/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21832011]

Why are some boomers so insistent that listening to audiobook isn't reading?

[Anonymous No.21832048]

>>21832011
go look for a book neurobiology on audible
tldr; if you use your eyes, it's reading lit. if you use your ears it's "LISTENING" to lit.

[Anonymous No.21832051]

>>21832011
Are these boomers in the room with you right now?

[Anonymous No.21832147]

>>21832011
TIL no one truly read Homer in antiquity

[Anonymous No.21832164]

>>21832011
Honestly I don't see boomers complaining about audiobooks.
They still remember books on tape and audio dramas on the radio, and since most don't have good eyesight anymore they appreciate alternatives such as audio book and digital books on tablets where they can blow up the text nice and big.

[Anonymous No.21832171]

It quite literally isn't reading. People only want to consider it reading so they can co-opt the "I'm so smart" connotation than "reading" has for some reason.

[Anonymous No.21832232]

It’s not

[Anonymous No.21832432]

I listen to slop audiobooks like Mistborn while I drive, and actually read more in depth stuff.

[Anonymous No.21832438]

>>21832011
In la there’s a lot of traffic and it’s boring so I’ll put on somthing to pass the hours, but when I have the time I DO genuinely read

These people that exclusively audio book, it breaks my heart because how far off are we from literature being condensed to picture books for easy consumption?

[Anonymous No.21832453]

>>21832011
Because it isn't. You might as well listen to the radio or watch a movie

[Anonymous No.21832548]

For those who don't consider it the same I have a question.

If someone listens to the unabridged audiobook version of a book and compreheds the material to the same degree as someone who read it, would their experience of the book be somehow invalid?

If someone uses Braille to "read" a book by feeling the symbols instead of their eyes would their experience of the book be less valid?

Is the method of consumption actually important in the experience of a book?
If so why exactly?

[Anonymous No.21832566]

>>21832548
Braille is reading. Reading with your eyes is reading. Listening to someone else read the book to you is not reading. The difference is pretty obvious. In reading you are controlling the pace. When you listen to someone else read the book, they control the pace of information. It's fine if you like listening to someone else read if you find that fun on your ride to work or whatever. But you aren't reading the book.

[Anonymous No.21832586]

>>21832566
>. In reading you are controlling the pace. When you listen to someone else read the book, they control the pace of information.
This isn't necessarily true. You can control the speed of playback. You can pause, rewind, fast forward, etc. So what else is the difference?

[Anonymous No.21832590]

>>21832586
I reject the notion that rewinding to allow someone else to read a book passage to you again is controlling the pace.

[Anonymous No.21832596]

>>21832011
so reading is subjective now?

[Anonymous No.21832660]

>>21832590
I didn't just say "rewind" I also said "control playback speed" e.g. play it at 0.4x, 1.4x. And pause if needed. How is that not "controlling the pace"?

[Anonymous No.21832665]

>>21832596
Where else does reading take place? In the object?

[Anonymous No.21832680]

>>21832011
It depends on the book. If it’s some shit prose book that doesn’t require much attention than sure but you can’t be as active as a reader when listening to a book

[Anonymous No.21832700]

>>21832011
Because it's not. Listening is not reading. Those are two different verbs describing two different actions. What's so hard to understand about that? When your mom read bedtime stories out of a book to you when you were a bed wetting illiterate little shit, you weren't "reading" that book in your mother's hand. You were listening to your mother read that book.

Just because you can walk or take a cab between New York and New Jersey, doesn't mean walking is now driving and driving is walking. The end result is the same, but the methods are completely different. One takes a lot more effort, while the other is a passive activity.

[Anonymous No.21832809]

>>21832566
You answered none of my questions and you are even correct since playback speed is totally and easily controllable.

[Anonymous No.21832850]

So what I am seeing in this thread is just whining about semantics.

[Anonymous No.21832873]

>>21832011
because they are to rich and have to much money to buy real books, so they want to tease you into submission to not demand your money back.

[Anonymous No.21832894]

>>21832660
Because pace isn't just about the speed of the read, but also about the cadence between sentances and words.
Youre not getting the book, you're getting the speaker's interpretation of that book
Audiobooks also literally activate a different part of your brain than reading does
You're may be taking in the same content, but you're not experiencing it the way it was meant to be expirenced. Personally, I'd only listen to audiobooks of something I've already read. Otherwise you're robbing yourself of an untainted experience.

[Anonymous No.21832910]

>>21832894
>Audiobooks also literally activate a different part of your brain than reading does
Got sauce for that claim. Seems a little bland without it.

[Anonymous No.21832918]

>>21832910
I made it up

[Anonymous No.21832932]

>>21832586
>What else is the difference?
You’re the second receiver of the information. Thus you’re less likely to understand it to the same degree as the first receiver, which is the reader. The person that read the book has processed the raw material, while you can just listen to it. Are being guided through it like a toddler that’s learning to walk by taking an adult’s hand. And the toddler goes
>”Look! I can walk just the same! There’s no difference!”

When he’d fall on his face without the guidance.

[Anonymous No.21832999]

>>21832011
Nothing wrong with audiobooks, but it is a very different experience from actually reading a book. Something about being able to consider the sentence in its entirety, as you are unconsciously looking at the sentence as one rather than simply hearing it in a linear fashion, leads to a deeper understanding than from just listening to it.

This is the reason that I listen to fantasy or sci fi novels when running, whereas I read more serious literature instead of listening to it. Granted, part of the reason I choose lighter genres to listen to on runs is because I find I am running too fast exactly when I cease to understand what the hell I'm listening to.

>>21832566
The fact that the reader controls the pace, but the listener doesn't, is another big part of the reason they're not the same.

[Anonymous No.21833000]

>>21832932
The information is literally exactly the same. The only difference is format.
The content, quality, and arguably context of that information isn't significantly changed because the format is different.

[Anonymous No.21833006]

>>21832999
It's already pointed out that the pace of audio can be controlled and changed.

[Anonymous No.21833021]

>>21833006
And it's already been pointed out that that doesn't matter in the slightest because because reading pace involves more than speed

[Anonymous No.21833025]

>>21833000
>The information is literally the same
You’ve made your own counter argument.
The information is LITERARY, the same. But by being a different experience, everyone can objectively tell it’s not. Especially because you’re not the first to process the raw text, you’ve got to have the mood, context and reading spooned to you. So yes, just text wise, you’re right. But on nothing else

[Anonymous No.21833028]

>>21833000
Why don’t you actually try reading the books before listening to see if they’re the same. Because that’s the quickest way to realise someone else reading them is not your experience. And you get less out of it, because you’re now a passive recipie]ant of information

[Anonymous No.21833029]

>>21833025
*LITERALLY

[Anonymous No.21833031]

>>21832011
active vs passive engagement. It's the same reason why trying to answer the teacher's questions is different from just listening to them.

[Anonymous No.21833033]

Fucking hell zoomers and audio book fags are retarded. If you need to be told how reading and listening to a book aren't the same thing, then you may as well stop doing either of those and stick to drooling over TikTok videos.

[Anonymous No.21833045]

>>21833000
>The only difference is format
That’s not what format means.
You receiving the information through listening instead of reading is a change from actively to passively receiving info. So an entirely different experience, a lesser so. Because, well, there’s a reason ‘listening’ to something is easier than reading it, for it requires way less brainpower.
It’s like saying “Instead of going to the lecture I’ll just take my friend’s notes. The information is the same”, when someone else already chewed it out for you

[Anonymous No.21833117]

>>21832548
>>21832566
I agree with this anon that their is a cheapness to audiobooks that is not true of reading with your eyes/braille.

