It’s an analogy, Ubers represent audiobooks because they are convenient and technically someone else is doing the work. Wheelchairs represent braille because they both are difficult and are intended for the handicapped. Walking represents reading because they both require effort but are rewarding.
I think that the OP is arguing not against the technical definition of reading but the concept of reading? By the way, what are the benefits of actual reading over listening - I was not aware.
Reading improves focus, comprehension, and vocabulary. It allows better retention and control over pacing. Listening enables multitasking, enhances pronunciation, and offers accessibility. Reading suits deep learning, while listening is flexible and convenient. Combining both maximizes benefits.
A book is more easily referenced by use of its index or a search function if it’s an ebook. They can also be skimmed and scanned in a way an audiobook can’t, since it must be heard at the pace it is read by the narrator. The overall experience differs in many ways.
Sure makes sense. But people are suggesting that somehow the reading experience is technically superior to the listening experience but Im not sure that the studies bear that out.
It’s the people who insist listening is reading that think reading is superior—that’s why they’re so keen to redefine the word. They have an inferiority complex about the word ‘listening’. Evidently they view reading as more prestigious and want to share in that prestige.
Thanks this is reasonable. Are these results from studies or genuinely respectfully is this spit-balling? For example I cant see how reading improves vocabulary more so than listening... Both expose the consumer to the same word...
Different studies say different things. Some herald reading as marginally better.Also, the purported advantages of reading can be easily replicated by simply rewinding the audio... Ive always met the idea that reading is better than listening with incredulity...
People who listen to a book belong to the same community as those who have read a print copy. They know story, characters, language and share in discussing it. The book is part of their memory. Also true: neurologists will tell you that the two activities affect different regions of the brain.
People taking the statement literally like the never learned what a Hyperbole is. debating that Reading and Listening are in fact two different words. SMH.
I'm shocked that some are left leaning that are so combative about how interpreting anyway other than literally is wrong.
I listen to audio books almost exclusively every day all day at work while I clean my house grocery shop while I do crafts when I drive. Life is too short, and so many good 📚 I don't have time to sit around & read. So don't listen to anyone who says otherwise.
But what is the point of literacy? I’d argue that it has value because it gives you a way to record your ideas and experience ideas that others have recorded. We might be moving past the point where ideas have to be written to count.
That's fair but I never claimed superiority over those who choose to go the audiobook route. I just don't think it's reading. Did they get the same information? Sure. By listening to someone else read. Can my preschooler "read" because I read to them?
Didn't mean to imply that you did. Sorry if it came across that way. What I wonder is: why are we placing such importance on reading? As opposed to gathering information. In other words what is the "value proposition" that we use to "sell" reading?
To be *very* clear: I am *not* against reading, I love to read & I think it's a valuable skill. That said, in the US schools/parents aren't doing a good job of passing along that skill. Folks need to learn & share information, so it behoves us to respect the methods that work for them. And...
We need to find ways to encourage a love of reading and support those who are interested in learning how. It's also worth acknowledging the skills of those who don't/can't read -- I'd bet that many of them are better at "getting it" on first hearing since it is a pain to go back and relisten.
Understanding is comprehension. Literacy is the ability to actually read, though. You know.. identifying letters and stringing them together to form words. Yes, braille counts.
You can’t just change the definition of a word to fit your point in an unnecessary debate.
New found ways of using that word literacy. Right?
Cause i assume that the practice of using literacy in that manner is reserved for only those who can speak more than one language. I understand that including listening and speaking is a relatively new thing for people who have only one language.
I find the attitude of feeling superior regarding how you consumed material so weird... I'm assuming you do not speak any other language as you seem to have nothing better to do than yuck other people's yum.
The amazing thing about language is that after elementary, there is more debt to writing than just the literal definitions of what is written.
When a person says listening to audio books should be considered as having read that material... your brain goes but... listening isn't reading.
Good job!
I'm being sarcastic. Reading my response, I meant to say depth but wrote debt. But you are probably going to emphasize those small things instead of trying to understand the broader message.
