/lit/ - Literature

>>15610586
the experience is different and that's about it

>>15610586
only on reddit

>>15610602
>only on reddit

>only on reddit

If the audio book is unabridged and you rewound at least a couple dozen times to review a difficult paragraph, then yes.

>>15610694
why paragraph

what about audiobooks so easy they dont ever require rewinds

>because I have the same knowledge of what happened

>>15610586
Some unsatisfactorily edited works like Moby Dick are better audiobooked, but it doesn't count as being read, unless you go back and look at dense passages, then look at annotations for those, so that you have the same actual knowledge as quality readers.

>>15610694
>If the audio book is unabridged and you rewound at least a couple dozen times to review a difficult paragraph, then yes.

Ok reddit

>>15610586
Yes, if you are able to listen. No, if you are a deaf person.

>>15610586
Yeah I do it all the time since my job allows for it. I do have to say though, I've had to listen multiple times to have the same level of understanding as if I just read the book.

>>15610758
>Some unsatisfactorily edited works like Moby Dick are better audiobooked
if I could kill you through my laptop screen I would

>>15610813
Hemingway is a dog shit author

>>15610793
Different anon, possible problem could you have with this?

You didn't read it. You listened to it.
It's just non-factual since reading is done with your eyes and listening is done with your ears these two are completely separate activities.

What incentive is there for you to lie and say that "I read it" instead of "I listened to it"?

>>15610813
most people who get into lit will go for famous classics, but are nowhere near prepared for the effort required to finish it. but if they audiobook it, much of the effort required will be reduced, and they'll retain the important parts if they're at least half awake. overall, for most people, it'd be better to audiobook it as one of their early starters for literature.

>>15610843
braillists can read a book with their fingers. why cant people read and finish a book with their ears, retard?

>>15610858
>most people who get into lit will go for famous classics, but are nowhere near prepared for the effort required to finish it. but if they audiobook it, much of the effort required will be reduced, and they'll retain the important parts if they're at least half awake. overall, for most people, it'd be better to audiobook it as one of their early starters for literature.

>>15610865
If you really want to go into the details then a definition of reading which would include braille is using print on a surface as a medium for linguistic communication.
Braille is a niche form of reading and it had little to do with the topic so I excluded it from my initial post.

This broadening of the definition of "reading" still doesn't include listening, however. Therefore, my initial point still stands: listening and reading are two separate activities.

Also, let me draw attention to the last point on my initial post: what incentive is there to say you read a books instead of listened to it?
Is there some form of advantage to be gained by other people thinking that you read a book instead of listened to it?
In the OP post the argument is based on the premise that reading a book and listening to a book accomplishes the same ends. If listening and reading a book will accomplish the same ends then what is the point of lying?

>>15610586
No. You should say that you listened to an audiobook

>>15610959
because read is a concept and as a concept its meaning can be broadened. you nor any dictionary objectively owns the language.

>>15610983
for example, if i say read can include listening as a way to gather information from a text, how can you prove me wrong without a flimsy reference to your muh facts and muh dictionary definition, which dont exist in nature?

>>15610983
>you nor any dictionary objectively owns the language
Neither do you. The collective English-speaking population, however, does.
Let me know when the general consensus of the English-speaking population is that the word "reading" is a synonym of the word "listening".

>>15611010
fuck the consensus, retard.
english used to be the consensus of britain, now its the consensus of the us, and even that will change.

you admitted braille counts as reading, when this contradicts most dictionary definitions. audiobooking as reading contradicts dictionary definitions, but you literally cant tell the difference when a smart person audiobooked a work and discusses it intelligibly. if they audiobooked it and said they read it, then they functionally read it, which is reading it. you just dont have an imagination and want to avoid a loss, but either way youre embarrassing yourself with your pseudery.

>>15611010
>fuck the consensus, retard.
>youre embarrassing yourself with your pseudery.

You're obviously a bit emotional.
Why are you so emotionally invested in arguing that saying "I read a book" is not a lie if you listened to an audio-book?
If you read over my previous posts, not once did I say that listening to an audio-book in any way achieves a different result from reading the very same book.
In fact, my argument takes your premise that listening to a book will achieve the same ends as reading a book as truth, and as a logical conclusion there is no merit in lying and saying you read a book over telling the truth.

We can argue semantics but that would just be derailing the argument.

Since you seem to not understand my point, let me stress it in a short and ordered fashion:
>reading a book and listening to an audio-book are separate activities
>reading a book and listening to an audio-book will achieve the same ends
>saying that you read a book when you listened to an audio-book is a lie
therefore,
>there is no incentive for you to lie and say that you read a book when you listened to an audio-book

>>15610858
please leave and never come back

>>15611117
not emotional here, but you are stupid. prove that print and eyes are a fundamental necessity for reading.

i showed that you don't need eyes to read, and computer text, which is a distinct concept from print, show that reading doesn't require print either. you keep arrogantly sticking to your choice of axioms when it's an illusion. at the same time, people often say they're listening over the internet, when use of ears isn't really involved toward that end. your axioms are dog shit but you cling onto them like the pedant you are.