I think the “controlling the pace” argument is close but not quite the reason.

I’d say that audiobooks aren’t actually reading (or are a way cheaper activity) because audiobooks are more passive than active. The reason reading is better for you than watching TV is because reading is very active and it engages your brain thoroughly. Part of this is controlling the pace in a way that it takes effort to progress, progress doesn’t just happen to you. Let’s say it’s fiction. If you’re reading you have to decide on character intonation/emotion/etc. It’s a far more blank slate that you are engaging with and have to make sense of. This is part of the beauty of reading. You’re not just funneling easy information into your brain, you are partaking in and engaging with that communication of information.

With audiobooks, you outsource all that work to someone else and passively take it in. I’m sure if you hooked up your brain to an activity scanner it would be way more lit up during reading/braille than during an audiobook.

[Anonymous No.21833152]

My issue is with the dopamine riddled brain of audio book listeners. I don't know a single audio book listener who will take the time and sit down in a chair and focusing solely on the book. Where as that is a requirement for reading a book. Reading is one of the most beautiful things we have to force us to slow down for once.

[Anonymous No.21833313]

>>21832596
If it means you can get the prestige of being a "heavy reader" when you have Stephen Fry reading Harry Potter playing in the background while you take a dump, yes.

[Anonymous No.21833496]

>>21833117
>I have never actively listened to a audio book but I am going to blatantly make things up in complete ignorance.
For example
>If you’re reading you have to decide on character intonation/emotion/etc.
I have no clue why you think this is somehow different when listening to a audiobook. Audiobooks aren't audio dramas with voice acting n shit. Hell, many are straight up computerized text to speech.
You are just making shit up and seeing what sticks to justify not liking something for irrational reasons.

[Anonymous No.21833500]

>>21832011
If you consider e-books to be reading then you should have no problem with audiobooks, sorry chuds

[Anonymous No.21833510]

>>21832011
Reminder that if ancient humans were brought into the modern day they'd insist that audiobooks are actually way better than reading

[Anonymous No.21833511]

>>21832011
It's not.

Reading means you activate your own brain to 'talk' to yourself. When you're listening, you get talked *to*, so you don't have to do anything.

It would be the same difference between lifting weights, and looking at a video of someone lifting weights.

[Anonymous No.21833513]

>>21832548
>If someone listens to the unabridged audiobook version of a book and compreheds the material to the same degree as someone who read it, would their experience of the book be somehow invalid?
No, but that's not the point

>If someone uses Braille to "read" a book by feeling the symbols instead of their eyes would their experience of the book be less valid?
No, a blind person is 'reading' there.

[Anonymous No.21833516]

>listening is reading
uh ok retard

[Anonymous No.21833520]

>>21833511
>words go into your brain
Looks the same to me

[Anonymous No.21833521]

>>21833513
cont.

>Is the method of consumption actually important in the experience of a book?
It matters in how it engages the brain (or not). If you have to use your brain to ingest what the book is saying, it's reading. That's the point of the word 'reading', you're transferring knowledge from the outside to the in. If the knowledge is being beamed in without you doing anything, then it's just receiving, not reading. Reading is the activity of ingesting or 'generating' the information in the brain by yourself. That's why people who read books are considered smart, because they 'generate' knowledge by themselves.

Books is just thinking, but something else is giving you what thought to generate with your brain.

[Anonymous No.21833523]

>>21833028
Done it many times.
I often return to my favorite books in audiobook format to enjoy them when I don't have all day to be totally and completely idle.
It's the best way to enjoy a book all in one piece rather than having to break a book up into several small sessions, since again, I don't have the luxury of spending 12 hours being totally idle.
Breaking the book up into session, i would argue, harms the narrative and makes the experience far worse.
It's the superior format for narratives and has it's roots in prehistory as the preferred form for conveying stories.

[Anonymous No.21833524]

>>21833520
When you read, you yourself generate the words. That's what stimulates the brain. If you're listening, you're just sitting there letting the words come into your brain without doing anything for it.

[Anonymous No.21833527]

>>21833045
Hate to bust your bubble but reading is also a passive activity by every meaning of the word.
Both are passive activities.

[Anonymous No.21833528]

>>21833524
retard

[Anonymous No.21833576]

>>21833521
>It matters in how it engages the brain
Does it?
And do you have any proof it engages the brain significantly differently?
>If you have to use your brain to ingest what the book is saying, it's reading
So audiobooks are reading since you have to use your brain to actually comprehend and "ingest" what is being said.
>That's the point of the word 'reading', you're transferring knowledge from the outside to the in
Again this wouldn't disqualify audiobooks as reading by that standard.
>If the knowledge is being beamed in without you doing anything, then it's just receiving, not reading.
Without active engagement of the mind while listening there is no comprehension. It takes sustained focus and engagement of the mind to comprehend the book. Otherwise it just turns to noise. This is especially the case with higher speeds.
>Reading is the activity of ingesting or 'generating' the information in the brain by yourself.
Again this fit audio books as well. Your brain must "ingest" the words being spoken then generate meaning from it to form a coherent interpretation.

>That's why people who read books are considered smart, because they 'generate' knowledge by themselves.
That's incorrect.
People who read books are considered smart because they are actively pursuing knowledge. It's not so much the means but the motivation and end result that is the main factor in that attribution.

>Books is just thinking, but something else is giving you what thought to generate with your brain.
That's absurd.

[Anonymous No.21833584]

>completely filters the audiobook cuck

[Anonymous No.21833601]

>>21832918
Based and intuition pilled

[Anonymous No.21833602]

>>21833584
Every description of that book makes it sound like a huge waste of time.
It's a gimmick book and little more.

[Anonymous No.21833603]

I listen to books, not the good ones though. I wouldn't listen to Moby dick or anything good and dense, but I would listen to whatever slop takes my fancy that week.

[Anonymous No.21833635]

>>21833576
I wish I could engage in debating with you back and forth, I can't muster the energy right now.

[Anonymous No.21833653]

>>21832011
If the audiobook is good, it's still worth listening to, but actual reading adds 1 extra step to your brain gathering information, so it's more taxing on the mind than audiobooks. This doesn't make audiobooks bad, it just differentiates them from reading.

[Anonymous No.21833654]

>>21833500
>if you consider reading to be reading then you should have no problem with thinking listening is reading

[Anonymous No.21833656]

>>21832011
it’s not the listening part, if you were reading while playing dota with your dick in a masturbation machine, it wouldn’t be reading either

[Anonymous No.21833660]

>>21833313
>prestige
Exactly. No one would be so eager to consider listening to an audiobook to be reading were it not for the prestige that "reading" carries culturally.

It's basically the "AI art" debate.

[Anonymous No.21833666]

>>21833602
It's good horror and the gimmick works to support it. I don't want to overstate how good it is, so I'll just say it delivers the goods and the presentation goes beyond mere gimmick into a use of the medium that captures what other horror merely suggests or describes.

[Anonymous No.21834045]

>>21833496
> I have no clue why you think this is somehow different when listening to a audiobook

You either are too retarded to have an inner voice, thus need someone else’s to listen to-or never read a book yourself, ever

[Anonymous No.21834055]

>>21832011
It is completely passive and the listener is never occasioned to pause and reflect on something that stirs something in them.

[Anonymous No.21834060]

>>21834055
This, you can't participate with it as easily.