Everyone who is capable of learning to read should, but let’s not lose sight that the abilities to receive, process and express information are the necessary skills & technology can accommodate for act of reading/decoding.
Y'all are getting real deep in the weeds regarding word meanings when all I'm saying is we have a word for when you don't know how to read, illiterate, and someone can be this but still listen to audiobooks. Ergo, it can't be reading.
I'm currently learning my third language, and I appreciate both the visual material and auditory material. I consider all of it reading but hey, if I can't change your mind on this.
So be it, I agree that reading and listening in the literal sense are different things.
1) Wholly concur as a lover of both. I just finished listening to Stephen Hawking’s “𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑬𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈: 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑶𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑭𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒆”
I’m not too proud to say that reading it much of the knowledge contained within its pages would have been lost on me, to say nothing of Hawking’s wit…
2)… His sense of humour rivals that of Douglas Adams. It’s still nerdy and niche but it was comforting for me in a time of hardship, particularly when we learn about antimatter and one rebellious photo generating an electron but not a positron- which would have cancelled the Universe out…
3) I was able to marvel in one more fact of the absurdity that we’re here at all.
It’s a wonderful read (or listen) for one like me who’s both scientific and philosophically inclined.
(And to try and bring it back round to the topic will probably seek out more of Hawking’s work via audiobook.)
🙂 ♥️ ⚛️
Truly, the idea that true understanding is the ability to explain complex theories to the layman and not use superfluous Jargons to excuse your poor understanding of the concept.
The meaning of literacy: Literacy is the ability to read, write, speak, and listen to effectively communicate and make sense of the world. It also includes the ability to identify, interpret, create, and compute using written and printed materials.
Reading braille is not literacy… it’s decoding symbols just like reading words on a page. Unless one can synthesize and restate accurately they are functionally illiterate.
I guess I don't really care if others count my audio books as reading or not. If I listen to an audio book, I count it as reading and what others say is irrelevant to me. If someone doesn't want to count their audio books as reading, then that's their choice I guess
My daughter reads with her dad. I cannot hold a book and screen reading hurts my eyes. I told her I listened to one of her books, she refused to discuss since I didn’t “read” it. Her loss. I love consuming audiobooks, like IV to a starving mind.
Absolutely! Reading is about the story not the deciding of characters. In the long run, it’s OK she likes fiction. I prefer the incredible stories that come from real life.
I am a very slow reader which makes reading not fun. I joined a book club and everyone accepted my listening to an audiobook because I was able to discuss the book just like they did.
I particularly liked the audiobooks read by the author.
There is an advantage to audiobooks in that you learn pronunciations of foreign words. One notable example was learning how to say Afghanistan for listening to The Kite Runner.
My boss is blind. He might also be one of the smartest, most well-read people I’ve ever met.
Screen readers are so natural to him that he has them set to insanely quick speeds. He can read through documents in a minute that might take me 10-20x that long to read with my eyes.
A conversation at the Library for the blind:
I hear you Tom, what are you listening to? “All quiet on the Western front.” Are you listening to anything Bill?
“ I sure am Tom, “ Gone Girl”
“I heard that's good.”
( voice in background) ..sshhhh!•
Comparing audiobooks to braille is an insane comparison. Literally one is still reading and one is listening. This isn’t to demission audiobooks validity it’s just not reading.
I have only audio books. I have ADHD and you aren't going to see me sit still for hours listening to my fav authors. I can do things while I listen or take notes if necessary.
genuine question, not trying to be a dick: is listening to a radio play reading? like if I sit and listen to an episode of the archers could I then tell people "I was reading the archers the other day..."?
Being well read - means interpreting symbols on a vast number in various topics.
There is a marked difference in listening, because grammar and syntax are not available to you. You may hear the word capacious, and hear it used in a sentence, but due to accents, you will not learn to spell it.
And in reading, you won't learn to pronounce words. (See also, how I and others mangled the pronunciation of 'Hermione'.) There are pluses and minuses to all modes of ingesting information.
I disagree. Understanding the etymology of a word and knowing how to use a dictionary for pronunciation brings about proper diction. My daughter was able to pronounce words I had not taught her yet because I taught her how to use phonics, dictionaries and encyclopedias. She was 7.
