Do they count if you’re listening attentively?
Homer was a proto-Audiobook. I says yes
i'm struggling to imagine a context in which that question would be meaningful. insecure teens eager to tell people how many books they've finished? i guess they would want to know whether audiobooks count as 'completed' entries on their list. but can't imagine any non-dullard non-neurotic context for caring about this.
based doggo, i hope he listens to finnegans wake next
>>25187269You did not read the book, you listened to it. You did expend the same mental effort it would require to physically read words before your eyes. >>25187275This is a retarded comparison, as not everything is epic poetry.
>>25187304Dickens had public readings
>>25187304You did not*
>>25187307So the exception is the rule, retard? Lol. Is your mind feminine-oriented? Next you'll make some broad sweeping over generalisation and claim it to be the truth.
>>25187310>exception is the rule, How do you think story telling started?
>>25187338This is becoming hilarious. Obviously, the oral tradition predates the use of symbols to convey a story. However, we are not at that same point in history. Literature is its own medium. You read a book. If you merely listen to it being read out by someone else, you have not read the book, you have listened to someone read it for you. These traditional oral stories greatly differ from the vast majority of literary works which exist, outside of epic poetry. You did not read Homer by listening to the Bard recite his poetry. The exception is not the rule when it applies explicitly to the domain of literary fiction and non-fiction. Within this gamut, I wouldn't imagine many works being created so as to be intended to be read out, and that is certainly not the case for most of what I have read by Joyce. My brother is of the opposite opinion, and believes that listening is the same as reading. He argues that he does listen attentively, yet he is offended when I make a reference to a work which we both have ostensibly "read", only for him to stare blankly and insult me.
>>25187419Saying “you haven’t read it if you listened” is more of a semantic stance than a substantive one. From a comprehension standpoint, listening can absolutely count as engaging with the work. The brain is still processing language, narrative, argument. In fact, for most history, including works like The Iliad attributed to Homer, that was the primary mode of consumption.
SYBAU
>>25187269>countAre you doing maths or something?
>>25187269Obviously not. The way you engage with a book is entirely different if you listen to it.
>>25187307> Dickens had public readings>>25187310Oral culture is the standard not the exception. It’s only very recently literacy has become dominant. Even in the 1800s people would have newspapers read aloud to them. > Is your mind feminine-oriented? Next you'll make some broad sweeping over generalisation and claim it to be the truth.Ironic, bitch.
>>25187442>From a comprehension standpoint, listening can absolutely count as engaging with the workBut you aren't engaging with the work on the same level as if you were reading it. Of course this entirely depends on how you read. If you speed through a book and don't bother to go over stuff twice then you may as well have listened to it.
>>25187419>I wouldn't imagine many works being created so as to be intended to be read out, and that is certainly not the case for most of what I have read by JoyceJoyce, the practically blind wordplayer, who loved to write stuff the reader has to sound out to get?
This discussion about oral tradition is utterly meaningless. Joyce (ironically enough) is the one who made literature a respectable medium. You could listen to Dostoevsky and have the same experience as someone reading it, but Joyce (and the ones that followed him) require far more effort than just listening. >>25187563 is right though, in saying that you should read it aloud, and using an audiobook as a companion piece is a great idea.
>>25187562>But you aren't engaging with the work on the same level as if you were reading it.I think it depends on what you are reading, but yeah, if you are reading something more difficult, and or your goal is to study and retain as much as possible, even going back and taking notes, written word is best.I do think that retaining the information and concentating on either format is somewhat of a developed skill. I listen to biographies at work. Retaining every word of every sentence isnt always necessary, depending on the verbosity of the author.
>>25187269Don't worry about whether they "count" in someone else's opinion, worry about whether you, personally, are able to absorb the contents of the book as effectively that way.
>>25187269Speaking as someone who grew in an oral tradition that mostly views writing as only good for STEM, legal and archival shit, listening to an audiobook is not the same as reading but that does not make it less than, just different. At least for lit fiction from the modernist on; prior to the modernists, literature is predominately in the oral tradition, just written, the modernists started exploiting the written word and taking into account the act of reading and you make a sacrifice when you listen to the works of the modernists and the majority of lit fiction which followed. Thinking you read a book because you listened to the audiobook is just as retarded as shitting on people who listened to the audiobook instead of reading it, all that matters is what you get out of it and your ability to express what you got out of it. That said, when it comes to lit fiction from the modernists on, I do think you should read before listening, there are things which will be lost if you listen before you read and you will not get them in retrospect.
>>25187269"Count" for what?Why do you need someone else's permission or instruction to decide how you, yourself, feel about what you do with your time?
>>25189179Humans are social beings and want to play the same games with another.
>>25187269This is one of those questions that communicates far more about the insecurity of the asker than it does about whatever topic it is attempting to broach.Maybe you shouldn't looks at books as some kind of "score" to be tallied by some nebulous judge.>>25189180What prompts you to believe that books are a game that needs to be judged by others on whether you participated "properly" or not?
>>25189184No man is an island. Even reading is social because someone else put time and effort into wanting to communicate with you. We like to validate our thoughts and feelings, and that’s why we tell others what we are thinking or feeling. You might get sick of the social side of things, or isolate yourself, but you still have a desire to connect and accept the responsibility attached. We can flirt with nihilism and say none of this matters, but, at the end of the day, what is the point of genuinely expressing these opinions about life not mattering if we didn’t at least want solace in saying it? Unexpressed feelings and sentiments can become more intense and uncomfortable the more we repress them. We obviously want others to talk to us or do as we think. Maybe none of what we think lines up with objective reality, but we still want some semblance of truth or meaning or hope or release.
>>25187304you're just looking at a page. how is this different?
>>25187558maybe the way YOU do, but only brownoids can't imagine other people.do or feel things differently
>>25189187I'm sorry you feel that way but I have no obligation to participate in or be judged by whatever insecure game it is you wish to play with your own personal exploration of the written (or recited) word. Simplistic aphorisms like "No man is an island" don't make for compelling reasons why I should reduce myself to your level of rote, mechanical authoritarian thinking.You don't strike me as someone who's trying to carefully consider what he's read, you strike me as someone insecure who needs to have a scoring system so he can "prove" that he read it "better than" someone else. I don't have much respect for that sort of thinking.
>>25187269I believe listening to the book 100% via audio is not ideal for most books, but some stories may work.When I go for a run, a base run, no intervals or harder efforts, I like to listen to the book I'm currently reading, some books require more effort from me so I have to read the bits again, but some books are perfectly fine. The easiest book I've listened was Catcher in the Rye, the whole thing really feels like someone telling a story to you. Another one is Count of Monte Cristo, because the dude on librivox did a great job with all the different accents.
>>25189196If we all read and listen different ways, why do we bother arguing over the true interpretation? We inherently want to put forward the best interpretation, which is usually our own, but may be a patchwork of what others have said. I do concede you are right about how your personal experience of a text is your own, and no one really can tell you otherwise, but maybe you should think about how egocentric reading and listening to a text can be. You are limited by what jumps out to you and no one fully has an objective, static view of the text. Instead, they like what they like about it and ignore what they ignore and dislike what they dislike. Are you starting to see how everyone is interconnected in a web of difference and repetition in interpretation?
>>25189206If you want to have a conversation with someone about a book, have a conversation with him. If you don't, then don't. Making a priori decisions about who read it "better" because of the form you consumed it in doesn't accomplish anything beyond stroking your own ego, which suggests you're not interested so much in the conversation as you are the "game" you've devised and what your point tally says about you in relation to other people.>Are you starting to see how everyone is interconnected in a web of difference and repetition in interpretation?I'm starting to see you sound very insecure to me and need validation from others for your hobby. Sorry, the only thing I feel from your way of thinking is pity.
>>25189210Reading isn’t a hobby for me. It’s my snorkel to the universe, my divining wand for meaning. If that makes me pathetic, then so be it. Who needed the desert of the real anyway?
>>25189180problem is chuds and incels aren't humans