[Anonymous No.21834062]

>>21832548
You're correct and anyone arguing against you is butt-blasted because they think highlighting and annotating parts of sentences somehow imparts greater insight or information than the text itself. It's because they're insecure or really young.

[Anonymous No.21834065]

Because it's listening, dumdum.

[Anonymous No.21834068]

Combined with conventional reading, listening to autiobooks has increased my books read by 1-2 per week. I can feel myself gaining intelligence

[Anonymous No.21834072]

>>21832011
Because it's a completely different experience

[Anonymous No.21834075]

>>21833523
> It's the best way to enjoy a book all in one piece rather than having to break a book up into several small sessions, since again, I don't have the luxury of spending 12 hours being totally idle.
Literally no one has these problems but you, who mad them up.
> Breaking the book up into session, i would argue, harms the narrative and makes the experience far worse.
What the fuck are you even talking about. Do your books not have chapters.
>it has its roots in prehistory as the preferred form for conveying stories
If somebody hadn’t actually written down those stories you wouldn’t know about them at all. If you want to live like a medieval pleb and die of sepsis's don’t pretend it’s the superior anything because YOU like it, and it circumvents YOUR autistic problems that no one shares. Like you being incapable of splitting a book in chapters without TikTok brain making you forget everything and ‘ruining the narrative for you’, as opposed to someone else reading and giving you their interpretation instead

[Anonymous No.21834079]

>>21833527
>Passive in every sense of the word
You’d actually have to explain how, anon. Because getting something read to you, as opposed to reading something yourself, is exactly what differs passive from active here.

[Anonymous No.21834085]

>>21834055
I regularly pause after interesting sections and replay them. Please don't project your own shortcomings onto the thread

[Anonymous No.21834088]

>>21834045
Maybe get a job and you'll realize the benefit of hands-free listening, fatboy

[Anonymous No.21834092]

>>21834079
So you'd need someone to write down instructions for you because you're too stupid to recieve them verbally? Interesting anon

[Anonymous No.21834093]

>>21834088
>Hands-free listening
Is that where you don’t give a handy to the actual reader?

[Anonymous No.21834102]

>>21834092
Most of us not working on a farm, get contracts and instructions in written form. Then again, no one questions our ability to read for verbal instructions to be a necessity

[Anonymous No.21834104]

>>21834102
>he admitted it
Holy lmao

[Anonymous No.21834127]

Why is it so important that it be considered reading. If listening is just as good as reading, why argue the point?

[Anonymous No.21834132]

>>21834127
Shh anon we're arguing about words right now

[Anonymous No.21834186]

>>21833524
Aren't there many people who will read entire books and not comprehend the meaning though? They convert the letters into sound in their head, but they don't do the extra work of converting the sound to meaning.
You have the same problem with audiobooks too, where some people will listen to a book as simply white noise, but others will concentrate and understand.
In this case, who truly "read" the book: someone who read but didn't understand, or someone who listened and understood.
I think there's a misunderstanding at the heart of this disagreement. The word "read" has two meanings. First to literally read words, and second to understand a written work.
I've never used an audiobook, but if someone uses them correctly, I feel like saying they "read" a book isn't incorrect except to nitpicking autists

[Anonymous No.21834189]

>>21834068
> listening to autiobooks has increased my books read
If you are so proud of it, why won’t you be actually honest and say “Has increased the books I’ve listened to”? Why ‘read’, when you’ve objectively not read them?

One is superior to another, hiding it gives that precisely away anon

[Anonymous No.21834191]

>>21834127
>If listening is just as good as reading
It's not.

>>21834186
>Aren't there many people who will read entire books and not comprehend the meaning though?
Then read it again. It's not like the same can't be said for listening to something.

[Anonymous No.21834193]

I have only had the opposite experience. Boomers tell me books are for fans but they can listen to audio books while they fish.

[Anonymous No.21834202]

>>21834104
>He can’t read, his coworkers must tell him everything

go tend the cows anon

[Anonymous No.21834208]

>>21832011
Why do you give a shit? Read with your eyes, ears or fingers. Some retard on a 20 year old forum is gonna tell you that you didn’t really read it? Oh no! Anyway.

[Anonymous No.21834212]

>>21834189
Yes, one is superior to the other good job anon. That's why we pay professors so much to listen to, and text is so cheap. Let me know when you grow up and accept audiobooks as superior choice

[Anonymous No.21834218]

>>21834202
High-pace jobs like the law office I work at don't write down everything for you as if you were a child being given chores. Maybe at Wendy's they need to print out a page telling you to wash you hands.

[Anonymous No.21834232]

>>21834186
So there's three things that happen in order:

>Generating words
>Hearing words
>Turning the words into meaning.

Reading a book means that you generate the words yourself, which stimulates your brain, while listening to a book (i.e. you're not generating the words yourself) just means you only hear the words. That's the point I'm making. Reading a book is better for you because you have to engage brain matter for you to hear the words, while when you're listening to a book, you don't have to do anything and still hear the words.

You can both read and listen to a book, but not turn the words into meaning, which means you're just using it as empty white noise to fill your brain.

I'm not judging any way one or another, but let's not pretend that listening to a book is as intensive as reading it. Compare it to a campfire story. If you're telling the story, you have to engage your brain to tell it, while if you're listening to it, you can just passively sit there. Reading is just telling yourself a story where the words are dictated by what's on the page, except you're not physically vocalizing.

[Anonymous No.21834237]

>>21833523
> has it's roots in prehistory as the preferred form for conveying stories

Because..people prehistorically couldn’t read, yet alone write, ‘preferred’ is misleading, when there were hardly any other options

[Anonymous No.21834239]

>>21834189
The word read or reading is not fundamentally dependant upon the written word.
>I can read his face
>I couldnt get a read
>the readings are off the chart
>he's well-read
>he's reading *subject* at university (British phrase for studying)
In short, reading can be thought of as being synonymous with "sensing" or "understanding".
You might have known this if you'd read more audiobooks over your life.

[Anonymous No.21834274]

>>21834218
> High-pace jobs like the law office don’t write everything
But they write down what’s important, otherwise you must work in Legal Aid. In laboratories you, indeed, receive instructions in written form because what you do is actually significant.

Agreed tho, you don’t need it written when you know everyone’s coffee order by mind

[Anonymous No.21834275]

>>21833635
Fair enough.
Enjoy your rest.
I honestly should get some sleep too.

[Anonymous No.21834278]

>>21834212
Professors do give out their scripts nowadays, anon. No one sits there drooling with no provided subject material. Especially in STEM fields.

[Anonymous No.21834284]

>>21834055
If you can read a book then surely you can use the functions of a media player.

Also reading is also completely passive as well. Your standards for what is a active and passive activity is pretty warped.

[Anonymous No.21834286]

>>21833654
Looking at a .pdf is not the same as reading a book.

[Anonymous No.21834297]

>>21834239
But all of those include actually seeing the content, the only exception being a saying
‘Synonymous to’ is not equivalent to. Something being a ‘synonym’, is no argument, you’re basically saying ‘Listening to an audiobook is vaguely like reading’.
You still don’t read audiobooks, and it shows an inferiority complex when you argue you do. Take and appreciate the listening medium as is, don’t pretend it’s anything else.