All you are debating is your phonetically awareness and word memory. Reading is more about comprehension of text (which can be audio) than about capacity to see words.
Your argument is one of privilege. You can see, hold a book, void of neurodivergent pathways.
Literature is available to all!
may I remind you that you don't know me, and I don't appreciate the assumption of neurotypicality from your end.
comprehension is clearly an important aspect of reading but I don't think it encompasses all of it. I could comprehend spoken sentences as a child long before I could read, for example.
Clearly your “neurodivergence “ has zero to do with phonics. Good
For you. So YOU would be void of the neurodivergence that causes this to be difficult such as ADD. Even if you have that, your argument is it
Doesn’t affect you holding a book and retaining information. So you ARE void of this.
this whole time I have just been putting examples forwards to try and figure out where the boundaries are, because I find this genuinely interesting. I have made no claims about the "worth" of reading vs listening or anything else. you're taking a very confrontational tone that feels out of place.
Listening to an audiobook is no closer to reading than listening to somebody tell you about a book. You're still imbibing the words just in a different way. You can play an audio version of War and Peace for an infant but you couldn't then say your 8 month old baby read Tolstoy.
But that's true isn't it? Showing somebody (even a baby) a book isn't the same as them reading a book. I guess I just don't understand what you're trying to say.
I disagree, and have no idea why you’d think that. I have read books that I absolutely did not totally comprehend. I’m not talking about fiction novels.
So, audio books are not reading because babies don't understand books?
Im pretty sure people listening to audio books can typically interpret what they listen to the same way you might well reading a book. Is reading on reading if you're an inattentive middle schooler because you didn't get it?
I agree that people can listen to a text being read and interpret it. Is that the same as them reading a book? No. I'm not saying that if you choose to listen to an audiobook you are doing something worse than if you chose to read it, but you are doing something different.
Enjoy being weirdly caught up on this because it's just easier to say "I read this book" than "I listened to this book" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. If a blind person listens to audio descriptions of a broadcast they can say the "saw" it. It's how language has always been used.
It's just semantics. You absorbed the same exact story through the same exact words. You may not be saying audiobooks are worse than actual reading with your eyes, but many people are. Focusing on the word "reading" too much gives support to those who think audiobooks are inferior.
That’s inaccurate. You are boiling literature down to simple story telling as if the words the author chooses and the cadence of their language are irrelevant. Symbolism, allusion, foreshadowing, irony, imagery all lost to the interpreter’s limitations, not the author’s intentions…
I have to travel alot and I have "read" listened to
Dozens and dozens of great books I would have not necessarily gotten to experience otherwise because of time.
Why are we still talking about this? They’re *different* activities toward the same end. If one person reads the pages of a book and another listens to an audiobook, both what happened in the plot. But only one person read. When I listen to a CD it doesn’t mean I read the lyrics.
I’m not failing to see that other means of receiving information allow you to understand the material. Their understanding just didn’t come through reading. Like????
In the context of listening to an audiobook of that book. If you aren't being a debate pervert you wouldn't normally make the distinction to even mention you only listened to an audiobook of it.
the two sides of this issue seem to be those who WOULD make that distinction vs. those who WOULD NOT. you just cannot believe that one of those sides actually exists
The problem with this idea is when a child has a learning difference. If they require an accommodation (listening to an audiobook vs reading a book) and then have to complete an assignment about it, do they lose points because they “didn’t really read it”?
i think reading is a visual activity. reading is seeing words and knowing what they are and mean. not that deep. i see someone with a book, i say "that person is reading." someone is listening to an audiobook, i say "that person is listening to an audiobook."
i see someone reading braille, i say "that person is reading braille." like, they're all getting the same information i don't see any need to say that each person is DOING the same thing because they are not. 3 different actions. Hello
idk what you think my argument is. "words accessed via sight" and "words accessed via hearing" are not different. they're the same words. "seeing" and "hearing" are different. They're different actions. much like "reading" and "listening." the metaphor you're using doesn't relate because--
The point is that saying someone has not “read” a book but has instead “listened to” a book is pedantic. If someone asks if you’ve read LOTR, it’s because they want to talk about it. It doesn’t matter if it was a paperback or an audiobook—Aragorn is the same guy.
