Ask Lemmy

Reading a long book is just a matter of how much free time one has. Its not really an impressive accomplishment, however if you struggle at reading I could see it being a goal of sorts for yourself.

writing a book would be a recognizable feat. Writing a great book is a big accomplishment.

That said, if youre comparing, reading the book to me is better for comprehension than listening but thats different for us all.

Bonus points for doing both simultaneously.

I don't know how much of an accomplishment reading a very long work of fiction is but if the reader and the listener ended up with similar levels of comprehension I'd say that reading and listening are the same.

Ingesting information is ingesting information. For most of human history stories were oral tradition rather than written. Accessibility is also a factor. Not everyone can physically read, nor can everyone listen to an audiobook or podcast. Both are valid options.

I’m impressed by anyone who can get through heavy, old literature without falling asleep no matter which format they choose though lol

If two people are standing in front of me, one read the book, the other listened to it, if both of those people know what happened in the book and can discuss it with comprehension, I'd be unable to tell which one read and which one listened. So, does it really matter? Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

One of my kid's schools had a wild debate about this for their yearly charity "Readathon." The kids get sponsors to sign up to pledge the amount of money they will donate for each book the kid reads during the readathon. Parents are expected to sign off that their kid really did the reading for all the books they put on their sheet. Other than that its on the honor system. They've been doing it for 60+ years.

The kids don't get any prizes but they do get certificates of recognition for various levels of achievement. It came up this year, that some parents count audiobooks and others don't. They have been doing it like this for ome years now but it was never discussed before. The rules don't say anything about audiobooks but they were written back when audiobooks weren't common.

We had some seriously intense discussions in the Parents Charter (the name for our PTA) and lots of people have strong feelings about this! In the end the agreement was that transparency is best so the form has been updated with one side for audiobooks and one side for books. For purpose of donation they are counted the same.

A lot of people have already weighed in, but allow me to give my opinion as a blind person very familiar with debates about what media a work is consumed in.

Most blind people today do not know braille and rely on text to speech to consume written material if they can't use magnification. Braille is bulky. A braille bible takes up a shelf, and an encyclopedia (I was shocked to learn they exist) takes up an entire wall or more.

Braille is also expensive. A Perkins brailler, a typewriter used for writing braille, is north of $600 last I checked, and a refreshable braille display, a text terminal for reading computer output, costs at least $1500, and usually double that.

Last, braille is slow. I've heard conflicting claims about top reading speeds, but it seems the absolute peak just about hits the lower bound of a literate print reader.

Taking all these points together, it can be easy to see why many argue braille is dead. Audio in the form of text to speech is easier to produce, faster to consume, and only requires software.

Where this intersects with the question at hand, whether listening is the same as reading, is that reading braille activates the same regions of the brain as reading print, while audio does not.

Having said all that, I primarily use audio via text to speech for long texts, and magnification for shorter stuff. Braille was my first literacy medium, but my school pivoted to print when I was in third grade because I was struggling. Braille can be a tactile sensory nightmare if you're sensitive to that sort of thing, and I absolutely am. It also involves more physical movement, of the hands and arms, compared to reading with the eyes. I do still try to read braille now and then, but I'm painfully slow. Currently working my way through The Hobbit, and can only manage a page or two per session.

I see it like jogging and cycling. Both good ways to get exercise, both good for you, and both can get you to the same place, but in the end they are two different ways to do it and each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I feel like there’s an analytical factor that comes with reading that doesn’t quite translate as effectively with audiobooks. Yes you can listen to a story on audiobook and understand the subtext and that’s great. But when you really want to pause and sit with a passage and ponder it further, or you’re trying to really dig into the way it’s constructed, I find that easier with a written page. It’s not impossible with an audiobook, just strikes me as maybe a little clunkier.

Listening to the audiobook is the same as reading if you are actively listening. When it comes to Russian writing, I am skeptical that you are fully absorbing the information just passively listening to it. But if you feel that you are, then it's reading.

I think reading is inherently "better" as it forces you to sit down and focus on a single task to the exclusion of everything else. This is not the case with audiobooks as you can be doing other stuff at the same time. If you actually just sit down and listen then I no longer see hardly any difference there. However listening to a audiobook while doing other stuff means your attention by definition is not 100% in the book so it's not the same thing. It's like watching a TV serie while browsing social media on your phone.

It is not reading. It's listening. But whatever profound insights or wonderful stories are in the text will be in your head after either activity.

Not sure why reading or listening to a book would be an accomplishment, but let's assume it is. Then my opinion is reading it would be the greater accomplishent because It takes more effort to read than listen.

Humans were telling stories to each other orally, way before they'd ever started writing those stories down. If you ask me, audiobooks are just an extension of that history. That doesn't mean I think audiobooks are a superior format for reading, but it's not an inferior one either.