[Anonymous No.21834312]

Anyone claiming they’ve read a book by listening to it proves too low an IQ to actually read it, so befit /lit/

[Anonymous No.21834339]

>>21834212
What shit are you studying where the prof provides no material to read, or anything visual, and aren’t taking any notes to read later. Never witnessed a lecture where people just sit and gawk, pretending they comprehend

[Anonymous No.21834345]

>>21834297
The inferiority complex definitely lies in the person that thinks looking at information makes them better than hearing the same information, but solid projection

[Anonymous No.21834349]

>>21834339
Now replace lecture with audiobook and realize you've lost the debate

[Anonymous No.21834358]

>>21834345
>person
>them they their
STFU tranny.

[Anonymous No.21834364]

>>21834232
This looks like pseudo scientific speculation that you're making up on the spot.

[Anonymous No.21834390]

>>21834297
This is a bit like arguing people who type aren't writing and shouldn't be called writers if they typed their works. They should instead be called typists.
Or that typing is somehow cheating because you personally wrapped your ego in your ability to hand write things, which the people who type also have and regularly do.

Surely you can see the structural flaws in this argumentation correct?

[Anonymous No.21834671]

>>21834390
You are creating a false equivalence. The method of writing does not matter because writing is about the composition of the words, the structure, the themes, the story, the characters. The mode at which the end result is reached are not fundamentally different enough to alter any of those things. Just because I'm typing rather than writing, doesn't make coming up with character relationships easier. Listening is inherently different and easier than reading, therefore the mode of taking in the book matters. No amount of your mental gymnastics will change this.

[Anonymous No.21834698]

If I exclusively put on audiobooks for a toddler to listen to, will he ever learn how to read?
No, because listening is not the same as actually reading. They both consume the material, but in distinctly different ways.

[Anonymous No.21834730]

>>21832011
I though boomers lover audio books because they're high functioning illiterates.

[Anonymous No.21834738]

>>21832011
Audiobooks are reading in the same way transgendered men can be women.

[Anonymous No.21834794]

>>21833510
They wouldn't. Audiobooks are not the storytellers of old. This is like saying your TV experience of BLM riots are the same as being there. It's not and you didn't experience it because you watched it on TV, and it's very much a 21st century notion to think so.
When someone communicates with you in person it is nature's mode of communication. I can see body language, they can see me, I might know certain things about the storyteller. The audiobook is flat words, it is a recording. 80% of communication is non-verbal.

This shit really strikes at the heart of how humans born in to technology are dumbed down as they use it. Ancient people would understand the difference, we cannot. It's sorta like when I make a phone call. Am I talking with you? Not really, I'm talking to this fucking device that repeats my voice to you. Is this a subtle nuance? Only to you and me in the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.21834802]

>>21834345
>I don’t have the complex by insisting I’ve read something when I didn’t, YOU do by pointing it out

>ALL senses are equal. So reading can’t be better than listening. Just that reading is haaaaard and takes time
>I could go blind for a day, but with my supreme hearing sharpened by audiobooks I will live just fine, experience the world as always

Lol

[Anonymous No.21834821]

>>21834390
Typing is still writing by definition and common sense. If you were to write it with ink and feather or crayons you would still be writing words, just like the person typing it is

Listening is, not at all, reading.

[Anonymous No.21834837]

>>21834349
> Never witnessed an audiobook where people just sit and gawk, pretending they comprehend
>As opposed to making notes to read later, which they actually focus on making
All we’re realising is you’re an assistant without decent degree, to know how lectures actually work.

[Anonymous No.21834846]

>>21834802
This is pathetic lmao
NTA

[Anonymous No.21834880]

>>21834284
>Reading is also completely passive
Active:To read
Passive:To be read

You read a book.
The book is being read to you.

[Anonymous No.21834917]

>>21834345
If I describe a complex graph to you, you will not get the same info as actually looking at one, not really

[Anonymous No.21834943]

>>21834846
Don’t be bitter&petty, just enjoy listening to books

[Anonymous No.21834954]

easiest bait of my life

[Anonymous No.21834993]

>>21832147
You are correct, they were told orally.

[Anonymous No.21835011]

>>21834345
Dude stop, you're so insecure that you saw others from your standards and put them down to your level.

[Anonymous No.21835057]

What if we just changed the name to audio recording?

[Anonymous No.21835193]

My issue with audiocucks is that they insist on multitasking. This might be pure projection, but when I listen to stuff while doing house/yard work, commuting, or exercising I know that I'm not thinking about what I'm listening to. I might get little pieces here and there and stitch together what is happening, but what I'm physically doing has way more capture on my mind. I've even seen a youtuber claim to listen to audiobooks while editing videos and I think there is no way he has a similar experience with that book as he would have reading it.

[Anonymous No.21835207]

Because of the preconceived notion that listening is passive while reading is active; the issue with the assessment is that it doesn't account for active listening in a way that is similar to the activity of reading. Nevertheless, it is understandable why some people can come to this perception due to the issue of passive and active listening.

[Anonymous No.21835315]

>>21835207
You dense motherfucker virtually every time someone shills audiobooks they mention doing it while driving or bike riding or some other thing
No one sits down and listens to an audiobook while staring at the wall
It is MADE to be a passive experience

[Anonymous No.21835361]

>>21835315
Driving and biking take very little attention fr the linguistic parts of your brain, that kind of multitasking isn't inherently useless. Now, someone doing anything that requires attention beyond reflex definitely isn't paying attention to the words. Tetris might be the maximum amount of work most minds can handle while still focusing on an audiobook.

[Anonymous No.21835411]

>>21832011
Because you aren't, you're listening, You're literally engaging different faculties of the brain

[Anonymous No.21835443]

>>21832011
>/lit/
>Can't even fathom the difference by definition between reading and listening
My god

[Anonymous No.21835514]

>>21832011
If you sit down and listen to an audio book and do nothing else, then it's completely equivalent to reading.
This isn't however the way most people listen to audiobooks now is it? Most people listen to audiobooks while they are driving, cooking and doing other chores.
Audiobooks ofter are employed to cope for the sinking feeling of uneasiness during downtime. Unfortunately audiobooks provide only an illusion of productivity.
Multitasking severely hampers the ability to remember information even if the performed task requires very little effort. It's not possible to understand a book well if you are not dedicating your undivided attention to it.
The true way to optimize downtime is to use it to reflect on the books you've already read. Active reasoning is severely underrated and will make you smarter than faggots who claim to listen to 200 books a year, but don't remember anything from them.

[Anonymous No.21835711]

>>21832548
they confuse the dinnerplate for the meal. to them, format matters more than content.

[Anonymous No.21835789]

>>21835711
We do care whether we eat it or someone chews it out for us first

[Anonymous No.21835805]

Because it's listening. "I listened to an audio book. It was fantastic!"

"I read an audio book" shine like something a contrarian transsexual would say.

[Anonymous No.21835812]

Guys how do you “read” a room?

[Anonymous No.21835831]

I've always held that reading and listening are two different actions, so by definitions listening isn't the same as residing.

However, for my fellow listening-is-not-reading chads, what if I play audio of a book while also reading the text? I started doing this yesterday while taking care of my newborn. I feel like it's still reading, but I recognize you lose some of that time to digest the text. However, as someone who is distractible, I find that it helps me stay focused on the text, especially when multitasking. It also turns the pages automatically, leaving my hands free for things like burp clothes and pacifiers.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21835838]

>>21835831
>by definition* listening isn't the same as reading*

[Anonymous No.21835909]

>>21834671
It's different because I said so and I will accept no other information on the subject

[Anonymous No.21835937]

>>21834821
Do me a favor and look up the definitions of reading.
Two out of the 4 apply to the listening of audiobooks. It could be argued that 3 out of the 4 apply.
In reality you are just playing dumb with word meanings and the center of the argument is ignoring context to pretend one meanings of the word is being used when it's clearly another.

[Anonymous No.21835967]

>>21834880
Active activity: writing (aka creating content)
Passive activity: reading (aka just sitting there passively consuming content)

If you want to play word games using your own argumentation structure
>Active: to listen
>Active: to read
>You listen to a book
Of course I don't think this particular form of argument is even close to valid though.
Just pointing out that you are going out of your way to make a particularly dumb argument that doesn't really support your point well.

[Anonymous No.21835971]

>>21835057
Audio recording of what anon?
What is it a audio recording of?

[Anonymous No.21835993]

>>21835937
>”Two out of the 4 apply to audiobooks, no I’m not gonna name them just trust me. You’re playing dumb by knowing what basic words mean without considering metaphors.”
No one believes you’ve read an audiobook. And no one needs to, because common sense beats any obscure definition.

Then again, no one but audiofags would think reading=listening because both are under the umbrella of ‘understanding’. That’s just retarded
Sure, it’s understanding. Just less som at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.21835994]

>>21835443
>Can't fathom that there are more than one definitions for a word and use context clues to figure out which one applies to what situation

[Anonymous No.21835996]

>>21835967
You as an audio fat aren’t creating content either, even less so, you’re not creating your own interpretation of the text(you need to have one read aloud, instead of using your own inner voice), what’s the point? What are you trying to say?

Active: to listen
>Active: to read
>You listen to a book
So you admit listening is not reading. You have gone out of your way to support the argument

[Anonymous No.21836004]

>>21835994
>Uhmmmm AKSHUALLY reading is not looking at words, or generally using eyes. Have you considered that one British saying no one uses where it means sucking Amazon’s dick?

[Anonymous No.21836015]

>>21835993
>Appeal to a non-existent group
>Common meanings of common words are now declared obscure because it conflicts with my argument
Really?
Maybe you should listen to a lecture on critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.21836022]

>>21835909
Yes

[Anonymous No.21836023]

Lot of fuckin anglo brains in here with their autistic appeals to the dictionary

[Anonymous No.21836027]

>>21835996
Clearly you aren't credible at creating an interpretation of text because that isn't even close to anything that was said in the post you are replying to.

[Anonymous No.21836031]

>>21835967
That’s not a good argument-if you really go out of your way to label all consumption of media passive, you’re not making any point. Some media you engage with intellectually more than other, are more active with it. Reading is more active than listening any day. Just like listening is more active than watching a movie adaption.

It’s dense and cope to claim all are ‘passive’ activities and thus the same.

[Anonymous No.21836036]

>>21836023
>fuckin anglo brains in here
Your using English too bro.

[Anonymous No.21836048]

>>21836015
What non-existent group? You, who wants to tell people reading isn’t reading?
Common meanings aren’t obscure at all. They just don’t support your argument, nevermind you’ve yet to show what definitions you mean

[Anonymous No.21836053]

>>21836027
>Says he, who compares entirely different verbs to typewriters and pen writers

That was still the funniest thing you’ve done

[Anonymous No.21836062]

>>21836031
Passive consumption isn't a spectrum.
It is all passive activity.
They aren't exactly the same but they aren't any less passive of a activity.
You are literally just sitting their consuming prepared non-interactive content.

[Anonymous No.21836077]

>>21836048
https://www.google.com/search?q=read+definition+&sxsrf=APwXEde5sB7zMzsy3Rr1Ef-1VPKy6oqGkg%3A1679875535898&source=hp&ei=z90gZNHwLaSgkvQP6Nmu2Aw&oq=read+definition+&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBADMgYIswEQhQQyCAgAEI8BEOoCMggIABCPARDqAjIICC4QjwEQ6gIyCAgAEI8BEOoCMggILhCPARDqAjIICAAQjwEQ6gIyCAgAEI8BEOoCMggIABCPARDqAjIICAAQjwEQ6gIyCAguEI8BEOoCMggIABCPARDqAjIICAAQjwEQ6gIyCAgAEI8BEOoCMggIABCPARDqAjIICAAQjwEQ6gJQ-i5Yz3FgwnZoAXAAeACAAfsCiAH7ApIBAzMtMZgBAKABAbABEA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

[Anonymous No.21836094]

>>21836062
>Non-interactive content
When I can read if with your own inner voice, interpret it and imagine it, everyone would agree it is infinitely more active than a movie or game, or audiobook

There’s a reason you get through an audiobook much faster than reading it, even if you’re both ‘passively consuming media’, one makes you process it much more thorough. So you’re much more engaged with it, thus much more active in how you consume it.


You’re basically saying eating food or getting it puréed and spoonfed is the same because in both cases you’re ‘consuming food’, when one is clearly less engaging, less refined than the other.

[Anonymous No.21836113]

>>21836062
Nigger what the hell is ‘active’ consumption do I eat the pages and headphones

[Anonymous No.21836211]

>>21832011
Why do you care?

[Anonymous No.21836248]

>>21836094
>Appeals to a non-existent group again
Really?
"Everyone", did you do a survey of this alleged "everyone" can you prove that this "everyone" says what you are saying?
Oh fuck off with that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21836334]

>>21832438
What do you think movies are?

[Anonymous No.21836964]

>>21832171
What is the difference? You are absorbing and working with the ideas.
I pause deeper audio books for notes or to play with the ideas

[Anonymous No.21837280]

>>21836113
I example of media that would count as active consumption would be videogames.
Or to confine things to just printed, a choose your own adventure book would be active consumption compared to passively consumption.

[Anonymous No.21837428]

>>21836248
Everyone does, they just smile politely when you say you’ve ‘read’ an audiobook cause they consider you special ED

You’ve literally made no argument and just laid your complex out bare, pretending the prestige of reading applies to you listening to someone read too- no one respects it as much tho.
>Muh non-existent group
Non-existent is everyone with common sense lad, it also has been almost everyone here

[Anonymous No.21837432]

>>21837280
>This nigger, by his own logic, puts video games above reading because it’s ‘active’, and stories literally made for children and teens with TikTok attention spans
The Autist’s POV

[Anonymous No.21837444]

>>21836248
leave the basement and ask your mom’s boyfriend if he considers reading books more effort, thus more engaging than listening; his answer will surprise you, but no one else

[Anonymous No.21837457]

>>21832147
>in antiquity
Antiquity is a very long time anon, and already by the time of Socrates Homer was being read mostly in book form, and you have bibliophiles (see anecdotes on Euripides shutting himself in a cave to read, etc.).
So once again you thought you said something smart by laconically throwing a one-liner containing some random info at someone's face, and once again you were corrected by someone who knows more than you do - how many times does this have to happen before you actually go somewhere to read instead of wasting your time here?

[Anonymous No.21837635]

>>21837428
>>21837432
>>21837444
You have run out of rational arguments and have only insults and repeating yourself to cover for you critical case of butthurt.
>>21837457
>There were people who read at some point in some cultures in what counts as antiquity
>Therefore books win
>I r so smart
>U b dumb

Wow, it's impressive how sad that attempt at being a pedant was.

[Anonymous No.21837649]

>>21837635
Any counter argument looks rational when it’s against “Reading = listening I’m just too lazy/don’t have time for the former”
You’ve never made anything approximating a rational argument. people might as well repeat facts to you and watch how you counter with nothing of value nor content

>There were people who read at some point
Making it vague to cover the fact that, really any civilisation that advanced, could read and write and switched over from verbal storytelling the moment they could, is no argument
You are just bitter that even medieval country hicks read more than you

[Anonymous No.21837703]

>>21835971
It doesn't matter what it's an audio recording of. It's an audio recording.

[Anonymous No.21837828]

>>21837649
>You are just bitter
Someone is projecting I see.
Your overall behavior indicates you are overly emotionally invested in this to the point of ridiculousness.

[Anonymous No.21837846]

>>21837828
>To this day, no argument made, now resorts to unfunny made up nonsense

Again, bitter. going ‘no u’ like it’s kindergarten won’t change it
If I was invested I wouldn’t be making fun of you and insult, some of the shit you said was hilarious when you were completely serious-which shows your investment much more

[Anonymous No.21837914]

>>21837846
Here have some attention.
Happy?

[Anonymous No.21837917]

>>21837914
If assuming your opponent is angry is the only way you can keep yourself at levelheaded enough to discuss, then this discussion is over

[Anonymous No.21837939]

>>21837917
It's been over when you started spamming insults and same fagging up the thread.

[Anonymous No.21837965]

>>21832999
My experience is that I was listening to audiobooks that I enjoyed but while listening hated the facts that I cannot physically look things up again. I canceled my Audible studemt subscription but have one audiobook left to choose.
I want to use it for a book that is not on my reading list but rather a nice prosa about family life, love or whatever. Any recommendations? Maybe my first Sci-Fi experience? Tbh I thought about being disrespectful to Moby Dick.

[Anonymous No.21838002]

>>21834062

[Anonymous No.21838561]

>>21832048
But why is the distinction relevant?

[Anonymous No.21838589]

>>21832894
And when you read it yourself you're getting your own internal voice's reading of it, what makes that specially privileged over someone else's? (Also what about using text to speech that doesn't add any interpretation in its use of intonation?)

[Anonymous No.21838603]

>>21832999
>Something about being able to consider the sentence in its entirety, as you are unconsciously looking at the sentence as one rather than simply hearing it in a linear fashion, leads to a deeper understanding than from just listening to it.
You can go back over a written sentence (as you can a recorded sentence) but to my understanding, we basically process written language through the same pathways as spoken language, by 'hearing' it in our heads.

[Anonymous No.21838615]

>>21832011
Books are not something that you just read words in. They're also a tool to adjust your senses. When I'm not feeling well there are times that I can't take in what I read. When that happens, I try to think about what could be hindering my reading. There are books that I can take in smoothly even when I'm not feeling well. I try to think why. It might be something like mental tuning. What's important when you tune is the feeling of the paper that you're touching with your fingers and the momentary stimulation your brain receives when you turn pages.

[Anonymous No.21838619]

>>21833152
What about doing some activity that requires no brainpower like walking or sweeping? Given that I'm generally bored to tears when trying to do those things without any other mental stimulation, I clearly have plenty of leftover CPU cycles.

[Anonymous No.21838631]

>>21833656
So sitting and giving your full attention to an audiobook is the same as reading an actual book but listening to an audiobook while doing something else isn't? Even if the other thing you're doing requires no brainpower?

[Anonymous No.21838655]

>>21834358
Singular 'they' goes back to the 1400s.

[Anonymous No.21838661]

>>21834390
A better comparison would be someone who dictated their work rather than writing or typing. But it seems pretty obvious they're still an author if the choice of words and phrasing originated in their head.

[Anonymous No.21838669]

>>21834794
Compare it to music- sure, it's better to hear Beethoven's Fifth live than listen to a record of it, but listening to a record of it still pretty clearly seems superior to sitting and silently reading the sheet music.

[Anonymous No.21838679]

>>21835193
I think it depends on what activity you're engaging in and how much brainpower it demands.

[Anonymous No.21838685]

>>21835361
Yeah, I'll listen to an audiobook while washing the dishes or walking, but it would be silly to do so while doing a sudoku or playing a video game or something.

[Anonymous No.21838697]

>>21835993
It's different from reading a print book, but using the word 'read' to describe it is common usage.

[Anonymous No.21838701]

>>21836004
>he doesn't pirate his audiobooks

[Anonymous No.21838704]

>>21837432
Most video games are pretty stupid. The best ones are works of art as good as those in any medium.

[Anonymous No.21838847]

>>21838704
That’s not the point though. The point is video games supposedly being better just because it’s ‘active’. And as that anon proposed, passive or active consumption has no spectrum, so retarded shlock(analog to audiobooks) is equivalent to the supposed works of art

[Anonymous No.21838850]

>>21838847
Isn't audio just another medium, that can be used well or poorly?

[Anonymous No.21838873]

>>21838697
>I’ve read an audiobook
It really isn’t common, nor common sense. Just say ‘listen’, it’s the whole point of the medium and what makes it unique. That’s why audiofags insist on it to begin with. So they don’t have to read

It’s also a oxymoronic, just like the audiofag would be moronic

[Anonymous No.21838879]

>>21838873
Words get extended all the time, you know.

[Anonymous No.21838880]

>>21838850
When consuming literature, it indeed is less productive, compared to reading. But that anon thought they’re equal because they’re ‘passiveyou don’t get to make decisions in it)’. And that is comparing eating a meal as is, or having it processed through a blender instead.
Sure ‘it’s the same’, but one is a better experience than the other

[Anonymous No.21838888]

>>21838879
Why don’t you use the word that’s directly applicable, instead of seeking a metaphor? Why do you extend it to begin with?

[Anonymous No.21838891]

>>21838880
I think it depends on the work. For example, I'd rather listen to a dramatic reading of one of Shakespeare's plays than read the script, because plays are written for the stage, not the page.

[Anonymous No.21838916]

>>21838891
That is true, but we’re not talking about stage plays. Or writing that’s actually meant to be performed and acted out live.
We’re talking about literature that’s actually meant to be read, which is almost all of it. Such requires an inner voice, and audiobooks simplify that by having someone read it aloud, so you don’t have to use your own. That saves time, and brainpower. That’s why you’d get through an audiobook faster than the actual book

An example where ‘audiobooks’ thrive is children’s books. They are typically read aloud by someone, like an audiobook-because children have short attention spans and can’t bother with an inner voice. Still, the kids learn about the story, it fuels imagination. But audiofags insisting that medium is on paar with reading well into their adulthood, I think you can see, is silly

[Anonymous No.21838928]

>>21838916
It's certainly different, but if you've focused and grasped the content the end result is the same.

[Anonymous No.21838953]

>>21838669
Because…sheet music is meant to be played. It’s meant to be listened. You’re meant to play it on an instrument and hear the symphony, instead of imagining it.
Literature, is meant to be read, and you’re meant to imagine. Apples and pears.

[Anonymous No.21838959]

>>21838953
I wonder what various authors would say. I know that a good writer has the sound of the words in mind when he composes.

[Anonymous No.21838968]

>>21838928
I agree. But then, if all that matters is the end, regardless of means, then the shapeless, textureless purée is the same as the unprocessed meal because you get the same nutrition from it.
When I’m old and senile I’ll enjoy purée, but while I can, I’d like the meal in all its facets.

[Anonymous No.21838975]

>>21838968
I don't know, I feel like I enjoy audiobooks as much, even if I have to relisten to them if they're difficult or involved.

[Anonymous No.21838981]

>>21838959
That is the inner voice of the author, because he also imagines. Because it’s literature. I will have my own inner voice, it is part of a reader’s personal exeperience and why people read.

[Anonymous No.21838993]

>>21838981
By that logic, isn't an audiobook read by the author better than reading it yourself since it's actually as the author hears it in his head? You're getting more direct access to his thoughts.

[Anonymous No.21838997]

>>21838561
Reading is a mental workout, lots of introspection
Listening is relaxing, you also don't improve your reading skills this way.

[Anonymous No.21839004]

>>21838997
You can't introspect on something you listen to? Isn't it a matter of how you use it?

[Anonymous No.21839007]

>>21838975
Nothing wrong with that anon. Be it that you pause at every word or just let it pass, it’s how you want it to be. That is the medium you enjoy as is and make the most out of, there’s no need to pretend it’s sth else

>>21838993
A great author, knows how to convey what he wants the reader to know and imagine, and how much he leaves to them

Godspeed

[Anonymous No.21839028]

>>21839004
Still not improving your reading skills if you're not reading the words. Also when you read you're listening with your own voice instead of someone elses, this matters for introspection

[Anonymous No.21839030]

>>21832011
Because listening to an audiobook is a more passive activity than reading a book. If you zone out or get distracted by something the audiobook keeps playing. You can of course rewind but few people are going to be bothered to continually do that throughout the duration of an audiobook. Read Amusing Ourselves to Death.

[Anonymous No.21839037]

>>21837939
That wasn’t even me
And you still deserve ridicule and insult, for the nonsense you said, because you’ve long stopped making anything near an argument
Frankly, nigger.

[Anonymous No.21839042]

>>21839030
I don't listen to audiobooks because I don't like print books or they're too boring to me, it's because I only have so much time to sit and read, and audiobooks let me enjoy a book while doing menial tasks that don't take much brainpower.

[Anonymous No.21839069]

I'll add that I may be influenced by my linguistics training here; the field of linguistics tends to regard spoken language as "the real thing" and written language as basically a reflection.

[Anonymous No.21840232]

>>21832011
I depends upon the book. Some books are excellent to read aloud: anything by P.G. Wodehouse, for example. But Delany's Dhalgren? No, definitely not.

[Anonymous No.21840431]

>>21835193
>t. lvl 1 disassociator

[Anonymous No.21840962]

>>21839069
Maybe but you don't get the same ego bump as you do with reading text. That's clearly what is most important.

[Anonymous No.21840966]

>>21840232
I have heard of nether.

[Anonymous No.21840970]

>>21838655
No it doesn't. It goes back to like 2019/20 when the trannies decided instead of using 50 different ridiculous made up pronouns, they'll just settle for they/them/their and get it over with.

[Anonymous No.21841026]

>>21840970
Both of you guys are ignoring context.
Words in English are context sensitive.

[Anonymous No.21841145]

>>21832548
you must not know what analytical reading is if you genuinely belive someone could comprehend as much of an audiobook.

This why mfs should be obligated to read Mortimer's book before posting in this fucking board.

[Anonymous No.21841445]

>>21841145
You must have never payed attention and took notes to a recorded lecture if you think it's impossible to do exactly the same thing to audio if one so desired.

[Anonymous No.21841473]

>>21841445
Not him but the notes, that you later read, are your main focus. You don’t sit there trying to understand the lecture just from hearing it, you make your own script to study. Because reading helps more than just listening. There’s also no lecture worth its salt that’s just an audio recording. They come with PowerPoints, scripts, whatever

So no, the usage is not the same, yet alone the comprehension.

[Anonymous No.21841480]

>>21841473
I think you're brain is legit broken if you are unable and don't even attempts to comprehend a spoken lecture and exclusively rely on text.
That or you know full well you are full of shit and just being argumentative for the sake of it.

[Anonymous No.21841520]

>>21832011
>doesn't involve reading
>still try to call it reading

[Anonymous No.21841541]

>>21841520
Look up the definitions of the word read.
It will clear up your confusion very quickly.

[Anonymous No.21841589]

>>21836964
Subvocalisation, effort

[Anonymous No.21841600]

>>21841445
analytical reading is more than just 'taking notes' dipshitter

[Anonymous No.21841604]

>>21841480
>t. Apparently, his lectures are audio exclusive.
>You’re
Could’ve just said you’re studying bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21841606]

>>21834794
I really don't think this is true at all
I mean first of all sure they would probably still prefer to hear stories orated in person if that's how they were used to doing it but obviously then an audiobook would still be the next best thing to them not reading and that's the whole comparison here. Most ancient peoples could barely read or write at all so that tells you everything you need to know.
But even ignoring that I really think ancient people would pretty quickly see the potential of technology like TVs and phones. The brains of ancient people were not as different as people think. If you simply brought ancient people into the modern day I think they'd just get addicted to the same vices as modern people do.

[Anonymous No.21841607]

>>21841541
By definition, it’s literally not what it means. Stop grasping for metaphors, just say listen.

[Anonymous No.21841656]

>why is reading different to listening

Gee whiz

[Anonymous No.21841717]

>>21841606
You proved my point

[Anonymous No.21841720]

How does this have 200 replies, you read a book and listen to an audiobook, what else is there to say

[Anonymous No.21841734]

>>21832432
This but also pop history/science books. Carl sagan on tape or american serengeti on tape are kino. I also like edutainment history podcasts with sound effects like radio shows. Bear Grease is my favorite podcast.

[Anonymous No.21841739]

>>21841656
Listening activates the audio parts of your brain and you enjoy the intonation, cadence, pitch, timbre as as much a part of the storytelling as the narrative itself. Audiobook is a performance.

[Anonymous No.21841814]

>>21841739
Yeah and not the visual/language production centre like in reading. When you read via subvocalising you are effectively rehearsing saying what you read. When you listen you are dumb.

[Anonymous No.21841817]

>>21841814
>When you listen you are dumb.
oral histories go farther than any recorded literature but keep stifling your own growth for petty high-horse reasons

[Anonymous No.21841822]

>>21841817
> oral histories go farther than any recorded literatur
That’s not an argument, people couldn’t read nor write for anything else to be an option but verbal retelling. It was no ‘preference’ it was the only option for the unadvanced

Also you could be enjoying your own intonation, cadence, pitch and timbre with your inner voice. But that would take more effort than listening to someone else’s

[Anonymous No.21841827]

>>21832011
Today I read Beethoven 5th symphony. It's pretty good

[Anonymous No.21842450]

>>21840970
Literally false:
>Then shalt thou bring forth that man, or that woman (which haue committed that wicked thing) vnto thy gates, euen that man, or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones till they die.
Deuteronomy 7:5, King James Version, 1611
>for he neuer forſaketh any creature vnleſſe they before haue forſaken them ſelues.
John Fisher, The wayes to perfect Religion, 1535
>There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
>As if I were their well-acquainted friend
William Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors, 1595
>Hastely hiȝed eche wiȝt..til þei neyȝþed so neiȝh..þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.
William and the Werwolf, from 13-fucking-75
And, famously:
>A person can't help their birth
William Makepeace Thackeray

[Anonymous No.21842457]

>>21841607
What's wrong with metaphors? The language we use every day is loaded with them.

[Anonymous No.21842490]

>>21842457
there’s no metaphorical pretext that’ll make ‘I read audiobooks’ not be rightfully stupid. No one does that, because every day metaphors still make sense

[Anonymous No.21842503]

>>21842490
Sure, it can. If I'm asked about my reading habits and the interviewer cares about books consumed regardless of format, it makes sense to "I like to read audiobooks".