>>15610830
>Hemingway

>>15611156
A plethora of insults and not one counterarguments to my arguments.
I'm coming to realize that you belong to a certain category of people who use ad-hominem to convince themselves that they are "winning" an argument.
For what purpose these people do such a thing is beyond my understanding, but I have no care for arguing against a person who takes it to be some sort of competitive sport.

You have "won".
Congratulations.

>>15611207
that's not ad hominem you pseud. look up what ad hominem means and see if my insults were the method for disproving your arguments. use your ears or hands to do this if you have to look it up that way. the insults are there for flavor.

and i don't see myself as winning in any way. you refuse to attempt to prove your axioms and keep circularly referencing them, so it's more that you're at a loss, than i could be said to win. i didn't gain anything from this; hardly winning. you merely gave up.

either answer the request on your axioms or don't bother trying to syllogistically guide dumb kids with your pussy flimsy logic.

>>15610830
Horrible bait

>>15610586
Nobody is gonna stop you but really you should just say you listened to the audio book. It's pretty clear you care more about the social status reading literature affords you than anything else if you're going to ask this question, posture or give a shit about what anyone else thinks about your medium of consumption.

>>15611559
i don't talk to people irl about books nigger. if i listen to an audiobook and say i read it, which is semantically and figuratively true, and have the intellect to talk about books decently or take down pseuds who can't defend their flimsy axioms, it's a matter of negligible cultural meaning and communicative expedience.

I nearly fell asleep while reading the Iliad, but loved listening to the audio book.

>>15611615
thats acceptable, its how its meant to be enjoyed

yea sure why wouldn't you?

>>15610586
Just don't mention that you listened to it.
Its fine for genre fiction but becomes a crutch with more serious reading.
Absolutely nothing wrong with looking at the text and following along though.

>>15610602
>>15610657
>>15610694
>>15610586
What if i listen to it on audiobook, but SAY i read it on paper?

>>15611632

True, hadn't thought about it

>>15611583
>listened to an audio book
>read it
>semantically true

That is literally semantically false. Its fine to say you read it even if its an audio book, but semantically you listened or consumed it. Reading =/= listening, nigger

>>15610959
>what incentive is there to say you read a books instead of listened to it?
Simple. We know deep down reading is the difficult but superior intellectual activity, and that listening is easier and the only option for ADHD zoomers.

t. reader but sometime listener

>>15610586
I would say no. Maybe for you, but for me, reading closely makes it "stick" in my mind. Listening doesn't.

I do kinda hate it when people mentioned they listened to an audiobook WHILE DOING SOMETHING ELSE; I HAVE to lay in the bed doing nothing else or read along if I'm listening to an audiobook

In the literal sense of reading it by scrolling over the text with your eyes and speaking the words out loud/in your head, no.

But in the general sense if someone asked "Have you read x", then yes. That's because you have the exact same knowledge of the book as some who has literally read it. You know every detail just as well as someone who has read it. And you'd be able to hold an in depth conversation about the book with someone else who's also read it.

Anyone who disagrees is a pretentious brainlet.

>He doesn't instantly see pictures in his head when people talk the same way that happens when you read books
>He doesn't play audiobooks at x2 the speed while still being able to write an essay at the end of the book


Damn

>>15613305
UberBased

>>15611615
>bought the audio version after getting frustrated reading the big catalogue of armies in book 2, not knowing how any of these names are meant to be pronounced
>audiobook is an abridged version (which they didn't fucking mention anywhere) that completely skips that part
>have to read the book after all

I have enormous back shoulder and neck pains so sometimes i’m forced to listen to audiobooks. Cucks that listen to them while doing other stuff (except stuff like driving) should die. I used to have an ex that used to put on tv series while doing stuff like chores or her make-up, she used to brag about having seen more seasons than me

>>15610586
Unfortunately when you don't
read the book in print you are
going to miss out on epic
acrostic meme messages
You understand?

>>15616392
>listen to LibriVox recording of Shakespeare play
>the qt-sounding female narrator pauses at the end of each line, not realizing you're supposed to read it fluidly

>>15610586
who cares. you can say you've read a book even if you haven't. You probably shouldn't.

Do you think you managed to absord the information?

>>15610586
yes saying you listened to a book sounds retarded.

>>15610586
I listen to the audiobook while I read the physical book.

>>15610586
>Am I allowed
Who is there to prevent you?

>>15610586
Discussion of audiobooks should be forbidden on /lit/ HOWEVER, there is no reason one couldn't listen to an audiobook and then discuss the book and simply not state that they didn't read it. It's not like the average quality of this board would suffer from more people discussing literary works, even if their understanding of those works is limited. I'm saying it is unknowable if someone read a work or listened to the audiobook.