As far as audiobooks go, this isn't really much of a thing anymore, but the only important caveat I'd make is abridged books versus the whole thing. If you want to read a story, read the whole damn story. But that's just equivalent to skimming through or looking up cliff notes for a hard copy.

Reading it is a far greater accomplishment, it requires intention and dedication. You can give that to an audiobook, of course, but can also listen to it while playing call of duty and say that you finished it.

I don't have a problem with audiobooks, but they're very clearly not reading; in the same way that watching the news is not reading the newspaper.

On a skills level, you're not practicing the act of looking at glyphs and words and translating them into meaning. This is important to practice, because it's actually really hard, especially if the book uses complicated or rare words. Humans have to learn this skill, it's not innate. You also don't learn new words via audiobook; you assume the reader hiccupped and move on.

On the activity level, you can't consume the book at your own pace. For most people, it becomes a "passive" activity instead of an active one, so you rarely retain the information; especially if you're multitasking or using it as background noise to drown out your thoughts. Most people don't sit quietly and pay attention to every word, I find they have it on as white noise while distracted. You may as well put on music instead.

The audiobook reader also decides for you what voices characters have, and in a way, dictates the personality of every character. That's an opportunity loss in practicing creativity and imagination.

I think it's great that stories are reaching so many more people via audiobook. But they're not a book, they're a reading; in the same way that if you read a book to a kid, you don't say that they've read the book.

The main difference I see is that when a professional wants to read something very thoroughly, they employ techniques of what's called slow reading. That's usually when the highlighter comes out along with note-taking materials.

This is possible with print information because of how much of it is put in front of your eyes at once. Rereading a paragraph, even a half dozen times to guarantee you fully understood it, is very easy with print. It is not with audio. Flipping back to page xxx to check something, also very easy with print and less so with audio. Smoothly speeding up/slowing down your rate of consumption to match the complexity of the current topic, also easier with text than audio. Etc etc.

So, for casual consumption, they're fairly equivalent and both fine. But if you wanted to claim mastery of a complex topic after putting years of intensive effort in, I'd say that probably required some reading that could not have been replaced by listening, and if you did no reading, I'm going to be a little doubtful of your mastery of the knowledge. It's possible to still understand what you need to, of course, but you definitely neglected what is usually the most efficient, reliable method by far.

I'm not knocking it but I don't consider audiobooks reading. You are using two different input systems, going through different parts of the brain. They both require different skills to process and retain the information.

Not. Reading is active. Listening is passive. Two different experiences.

I guess reading and listening to audiobooks/podcasts is never something I have fully equated. The latter I do when I'm trying to kill time on road trips or whatever. This means my attention level is not 100% on the narrative, and I may miss parts of it. I am a little prone to attention wandering when I'm reading also, but when that happens and I return to the novel, I'm still right there in the same place, so I don't miss anything.

ITT: Gatekeeping readers.

Everyone claiming reading is superior because of some vague sense of it communicating the information "better" or because of your own subjective experiences sound just like all those people who thought the printing press would be a disaster because people would waste all their time reading instead of listening to people. Same energy, different time period.

If both people come away with the same understanding, what difference does it make? You can't tell whether they read or listened unless you ask them. There's nothing you can ask about the book that will give any indication one way or the other.

In my opinion, reading War and Peace isn't worth shit.

Classical literature is just old fiction. The only reason it carries sophistication is because when the books were written, poor people couldn't read. Saying you had read ANYTHING was the equivalent of showing off your new Louis Vuitton bag.

If you read it and you enjoyed it, that's fantastic. That's exactly why it was written. Looking down at someone who didn't read it because it's not something they enjoy is bullshit.

I read books for enjoyment, not accolades. I enjoy passing my eyes over text more than letting sound pass my ears, but it's not a contest. If I liked reading a book and someone else liked listening to someone else read a book, then we both liked the book.

If it's something like a textbook, there might be a viable debate about who gained more, but for a novel I don't see how the method of consumption matters.

Good thing is that this doesn't really get to be an opinion. Well, I guess anything can be an opinion, but this one is objectively wrong if you differentiate them.

There have been several studies done on this, and brain scans show that physically reading with your eyes and listening to an audiobook trigger the exact same responses in the brain. They have the exact same effect, and your brain comprehends them the exact same.

Studies back in the 80s showed a direct correlation in listening comprehension and reading comprehension. They're directly linked. In the 70s, studies showed that college students that listened to a short story could summarize it with equal accuracy to those that read it.

The science is pretty clear, physically reading a story and listening to it are the exact same and require the same amount of effort and attention to walk away with a good comprehension of the material.

If you just have if in the background and effectively remember nothing, no. If you pay attention, then it's the same.

Same thing if by reading you're just moving your eyes over the lines.