[Anonymous No.21842533]

>>21842503
>And the interviewer smiles politely, maybe frown in short confusion for a second
What’s wrong with ‘listen’? Which directly applies to what you actually did, without reaching or grasping at straws? Since you don’t have reading habits. Because you’ve not read. Reading habits would make it obvious to you that ‘reading’ and ‘listening’ aren’t interchangeable
You, personally just insist on saying ‘Yeah I’ve read something’ when you didn’t.
Literally, any normal fag would just say “Well, I’ve listened to the audiobook of this and that”. Because they don’t care if it’s not reading, they appreciate of audiobooks as is,why can’t you?

[Anonymous No.21842543]

>>21842503
>”I like to read audiobooks”
>”Oh, so you actually do readings of the books? Are you affiliated with an audiobook service?”
>”No uh…I just listen to them read”

[Anonymous No.21842631]

>>21842533
Nothing's wrong with 'listen', I'm just saying it's not the only word you could possibly use. Anyway, why do you care about what word we use? The thing is the same regardless of what you call it.

[Anonymous No.21843165]

>No dude you don't get it, just because I don't have the attention span to focus on the written word doesn't mean I don't read.
>No dude really, listening to YA fiction at 1.5 speed is the same as reading a nonfiction book with footnotes, diagrams, thought exercises that require contemplation, references to other works, passages that are open to re-interpretation, the requisite inner dialogue, etc...
>its literally the same thing dude, plus my favorite celebrity is reading the book.
Brainlets that have access to the internet are still brainlets.

[Anonymous No.21843243]

Interesting debate. I like audiobooks and reading ordinary books.
When I read, my "inner monologue" is "reading to me" in a sense. I can have my inner monologue do voice for characters, or have inflection, or not. I see listening to an audiobook as merely letting someone else translate the written characters into audible words for my brain to interpret, rather than doing this through my own eyes and inner monologue. This frees up my hands and eyes to do mundane tasks which require little brain power ex. folding laundry.
I think what is important in this context is ultimately idea transfer, and therefore I think the most important factor is attention. If we could just telepathically communicate with one another, this would probably be the best way to transfer ideas. Since we can't, we use speaking and the written word and so on, but ultimately we're transferring ideas all the same.
I know from reading literary critics and this board that some people can "read" a book, and even write about it at length without understanding it. Our objective then is to understand the ideas that the author is communicating. I don't think that the format is all that important, and what really matters is the reader or listener's attention in either case.

[Anonymous No.21843256]

>>21843165
You're conflating medium and type of book. Obviously an audiobook can only be as good as the book it's a recording of.

[Anonymous No.21843391]

>>21843256
No, I'm not.
Real books require the medium of written word, the time and mental exertion of not only reading, but re-reading for absolute clarity, diagrams for understanding applications/concepts, etc.
If you don't need those then you are:

>A. Not fully engaging with the material.
>B. Not engaging in the act of reading.

Young people deliberately ignore the existence of the former, as they find it impossible to concentrate long enough to actually read. However they are also categorically not reading. Cognitively, books are not audio books. In form of expression, books are not audio books. I wish people would stop trying to justify their ebin nerdy hobby by arguing against facts. If you're not reading, you're not reading.

[Anonymous No.21843427]

>>21832051
yes

[Anonymous No.21843512]

>>21842631
If nothing’s wrong with listen, and it’s a much better and direct description of what you do, why don’t you use it? Why deliberately use wrong verbs?
In the same spirit I could say I read Shakespeare when I’ve actually watched the play, ‘read’ and ‘watch’ aren’t synonymous, and everybody would be right to call me a tard. Because literally no one does that

[Anonymous No.21843551]

>>21843391
>Real books require the medium of written word
Why?
>the time and mental exertion of not only reading, but re-reading for absolute clarity
You can listen to an audiobook multiple times.
>diagrams for understanding applications/concepts, etc.
There are no real books without illustrations?
>>21843512
I usually would say 'listen to', but if someone asks me what I've been reading lately, they are clearly interested in what books I've been enjoying, and if I said, "none, but I've been listening to an audiobook of..." I would be thought to be trying to be funny at best and a pedantic ass at worst.

[Anonymous No.21843569]

>>21843551
> I would be thought to be trying to be funny at best and a pedantic ass at worst.
I don’t see how you arrived at that impression. You’re just stating what you did. By using ‘read’ you look utterly pretentious, maybe even insecure about your book enjoyment, and confuse whoever is asking alas
>>21842543

[Anonymous No.21843575]

>>21843551
>you can listen to an audiobook multiple times.
This is it, this is where I'm finished. I know that you've never actually engaged in reading a mentally stimulating text, but sometimes a dense passage will require re-reading and/or contemplation in order to correctly process the rest of the text.

Have fun "reading" audio books, specifically those of fiction or young adult leanings as is inevitable with brainlet underage b& like yourself.

[Anonymous No.21843582]

>>21843551
>Why?
Because that’s the definition of a book.
> You can listen to an audiobook multiple times.
That’s irrelevant. Borrowing the inner voice of someone else massively cuts the mental exerion, hence you get through the audiobook quicker than the actual book

[Anonymous No.21843597]

>>21843569
Again, if I were to say unprompted that I listened to it, I wouldn't seem pedantic. But if someone said "and she just got done reading such-and-such" I would be a pedantic ass if I butted in and said "listening actually".
>>21843575
Like hell I haven't! I do read book books too, you know.
>>21843582
'That's the definition of a book' is not an answer to 'why is it necessary for a certain type of grasp or appreciation'. The definitions of words cannot affect reality.

[Anonymous No.21843613]

I'd be curious to know if audiobooks have the same effect on vocabulary and one's own writing style that reading has. I'm sure there are some that can extract as much, if not more, from listening than reading though how much of the audiobook audience do they represent?
Personally it feels strange. I like to find a cozy place, sit down, and read. Maybe for 15 minutes or maybe for hours. I would feel strange sitting in the sun and just listening to an audiobook. I feel like my mind would wander into the world and would pull me out of it.

[Anonymous No.21843621]

>>21832011
Because it isn't reading. It's listening.

[Anonymous No.21843626]

>>21843551
You wouldn’t have to answer their question at all, you’ve not read any books.
I also wouldn’t answer that I’ve read Hamlet when I actually watched the play. And why would I?

[Anonymous No.21843634]

>>21832048
Why this thread has more replies than this first, obvious, and best post is beyond me.
Also: OP thinks anyone over 30 is a boomer.

[Anonymous No.21843639]

>>21836964
>I don't read: the post

[Anonymous No.21843656]

>>21843597
No one would think or claim you’ve read the audiobooks, that scenario just doesn’t happen. It is common sense to say you -listened- to -audio. You wouldn’t be correcting anyone just because you understand verbs.

> 'That's the definition of a book' is not an answer to 'why is it necessary for a certain type of grasp or appreciation'. The definitions of words cannot affect reality.
That was not your question. Your question was “Why do real books require the medium of written word”, the definition is the answer.
The definitions of words don’t affect reality, reality affects definitions.

[Anonymous No.21843693]

>>21843656
>That was not your question. Your question was “Why do real books require the medium of written word”, the definition is the answer.
That's the trivially true answer, but it's not an answer to the actually relevant question of why the end result is meaningfully different.
>The definitions of words don’t affect reality, reality affects definitions.
In the sense that it constrains what categories are useful, but there is no one unique true system of categories corresponding to reality.

[Anonymous No.21843823]

>>21835711
Format shapes the consumption of the content.

[Anonymous No.21845016]

>>21838561
Because words matter.