Please leave your vote in the comments section…but we here at #TotalDrama do not believe that listening to an audio book is “reading.” Why Leo Laporte insists that he is indeed “reading” when listening to his bogus Audible.com books is beyond us. But, then again, we don’t make a habit of cheating on our wives and buying new cars for slutty cunts that run our companies into the ground.
As a college English instructor with a BA in English and an MA in Literature, as well as a semester of PhD classes under my belt, I wholeheartedly disagree.
I guess you have to define what you mean by “reading.” Is it just looking at and understanding characters on a screen/page, or is it something more significant — like actual comprehension of the ideas presented.
In my field, we “read” movies and plays and TV shows. “Reading,” for academics, is an act of analysis — a reading of a film is different from just watching a film. There’s a different intent behind the process.
But the way I see it, semantics don’t matter much. I think someone can “read” an audiobook just as they can a paperback. It’s about the comprehension of the material, not the medium it takes.
That said, I think there’s a healthy debate to be had over generic/medium differences in those readings — if someone “reads” an audio recording of Harry Potter, are they getting the same experience as someone who “reads” a paperback? Does the medium significantly change perceptions of the narratives? How? Which is better?
(Certainly reading from a book helps with all kinds of mental processes that I’m not going to discuss here, but I don’t think that necessarily means that individuals who consume books in audio format don’t understand it — and think of the benefits of something like this for people with reading and learning disabilities like dyslexia. Would you tell a dyslexic audiobook consumer that he/she is not really reading even though they’re consuming the same story you are, just in a different way?)
It all comes down to the reader him/herself. Personally, I couldn’t care less if my students read Pride & Prejudice on the page or as an audiobook so long as they understand the material well enough to discuss.
I’m not saying you guys are wrong, but it’s really just semantics. What is “reading” to you may not be for someone else. I mean, just look at the various definitions of “reading” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reading?s=t
JAS» Quote comment
Strange you mention Pride and Prejudice. As a teacher I see that students and teachers just do not read anymore. The schools are pushing books, large, fat, extremely heavy and very expensive books that no one reads but are forced to hang the weights on their backs of the students and bring them home and back to school, keeping the huge British corporation Pearson in business.
I have been complaining about no one reading books in schools for many years. I do all my reading on electronic devices, all of it. But students have never been taught to read on the electronic devices, just play games on them and use social.
A school bought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Apple computers. I asked the students and teachers to find something to read using those gold plated Apple computers and the only book on the Apple bookshelf was Pride and Prejudice, due to copyrights. That is right, schools that do not provide books in electronic form, expecting to buy hardback books to keep the union librarians employed till they retire in a few decades, just refuse to using electronic devices to read.
California wants to spend billions on Ipads just to do tests, but still no reading. Students say they are great for games.
Audio books are so super expensive that few can afford to get them, and lending those books to friends is not possible, so they are destroying the sharing economy that educates the youth.
Also, I ask students attending college and they all state they use pirate software for their classes. They have special web place to get the software they need to take classes. Los Angeles, copyright fighting is intense.
SO, it does not matter, costs too much any way.
sunburst1» Quote comment
“As a college English instructor with a BA in English and an MA in Literature, as well as a semester of PhD classes under my belt”, actually you lost right there. You expect us to think your education makes you more qualified than us to opine on this subject.
I had a psycho client who wanted to lecture me on her PhD deceased husband and how he was smarter than I am. I explained to her that I make 4 times what my PhD father did even after it’s adjusted for inflation. So don’t expect us to assume your actually smarter than us.
Mark Harry» Quote comment
Yes I’m replying to myself, because I forgot one thing. As much as I respected my teachers, “those who can do, those who can’t teach”. Don’t preface your comments with your degrees, no one cares.
Mark Harry» Quote comment
Mark Henry all I can say fuck you and the big salary you have. One attribute you will never have is a stich of class. Bragger.
Tom M» Quote comment
tl;dr
HelloWorld» Quote comment
Just kidding. Thank you so much for your comment. We welcome all views here at #TotalDrama and your voice has been added to the chorus.
HelloWorld» Quote comment
What the hell did I do to my lips this weekend?
Remind me to;
Edit my lower lip on Ipad today!
Sara “Lips” Lane» Quote comment
I have to disagree with JAS. Referring to semantics doesn’t apply in this matter, I think context is much better term in relation to ‘reading’ a book. A book by definition cannot be ‘listened’ to. Yes you can throw it on the ground and it will make a noise that you can hear but that’s about as far as it goes, the actual contents of the book don’t permeate into your brain. In context, you need to actually ‘read’ the book, not ‘listen’ to it. Contrarily and again in proper context, you cannot read an audiobook, it’s audio content not written words.
Just to sum up, I vote that Leo is a douche-bag, books need to be read, audiobooks need to be heard. He can redefine words to suit his own purposes but he needs to to make a good argument when he does so.
thoughtpolyp» Quote comment
I just want to add one more argument that Leo is just plain wrong in pushing his weird ‘reading’ audiobooks. When he’s in the middle of one of his five minute commercial-mixed-with-program-content Audible.com commercials and he randomly includes his show guests to talk about their current and/or favorite audiobooks. Yet none of them use the word ‘read’, they all ‘listen’ to audio content. Leo is the ONLY person I’ve ever heard who insists that ‘reading’ can apply to both reading a book or listening to an audiobook so in any conversation between Leo and his guests there’s this disconcerting exchange where everyone else is using the conventional definitions of ‘reading’ and ‘listening’ while Leo is off in his own goofy place.