I read text out loud to understand them, which makes listening a requisite for me to understand written text. Reading, by definition, is understanding the meaning of written symbols thru sight or touch. So, is how I consume text not considered reading?
Comments
I can be contacted at [email protected].
Do you tell him that he knows how to read?
I think deliberately setting out to misunderstand that is a skill in itself but not a very useful one.
While it is not reading, there is nothing wrong with audiobooks.
You don’t read an audiobook, you listen to it.
Audio books increasingly count as reading, as do large print books and e-books where you can enlarge the print.
Oh I still devour books at home, but people shouldn't devalue audiobooks as a source of literature.
If that's your preference, listen to your heart's content.
But it's not reading. There's no moral superiority here, read or listen.
The braille analogy kind makes me feel weird too.
See how simple that is, and not weird?
You listen to audiobooks. Someone else is reading the book to you.
If you don't know how to read, that's being illiterate. Listening to audiobooks
Its really fkn weird that ppl who are supposedly literate are arguing about the meaning of the word, "reading", "literate/illiterate, &
And its a really stupid hill to want to die on.
And I still assert its a stupid hill to choose to die on.
The
This is a false equivalency
Some people need to get a f****** life. 🤣
What bothers me are the names: Kindle, Fire. Those are book-burning names, in this context.
cycling is the same as walking and Boiling is the same as frying
though, you could make an argument against boiling and frying. they're two different things that achieve two different results
Reading is being at the concert.
Someone who takes a walk after dinner doesn’t usually call him or herself a ‘runner’ like their neighbor who runs 5Ks. Both count as doing exercise, but differently.
https://literacytrust.org.uk/information/what-is-literacy/
Reading, writing, listening, and understanding is literacy.
And that's the opposite of understanding--directing it at a person who pointed it out instead of the national organizations.
It's not 'gate keeping', it's just what it is.
No disrespect for storytelling, it's been around a LOT longer than reading & writing, but it ISN'T the same thing as Braille.
The information is processed via the body's auditory system, just like listening to a play on the radio.
So is listening to a play on the radio also reading?
There is a script which is written text.
This is then read out for the listener to hear & take in.
It's literally the exact same process used with audiobooks.
Acknowledgement of limitations is not gatekeeping.
But I get it. You need the lies. So you keep them. No one else needs to hear em. No one else wants to hear em. You want to be gullible you do you booboo
Some cannot hold a book. Some need movement to retain information (hard while holding a book).
You can be partially, even mostly literate, but never fully without having learned to read.
I'll wait. (Because you can't find the evidence that doesn't exist)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/friendly-interest/201812/why-listening-book-is-not-the-same-reading-it
I even managed to get 2 PHD's without either of them 😎
If it comes to be that people start shoving all those skills into "reading", I'll deal ;).
By your definition, listening to a podcast is 'reading', which it clearly isn't.
People develop their literacy through reading and writing. We learn words, their usage, grammar, sentence construction, etc, literally through reading and seeing how it's done.
::Sigh::
Perverts because they are engaging in bad faith as their interpretation of the original post is clearly flawed creating an easy argument against a point that was never made.
Now I understand you're saying that audiobook listeners are horrible scum WHO deserve to die in a fire while chewing bugs. Interesting stance, but I feel like you didn't have to go that far. We're all just people man.
Listening, iirc, was the least effective.
It’s better than no knowledge at all, certainly, but it’s not structured and repeated sufficiently for aptitude.
Please point me at the studies because I genuinely think that’s interesting.
Someone who can sight-read music - does their brain experience sheet music the same way they experience listening to the same piece?
Now…I’d love to see the study repeated with sheet music vs listening to music. How broadly does this parallel apply?
It starts with ‘listening is reading.’
It ends with ‘war is peace.’
