Booking Through Thursday...

[fajrdrako]

From May 29, 2008: What is reading, anyway? Novels, comics, graphic novels, manga, e-books, audiobooks — which of these is reading these days? Are they all reading? Only some of them? What are your personal qualifications for something to be “reading” — why? If something isn’t reading, why not? Does it matter? Does it impact your desire to sample a source if you find out a premise you liked the sound of is in a format you don’t consider to be reading? Share your personal definition of reading, and how you came to have that stance.

This kind of question makes my head ache; It's all just semantics, isn't it? Normally I'd say reading is ingestion of information through the written word. But I might talk about having read an audiobook, which is entirely aural. And if someone had read a book aloud to me, I might say afterwards that I'd read it, even though the process wasn't literally a matter of reading. I'd say this because the material was originally in written form.

But if anyone wants to use another words, that's fine with me, too. If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear, does it make a sound? If a book isn't made up of written words, is it still a book to be read?

Comments

[cionaudha.livejournal.com]

Hm. Well, I'm in the visual arts, and I spend a lot of time "reading" books and things that aren't terribly full of words.

If you and I took turns reading each other chapters out of a book every night after dinner, as friends of my parents did, does it matter that it's not my own eyeballs looking at the words? I wouldn't say I've only read the odd chapters of Bleak House, but not the evens.

If a blind person prefers to sit down with an audiobook instead of a braille edition, can you really say they're ill-read?

I'd playfully define "reading" as the soaking up of information or story from a written format; if someone reads the story aloud, it's still written. If it's lavishly or even almost exclusively illustrated, it's still written.

So saith myself.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I'm in the visual arts, and I spend a lot of time "reading" books and things that aren't terribly full of words.

I would not hesitate to say I was reading a comic, even if it had no words in it. Some don't, or have very few. Funny, though, I would never say I was reading a TV show even if it was in Japanese and I was experiencing the text entirely through subtitles, with no knowledge of the spoken words.

This is why I think the question is sort of meaningless. I don't think it matters whether we call the experience of the material 'reading' or use another word.

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's strictly an issue of sematics. I think whether you say you listened to something or you read something - even if it's the same book - means different experiences.

When I read something, it's an independent experience. I set the pace, and the majority of the storytelling takes place in my mind. When I listen to something, it's a shared experience. Another person besides the author and I are deciding how the story is to be interpreted, what intonations to use and what pace the story goes at. The story is shared between us, even if the other "person" I'm sharing the story with is a recording.

The chose between saying you heard something or saw something marks differences in what I'm looking for. A better example of this isn't books, but plays. When people in the past said that they were going to the theatre to listen to a play, it's different then when I'm off to see a play at the theatre, even if both of us went to see Hamlet.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

So would you not say you read a book if you experienced it on audiobook? Or if someone had read it to you?

I think part of the problem here is that language has not caught up to technology. A hundred years ago, audiobooks didn't exist so we didn't need a word for experiencing them.

Reading a play, listening to a play, and seeing a play are indeed three different experiences. But in most cases, I think the important point is the substance of the play - the words, the ideas, the acting - which can be experienced by any or all of these means. Usually seeing it and hearing it go together. Reading it - an optional third, though one can do that at the same time, too.

[queenp71.livejournal.com]

*ponders* I found this through a mutual friend. As an educator, I find the questions posed to be very thought provoking.

Reading has its own skills--different from listening or watching. Taking the written word and making it have a meaning is very different from listening to words and making meaning. They can be related, hearing can help with understanding, especially with those words that are new or rarely used. However, listening to an audiobook, without following along on the written text is just that listening--like listening to music. Reading music is a very specific skill, differing from listening to music. When you listen to a performance of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture you don't claim to be reading the music, so why would you claim to be reading Harry Potter when you listen to the audiobook? Or by listening to someone read it aloud? It would be more correct to say "I was read to" or "I listened as it was read aloud." Or if 2 or more were reading the book together (as I saw mentioned in comments) "We took turns reading" or a variation of that.

As for images, I'm sure what word would be best. You can look at an image and derive information from it by analyzing it. Some may claim this is reading the image--I think in the form of picture books, this could be correct. This question will bother me until I figure something out, though. Is it analysis? Is it reading? Is it inference? I need to think on this one some...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Reading has its own skills--different from listening or watching.

Very much so. And different people have different capacities for perception depending on how they get the information. I have more trouble listening to information than reading it, usually - I relate very well to books, and sometimes fall asleep in lectures, or find it difficult to concentrate on the words of an audiobook. I have less trouble with a live oral reading: I'm not sure why. Perhaps because it's closer to a performance, more like theatre?

My point was that if I had only heard the audiobook and someone asked me if I'd read, say, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone I would still say 'yes', though I hadn't gone through the act of reading. I' not claiming that reading and listening are the same thing - but the material is the same, and there are overlaps and simliarities in the material.

I wonder if ancient Greeks had this same discussion when, after centuries of oral tradition, The Iliad was finally in print form.

This question will bother me until I figure something out, though. Is it analysis? Is it reading? Is it inference? I need to think on this one some...

This is intriguing - let me know what insight (and vocabulary) you come up with.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I can't get into audio books either (which is bad for a librarian). I tried for a class where there was heavy reading, and it helped give me a feel for lots of material, but I didn't catch as much information as I would when I read it (i.e. written word). I think I need full concentration, and I can't fully concentration w/ an audio book. Most people that listen via AB do so while driving or doing housework. They seem to be able to multi task. I can't.

I do consider all of this 'reading' though that's not a term that, as you say, has caught up with technology. At the library, we tend to say 'are you familiar with that story?' and then you can say 'yes, I've read it,' or 'I heard it on audio,' or just 'yes,' haha. From our perspective, it's all reading, since a primary population these days reads via audio book.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I can't fully concentration w/ an audio book.

I have the same problem!

Most people that listen via AB do so while driving or doing housework.

I don't drive. I tried, for a while, listening to things while walking to work, but I found it distracting - it was more fun and more relaxing to walk without the audio-books, so I stopped doing that.

I do listen to things while doing housework, but that tends to lead to listening to things in broken-up snippets, which isn't very satisfactory either. (Maybe if I did more housework? Not my ambition!)

'are you familiar with that story?'

That's a good way of putting it.

I loved the conversation on Doctor Who this week, where the Doctor, in a library in the 51st century, talks about how people will always love books, including the smell and feel of books. Books as physical objects.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I like to listen to music when I'm driving, or walking. I like my mind to wander and imagine scenes from my OWN story. Actually listening to a story requires too much concentration when I'm going about my daily life. I'd rather curl up in bed and devote myself to it.

Books vs. ebooks/ audio is a regular discussion in library school, esp. as libraries try to finance the huge array of technology now accessible. It's pretty much agreed that books will never go out of style. Other technology will simply coexist with books.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Actually listening to a story requires too much concentration when I'm going about my daily life.

Exactly the way I feel. I don't like dividing my attention that way. And if I do curl up and concentrate - I'm likely to fall asleep.

Other technology will simply coexist with books.

As in my apartment. I think the books breed when I'm not looking.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

PS, what scares me is every so often when I hear people ask why libraries are needed. Just like 'why do we need books?' These people obviously never step into a library! We are busy on a regular basis; so much is provided these days by libraries, and it's not just books!

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I hear people ask why libraries are needed.

Most valuable things we have.

Just like 'why do we need books?'

Hmm. Might as well ask... why do we need sunlight? We can get along just fine without.

it's not just books!

No, but even if it were just books, that would be more than justification enough.

[mad-jaks.livejournal.com]

I don't really listen to that many audio books - not because I have anything against them (my brother edits them for a living) but because I lose the plot (literally).
That aside I think if whatever media is involved is telling a story in a 'static' (ie. no moving images) way I'd probably say I was reading it.

Does it impact your desire to sample a source if you find out a premise you liked the sound of is in a format you don’t consider to be reading?
I don't like to be limited if the premise piqued my interest enough I'd like to think I'd give it a shot be it delivered as opera or interpretive dance.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

because I lose the plot (literally)

I sometimes do. And I don't get as emotionally involved when it's an audio-book. Since I tend to read for emotional involvement in the first place, that's definitely a disincentive.