If someone at Audible.com is paying any attention, they should send a note to Leo that he’s confusing his listeners with his bizarre redefining of the word ‘read’. Audible is selling audiobooks, not physical, written-word-on-paper books and I doubt they’re paying to be a sponsor so Leo can misrepresent their product.
thoughtpolyp» Quote comment
I believe a example is called for… For example, if Lisa(TWaT’s CoHoe) were to read “Pride and Prejudice” for Audible.Com(of course garnering a salary, Lisa never works for free, including screwing the chief TWaT himself), I doubt any normal man or woman could listen(read) the first chapter without (using a previous example indicating extreme pain) bare handing a cholla cactus and pounding oneself over the head as being less painful than listening to CoHoe read. On the other hand, sitting down besides a warm fire and taking the book in hand will lead to many pleasurable hours of thoughtful mental stimulation.
John» Quote comment
As someone that uses audiobooks regularly they are merely entertainment value only. It is far harder to absorb what is being read to you compared to actually reading it.
Saying that I also buy the ebook or the actual paper book of the audiobooks if they are in print in a language that I know and can read, they don’t have to be in english but have to be in one of the languages I can read.
I think of audiobooks are merely a version of the old british children’s show “Jackanory” where a celebrity sits down and reads a book to the children that are on the other side of the camera viewing the show or similar such radio shows that did similarly.
I have always found rancid the claim that Leo Laporte makes that because someone it reading it that it makes a book spring to life in a way that reading the words yourself will never do! If it does it for him and he cannot do it when reading the text himself then he really has an acutely subnormal imagination. In fact with many books that I have listened to while working that I have previously read the reader doesn’t have that spark and to be honest there are several books that I wish I had never purchased the audiobook version because it was a let down to the book and the images that I have built in my mind of the characters.
In fact it is quite insulting for anyone to claim that having a book read to you by a third party is ‘reading’ when it is merely listening.
I listen to audiobooks because I don’t have enough time to focus and read a book and I can do multiple tasks and it is entertaining. When I read a book it becomes my sole focus and I use my imagination and it becomes visual in my mind as I read, when I try the same with an audiobook I have to listen to that same audio book multiple times before I can do the same because I absorb less even when listening to the audiobook is the sole thing I am doing.
I am sure that Leo Laporte is entitled to his opinion on the subject and if he feels that he wants to claim that he is reading and audiobook then good for him. Though he seems to claim for several weeks to be reading the same book, maybe it is because he just does not have any time in the day to listen, sorry read, his audiobooks with all those early starts and late finishes to the day. Of course that mammoth 5 minute drive to work doesn’t help either.
Maybe Leo Laporte can read a book to everyone during his new years party, have everyone sit around while he reads a book for a few hours. Then everyone can participate in his method of ‘reading’. Now that would be a sight worth watching.
Stew» Quote comment
Stew nails it and doesn’t tell us about all of his degrees in bullshit.
Mark Harry» Quote comment
I have lots of Audible books, and have finished quite a few of them…
…but I will never claim I [READ] any of those books.
Because I didn’t. Basically I listened to someone else pore over every word a bit of punctuation in books hundreds of pages long, and turn it into an audio stream that I could mentally chew on. I did no real work.
When you read a book, you have to give it your full attention. When I listened to audiobooks, I was almost always driving. Rarely listened at home. And even when I did at home, I was doing something else.
So no, I do not consider audiobooks the same as normal books. They are the lazy man’s approach to reading, and that’s not always bad. Sometimes a good narrator can make a topic seem interesting. And sometimes you just don’t have much opportunity to sit and read but you do have time to listen while driving. It can serve a purpose.
But it’s not reading. There is no sense of accomplishment to be had when you finish an audiobook.
Scott» Quote comment
“Reading” is the act of scanning written/typed words into your brain through your eyeballs.
Ethan» Quote comment
Nobody cares. Weak post. Grabbing at straws. Give us some really good dirt instead.
Dusty» Quote comment
Hi Dusty, Your comment was misdirected to us here at #TotalDrama. We’re quite certain that you meant that every show currently running on the TWiT network is weak and is a show that nobody cares about. So here’s Leo’s e-mail if you need it: leo@leoville.com
HelloWorld» Quote comment
is reading brail, reading?
i says i reads books even if i sees the movies, makes me seem educated like Jarvis
Richard Yes» Quote comment
Listening is not reading. Full Stop.
Scott» Quote comment
I don’t think listening to an audio book is reading. You listen to an audio book like you would listen to a podcast. Sure you can sit in a chair and get caught up in an audio book. But it is not the same as reading a book. When I want to really enjoy a good book I take the time to sit and read it take it in and enjoy it. I have listened to a lot of audio books. I don’t remember much about them. When I read a book. It became a part of me.
People say kids don’t read anymore or people don’t read anymore. If you use a smart phone, a computer, a tablet, this website, any website, the internet. You are reading. Reading does not have to be long form. But It can’t be audio or video. That is not reading. That is listening or watching.
Any read teacher or anyone with a disagree should be smart enough to know that. Remember, leo is a drop out who thinks he can tell a big tech company what he thinks and they are going to listen to him and do it.
Robert» Quote comment
Spiraling as a visually impaired guy here I’d definitely say listening to audiovisual counts as reading. I have always loved to read, but hardcover books are about the minimum text size I can read without a jewelers loup. Though when I listen I’m not generally engaged in anything other than the book.
Scott» Quote comment
It’s reading. Get over your eyeball centric elite ivory tower bullshit! #FreeMumia
Lt. Butthole» Quote comment
Listening in NOT reading. You can twist the definition all you want. If all you ever did was listen to audio and never “read” text or braille, you are not fully illiterate . Stick that in your audio book and read it. /end text
TheSmart1» Quote comment