Is listening to a book on tape the same as reading one?

[Flat6Driver]

People get a little haughty when it comes to reading. "Blah blah, people don't read anymore...." In the last 2 weeks on a long motorcycle ride, I listened to two recorded books...one non fiction, one a Canadian novel (part was listened while I fixed the motorcycle), and completed reading with my eyes a non fiction travelog kind of book. So did I "read" three books?

What does the sewing circle here say?

 

[BigDaddyLH]

You listened not read, but apart from using some different parts of the brain at the time (auditory versus visual), it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Lacking Talent]

Is listening to a song on the radio the same as reading the sheet music to one?

 

[String Tree]

Not if you are Driving.

 

[Otisblove]

I’ll say yes.

 

[Vibroluxer]

Not for me. When I listen rather than read it's only a matter on time before I'm day dreaming. I think it's my ADHD.

 

[Digital Larry]

I've listened to one book on tape which was Steinbeck's "Travels with Charley" narrated by Lt. Dan himself, Gary Sinese. I'd say it's slightly different because the narrator does put a bit of a spin or imprint which is lacking when you just read it. But it's not a huge difference.

 

[Skydog1010]

The words are normally the same, but it's a totally different experience for me.

 

[Milspec]

The thing about reading is that the reader takes the descriptions and personalizes it. If the book mentions a high school gym teacher, every reader will picture a different person...the one they knew as a kid. That is the great thing about reading a novel, we all personalize it. A narrated book lacks that a little. The voice influences what you see in your mind so you don't get quite the same effect.

The exception to this would be writers like Hawthorne who made it a point of spending 15 pages to describe every little shadow and detail in a scene. It was masterful in his day, but I found it horrible for the reader.

Anyway, I listen to books on tape when on long drives and enjoy them. It is a different experience, but still enjoyable. Now, if you are listening to something non-fiction or technical in nature, it might equate to the same as reading it.

 

[ahiddentableau]

I'll split hairs and say no to the question in the thread title, but yes to the question in the post. Listening isn't the same as reading a book, it's a different experience. When you read you use the internal voice that is unique to you. If somebody else is reading and you're listening that experience is going to be very different. But when we say "I read a book" we mostly mean "I took in the material" not "I literally read it, I didn't listen." So sure, you read the books. It was just a different experience than it would have been if you'd literally read them instead of listening to their audio versions.

 

[ISmellSmoke]

I think it's a very similar experience if you read the book aloud,

 

[drmordo]

Yes and no.

I was a literature major, so I have read too many books.

I have been an audible subscriber for more than a decade, so I have listened to too many books.

The difference is that it's easier to READ a boring book. I recently listened to some sci fi books that I loved when I read them, but they were outright boring when I listened to them. You can't skim a book on 'tape'. You have to slog thru it.

Another big difference is that you can't easily go back and reread a section. When I read Moby Dick the first time, I reread many chapters trying to pull out a bit more of the symbolism. I can't do that with a book on tape.

So you are definitely 'reading a book', but it's certainly a different experience than holding a book in your hands and doing the deed.

 

[Biffasmum]

What’s tape?

 

[badscrew_projects]

Reading is faster

 

[SixStringSlinger]

It's not the same, but it's not better or worse.

You're just consuming (mostly) the same information via a different medium. And I only say "mostly" because I assume hearing something in someone else's voice, with their (or the author's/editor's) choice of tone and diction possibly imparts something different than your brain does.

It's good to read. Any "reading" is miles better than not reading at all. And anyone who puts so much (really, any) stock into how you read rather than what you read and what you get from it... well, no amount of reading can save them.

 

[badscrew_projects]

What’s tape?

 

[swervinbob]

I used to argue that reading was better than listening. Then my job got to where they want us to drive 2, 3, 4 hours one way to do service calls. I went from reading 2-3 novels a week to listening to 2-3 novels a week.

 

[Lawdawg]

It's close enough. I used to read a ton but listen to more books than I read now. I read and write dense text all day and my eyes just need a break after work, plus I can listen to audible books while doing chores, driving, exercising etc. . . My recall is never as good when I listen to a book versus reading it, and like @drmordo I miss being able to easily flip back and forth between sections, but for most books especially non-fiction, listening is no problem.

 

[Guran]

Listening does not work for me. I don't really know why, but I get next to nothing out of it.

 

[58Bassman]

Many people don't retain information well if they don't see it. Hearing a book isn't the same as reading it- how many have stopped to think about what they were reading and resumed when they were ready to? That's not a great idea when someone is driving.