Submitted by swedish_librarian t3_10p6ydb in books
PM_ME_YOURPRIVATEKEY t1_j6kgxoo wrote
Reply to comment by neuken_inde_keuken in The 10 Inalienable Rights of the Reader by swedish_librarian
The right to say "oh yeah I've read it" when someone wants to talk about a book that I've listened to.
Tokenvoice t1_j6kuwgc wrote
See that’s wrong, you didn’t read it, you listened to it. Now is one method superior to the other, not especially, though most people I know listen while doing something else compared to exclusively reading. But you both got the story and can talk as equals.
In some cases I would even argue that you have to consume the book one way and then consume it the other the second time.
I read the Dresden files first but my mate listened to them. So on my second time round I listened to them while driving and thoroughly enjoyed it. With Dresden Files the audiobooks have became such a part of why they got big as well as creating the world, I mean James Masters has became the voice of Dresden and added to my experience.
But to say that you consumed media one way when you did another is factually wrong, and if you say you read it I will ask what edition of book did you get.
twirlingpink t1_j6l15px wrote
Language evolves. As a reader, you know that. To read something does not only mean to sit down and look at the words.
BigTimmyG t1_j6le0ew wrote
That is LITERALLY what reading means… LITERALLY.
Tokenvoice t1_j6lgd8h wrote
I am unsure what you’re trying to say, are you implying that to consume books in a text based media that we need to have an entomology degree so that we can know the meaning of words?
Or are you saying that words don’t matter? Because that is rather wrong. Words have nuance to them. Landing safely and falling safely both have a common meaning of you made it to the ground unharmed. Yet to land safely means that you were in control, that you were in some way to control your decent. As were fell safely means you had no control. One implies skill the other luck.
You are correct that language evolves, for example the change of the use of the word present to next, but to use that argument to say that two things are the same is an odd thing to do. Notice how I used the word consume instead of reading or listening, the evolution would be to use that, not to say that reading a book is to listen to it.
oldadapter t1_j6n27h6 wrote
Would you object to a blind person who tells you they’ve read a certain book? It’s not that words don’t matter, it’s just the rules of language need a little give so it stays resilient as society changes.
Tokenvoice t1_j6ons95 wrote
No because you read brail, you don’t say I felt a good book the other day. But here’s the fun part you would assume that a blind person who said they read a book would mean it was in brail and not that they listened to an audiobook, which reinforces the point that listening to an audiobook isn’t the same as reading contextually.
And to reiterate my original point because we have moved a wee ways down in the conversation and I don’t want to be mistaken, it doesn’t matter so much how you consumed the book they are all valid for a conversation on the book.
oldadapter t1_j6p1z5i wrote
Sure but I’m just saying that ‘reading’ has this flexibility/broader meaning for only a few contexts, not as standard rule - but braille can also be one of these. If someone can read by touch in that context, there’s no good reason someone can’t also read by listening in another. I agree, in most cases choosing the most clear, unambiguous term is going to be best (especially to make that braille/audiobook distinction) - but if the medium isn’t the important part of the conversation/context - it seems unnecessary to pick someone up for saying something like “oh yes I read that last year too and found it tedious” if they in fact felt or listened to the text.
oldadapter t1_j6lmrn3 wrote
Correct, ‘reading’ now has both meanings.
My friend uses a wheelchair but will sometimes ‘walk’ to work instead of getting the bus. Physically walking, no. But in essence doing the same thing as most people do when they chose to walk to work, and any distinction isn’t necessary or helpful.
k_pineapple7 t1_j6lx4oe wrote
Except it is a VERY important distinction if he literally cannot walk to describe it as "he's walking". Why call it something that it isn't?
oldadapter t1_j6mvdxr wrote
In most contexts yes, it’s important to make the distinction. But not every single one - which is the point on how the meanings of words can expand slightly. This is what my frienddescribes themself as doing, not as some fantasy of physically walking, but because there’s a more general/cultural meaning to the ideas of walking or going on a walk that is still essentially true, and being pedantic about how literally they use the words can sometimes be, at best, pedantic and, at worse, demeaning.
Another example that may be more relatable: If I read a rumor on a text message and then casually relayed that I had “heard” about it to a friend - am I lying or using an acceptable general use of ‘heard’? In casual conversation “read” might imply a more formal source, unless I specify I read in a text exchange with an acquaintance. But these expanded meanings let natural spoken language have these shortcuts built in.
PM_ME_YOURPRIVATEKEY t1_j6kw60s wrote
Then your a pedantic ass. No one cares how you consumed the book, they want to talk about the story you both are familiar with.
Tokenvoice t1_j6le1t0 wrote
You missed the part how I said it doesn’t matter how you consumed it it seems because you came in very hot with arguing my point that you agree with. It doesn’t matter how you consumed the story just that you did.
Words matter otherwise we would be watching movies instead of reading or listening to stories. Its the difference between he landed safely and he fell safely. Shouting vs bellowing, laughing vs giggling vs chortling.