Now I’m gonna go read Kubelik's 1967 recording of Mahler’s 1st symphony. 🤷🏻♂️
Comparing braille to audio is a cop-out. Recognizing that we *listen* to audio books doesn't diminish their efficacy or enjoyment, it simply accepts reality. Come down off of your high horse
If I read game of thrones on audio, the book club isn't going to throw me out. It only matters in theory.
This is as pointless as arguing graphic novels aren't books
This is not confusing.
If it's super important to believe that you've READ a book by having it read to you by audio-book, then sure ... it's reading.
The oral traditions go back MILLENNIA before the invention of writing ... our primitive ancestors told stories by a campfire.
People are getting offended by being associated with it?
But that doesn't mean that I have to censor my opinions for your sensibilities, or to accept that a passive activity is actually an active one, when it clearly isn't.
They are LITERALLY telling a story.
I cannot believe we are here to argue now about the definition of literacy.
Yes, I used internet as a verb.
The author wrote the words, the customer purchased those word in different forms, one of those just happens to be an audiobook! I know lots of seniors that have a difficult time reading but enjoy those authors words through and audiobook!
The important thing is to enjoy what the author is sharing with the world. Whether you're reading it, listening to it, or tactiling it. Enjoying it and appreciating it is what counts.
Oral history was ALL we had for MOST of our time as a culture.
I drove my car today, or as I call it, 'going for a walk'.
Librarians? Keepers of titles in multiple formats? Got anything?
There is no good faith argument for claiming audiobooks aren't reading. Unless you believe comic books aren't reading too. But then I can't help your gatekeepiness
You don’t read an audiobook, you listen to it. You still consume the content, it’s not reading. Graphic novels, comics are generally print media, you read them. Media Format Types are a thing, for access. You’re talking content, not delivery. Or we’d say we read a video.
Comics, chapter books, picture books audio books web pages, signs on the side of the road. Are ALL reading.
I dosent hab two bee purrfeck too coont ass reeding.
Stop gatekeeping
Maybe you should read an audiobook on gatekeeping real fast to learn what you're clearly avoiding.
Or on phantasms? Entitlement? General sassy hissy-fitness?
listening to content. While many (2/5)
think the fact that screenreader/TTS use constitutes reading, certainly
according to our common (3/5)
I get it. But personal feelings doesn't trump science.
lit·er·a·cy
/ˈlidərəsē,ˈlitrəsē/
noun
the ability to read and write.
"tests of literacy and numeracy"
I taught reading.
Benefits of Listening to Books
1. Vocabulary Development
Listening to well-narrated books exposes people to new words, phrases, and sentence structures, which helps expand their vocabulary.
Become a better teacher if you understand not all students learn the same.
fraction of reading. I have used audio to teach reading while students looked at written words so they can memorize the shapes of the words (when their neural pathways can’t decode).
It can improve listening comprehension, critical for overall literacy. Audiobooka teach how to process and understand spoken language.
Hearing proper pronunciation, tone, and rhythm in narration can help improve fluency in reading aloud and understanding the natural flow of language.
Audiobooks are great for reluctant readers or those with dyslexia or other learning differences, providing access to stories they might struggle to decode visually.
Also, neurodivergent people who need stimulation while reading.
And disabled who can’t hold a book.
5. Cultural and Emotional Literacy
Listening to stories read with emotion and cultural context deepens understanding and empathy, which supports broader literacy. Autobiographies by the author are top notch!
understanding of Reading from the experts who taught me not a troll with zero to add who keeps repeating themselves. It’s silly. 🤪
It's not, but both are wonderful ways to enjoy storytelling, which is all that matters in this discussion.
That is just fact
I listen to audio books too
There's a reason why students don't say "I read the professor's lecture" or why none of us would say we "read" a podcast. We would say we listened, because that's different from reading. Not worse, but different.
The method of the
story getting into
your head seems unimportant.
I prefer to read as I skip all over the place and re read.
I've read 3 books on Henry Ford at
the same time, complete with contradictions to each other.
That said, I agree. The gatekeeping is stupid. Audiobooks are super cool.
it's mechanically different from visually reading in a lot of ways, but it does require attention and thought all the same
(this might be bc i have adhd tho)
again tho, def mechanically different. but similar enough imo!
yeah i agree with that
No paper, no ink, that’s not a real book and you can’t read it, not really! You can only eread it!
https://www.techlearning.com/news/listen-without-guilt-audiobooks-offer-similar-comprehension-as-reading
I need to leave this stupid thread on this note. Before I gouge out my eyes and pierce my eardrums.
If audiobooks aren't reading, then driving an automatic isn't really driving.
The tone and inflection is super important as you say.
I'm having a hard time listening to the re-recordings of Terry Pratchetts books for example.
I'm shocked that some are left leaning that are so combative about how interpreting anyway other than literally is wrong.
Nothing wrong with that.
Anybody can look at the words, but it doesn't mean they understand either.
If a person can discuss what they read/listen to, then they are literate enough for that material.
You can’t just change the definition of a word to fit your point in an unnecessary debate.
Why do you suppose they ask you what's your literacy in language A, B, C
And expect you to answer. I can speak/translate/write/read language A.
Cause i assume that the practice of using literacy in that manner is reserved for only those who can speak more than one language. I understand that including listening and speaking is a relatively new thing for people who have only one language.
When a person says listening to audio books should be considered as having read that material... your brain goes but... listening isn't reading.
Good job!
Everyone who is capable of learning to read should, but let’s not lose sight that the abilities to receive, process and express information are the necessary skills & technology can accommodate for act of reading/decoding.
You do not have to say listeners are lazy readers to say that when you think listening to Audiobooks cannot be considered reading.
So be it, I agree that reading and listening in the literal sense are different things.
I’m not too proud to say that reading it much of the knowledge contained within its pages would have been lost on me, to say nothing of Hawking’s wit…
It’s a wonderful read (or listen) for one like me who’s both scientific and philosophically inclined.
(And to try and bring it back round to the topic will probably seek out more of Hawking’s work via audiobook.)
🙂 ♥️ ⚛️
🤷♀️
Braille is reading with
fingers
Books are reading with eyes
It could be by mouth. It could be through IV, as long as it’s done one is nourished.
To parse the mode is to rob one of the inevitable outcome, which is literary enrichment (not eyeball exercise).
I particularly liked the audiobooks read by the author.
Screen readers are so natural to him that he has them set to insanely quick speeds. He can read through documents in a minute that might take me 10-20x that long to read with my eyes.
Gatekeeping is dumb.
Nothing wrong with that.
I hear you Tom, what are you listening to? “All quiet on the Western front.” Are you listening to anything Bill?
“ I sure am Tom, “ Gone Girl”
“I heard that's good.”
( voice in background) ..sshhhh!•
There is a marked difference in listening, because grammar and syntax are not available to you. You may hear the word capacious, and hear it used in a sentence, but due to accents, you will not learn to spell it.
Your argument is one of privilege. You can see, hold a book, void of neurodivergent pathways.
Literature is available to all!
comprehension is clearly an important aspect of reading but I don't think it encompasses all of it. I could comprehend spoken sentences as a child long before I could read, for example.
What value is the written word if it Cannot be understood? While decoding has value, the absorption of language is far more important than how.
For you. So YOU would be void of the neurodivergence that causes this to be difficult such as ADD. Even if you have that, your argument is it
Doesn’t affect you holding a book and retaining information. So you ARE void of this.
That sir is your argument. You are fighting made-up ideas in your head.
So, between the understanding of someone being told to stop.
And someone who was shown a sign to stop.
To be continued...
In English, saying "Reading" is synonymous with having understood the material.
You could be pedantic and point out that reading is a verb.
Im pretty sure people listening to audio books can typically interpret what they listen to the same way you might well reading a book. Is reading on reading if you're an inattentive middle schooler because you didn't get it?
Dozens and dozens of great books I would have not necessarily gotten to experience otherwise because of time.
Failing to see it is just you being cheeky.
🙄
You don’t construct meaning with your eyes. Or ears. Or fingers.
Reading is in the brain.
If you bike past a beautiful lake and someone else jogs past the beautiful lake, do you enjoy the same lake?
Comprehension happens in the mind no matter how the language enters.