PM_ME_YOURPRIVATEKEY t1_j6lfvtz wrote
So if someone asks me "have you read x" you're saying that you expect me to respond with "oh no, but I have listened to the audiobook." Instead of just saying, "yeah" and getting into the actual conversation? Seems dumb. Whats the functional purpose of differentiating between the two in a conversation?
Tokenvoice t1_j6lh5pq wrote
No I don’t, my mate listens to audiobooks, I read yet quite often he will use the terms he has read. In a conversation it doesn’t matter if you’re replying, does a bit if you’re starting it which you would say hey I have been listening to this book, have you read it.
Though I would say sometimes the distinction is important because you want to talk about a specific facet of either media. Like the illustrations and maps in the book, or the way the person narrating the book pronounces names.
Character_Vapor t1_j6nuiq9 wrote
>So if someone asks me "have you read x" you're saying that you expect me to respond with "oh no, but I have listened to the audiobook.
"I listened to the audiobook" is exactly how I respond, and then we get on with talking about it. Doesn't seem that strange to me.
Anytime you sit down to read a book, you are making a bunch of internalized decisions as a reader: the pace at which you move through the prose, how you imagine each character sounds, the tone and rhythm and inflection (akin to the "performance" of an actor) of how dialogue is delivered, the emphasis (or lack thereof) you give to different elements of the text, etc. This is the interpretive work between a reader and a text that actually constructs the narrative in front of you.
When you listen to an audiobook, you are still of course experiencing that text, but you're handing over the interpretive work of its construction to a third party. You are listening to someone else perform the book, and that person is the one making all of those interpretive choices I described above. This is not inherently inferior or "lesser" a process, but it can lead to fundamentally different outcomes, because there's an additional outside element being brought into a process that would otherwise be pretty insular. I've listened to audiobooks that I've hated, only to then read the book and have the complete opposite reaction. Conversely, I've tried to read books that I couldn't stand, only to then listen to an audiobook and have everything click into place, because the narrator was offering me a way "in" to the book that I couldn't quite find on my own.
These are all interesting and worthwhile things to consider when we're talking about the experience of literature. Clarifying the specifics of each experience is not some sort of value judgement on the so-called "validity" of each format, it's just a way to approach things with more nuance and hopefully generate further discussion.
[deleted] t1_j6mj0t3 wrote
[deleted]
Character_Vapor t1_j6nsle6 wrote
>Then your a pedantic ass. No one cares how you consumed the book, they want to talk about the story you both are familiar.
It's not pedantry. Clarifying the format will lead to a better discussion, because it's context that can be kept in mind as you discuss your individual responses to a book.
​
If I listened to an audiobook, and you read it, we are of course on equal footing to talk about the text, but we experienced that text in different ways. I've had discussions with friends about novels where it eventually became clear that the divide in our perceptions of it came down to the fact that one person listened to it (and therefore experienced a third party's performance of the text instead of doing that interpretive work directly), and one person read it themselves, and it affected how each of us responded to it.
PM_ME_YOURPRIVATEKEY t1_j6nss6m wrote
Perhaps the discussion I have with my friends are very different from the discussions you all are having with yours, but for my situation they are functionally identical.
Character_Vapor t1_j6nxwl6 wrote
>but for my situation they are functionally identical.
Good for you, but that doesn't make the people who want more extensive discussion a "pedantic ass" just because they think the distinction is relevant.
PM_ME_YOURPRIVATEKEY t1_j6o4an7 wrote
Agree to disagree. If you see something online or hear about it via a text message do you say "I heard" because then you're wrong by your metric.
Character_Vapor t1_j6o5bfq wrote
Are you seriously comparing the complete experience of a continuous, immersive text like a novel to reading a text message? I've already elaborated in another comment to you why I think the distinction is relevant in terms of the two formats, so I'm not sure why you're trying to flatten down all nuance by equating the entire thing to snippets of text on your phone.
PM_ME_YOURPRIVATEKEY t1_j6o606c wrote
So pedantry it is then.
Character_Vapor t1_j6o7qdm wrote
It's not pedantry to point out that it's possible to have a completely different reaction to a text when you hear someone else read it vs. reading it yourself. I don't make that distinction to shut people down or make a value judgement (I've made that clear multiple times), I make that distinction because it has the potential to give two people even more to talk about when it comes to a given book.
Do you have any interest in actually responding to anything I've said with elaboration of your own, or are you just going to repeat the "pedantry" thing over and over again with zero substantive analysis? It seems like you're just throwing that out because you have a reflexive disinterest toward the idea that anyone would even consider a book in that way, so you respond by just dismissing it entirely as pedantry. It's akin to someone wanting to talk about the way that decanting wine can affect the taste, and you just writing it off as irrelevant and tedious fussiness solely because you've never thought about wine in that way yourself.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments