NERD DEBATE: Is Listening Reading?

This is a nerd debate.  The subject was: Is listening to an audio book the same as listening to one?  It was spawned by Bryant Burnette's blog post: Why Listening and Reading Are Not the Same Thing.  He is the mighty mind behind Ramblings Of A Honk Mafah.

Matt Jacobs is the guardian of the popular Stephen King Fancast, HERE.

Now, Honk wrote:

There's a good interview at Talk Stephen King between David Squyres and Matt Jacobs (of the Stephen King Fan Cast).

David and Matt are both audiobook fanatics. That's cool. I love audiobooks, too. However, they (charmingly) persist in thinking that listening to an audiobook is the same thing as reading a book, and I (dickishly) persist in trying to educate them to the contrary.

Amongst the other topics in their interview, they took a moment to gang up on me on the subject, and you know me: I ain't gonna let that slide.

So, let's gang up one more time!  I'll "moderate" and Matt can throw the punches.



David: Greetings gentlemen to the first ever Stephen King debate. Our subject at hand will influence the course and flow of world history.

If you would please each introduce yourselves. Honk, try to use less than 1 billion words. Matt, I'm sorry, but you can't skype your answers.

Honk Mahfah: Hello. This is Bryant Burnette, the author of the "Ramblings of a Honk Mahfah" blog. I've been reading since 1976, listening to audiobooks since 1991, and able to tell the difference since, like, always.
Matt: My name is Matt Jacobs, host of the Stephen King Fancast and the Stephen King Movie Club. I also write for the blog that is home to both of these wonderful podcasts, the Stephen King Fancast Blog. I have been reading (for leisure) since 1992 and listening to audiobooks since 2005 and often type form rather than from, and the vice versa.
David: Would you both be willing to release your 2005-2010 tax forms for the purposes of these debates? . . . Honk, would you please explain why you don't consider audio books the same as reading. Don't you recieve the same content in your brain? Doesn't the story still get told?

Matt: This is going to be so rad...

Honk Mahfah: David, I'd be glad to explain.

I don't consider "listening" and "reading" to be the same activity because they are NOT the same activity. A dictionary will back me up in this assertion, so let's take a sample of online dictionaries and find out what they say on the subject of defining "read":

From Merriam-Webster.com: (1) : to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch (2) : to study the movements of (as lips) with mental formulation of the communication expressed (3) : to utter aloud the printed or written words of

From thefreedictionary.com: (1) To examine and grasp the meaning of (written or printed characters, words, or sentences). (2) To utter or render aloud (written or printed material): read poems to the students. (3) To have the ability to examine and grasp the meaning of (written or printed material in a given language or notation): reads Chinese; reads music.

From Wikipedia (and pay attention here to the final sentence): Reading is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols in order to construct or derive meaning (reading comprehension). It is a means of language acquisition, of communication, and of sharing information and ideas. Like all language, it is a complex interaction between the text and the reader which is shaped by the reader’s prior knowledge, experiences, attitude, and language community which is culturally and socially situated. The reading process requires continuous practice, development, and refinement. Readers use a variety of reading strategies to assist with decoding (to translate symbols into sounds or visual representations of speech) and comprehension. Readers may use morpheme, semantics, syntax and context clues to identify the meaning of unknown words. Readers integrate the words they have read into their existing framework of knowledge or schema (schemata theory). Other types of reading are not speech based writing systems, such as music notation or pictograms. The common link is the interpretation of symbols to extract the meaning from the visual notations.

From oxforddictionaries.com: (1) look at and comprehend the meaning of (written or printed matter) by interpreting the characters or symbols of which it is composed:

You will note that there is a persistent idea in these definitions: that reading is defined as the process of consuming and decoding printed symbols. Such an act can be performed aloud, but in these instances, only the person performing the act is considered to be the reader.

Here is a definition of "listen," from Merriam-Webster.com: (1) to pay attention to sound (2) : to hear something with thoughtful attention : give consideration (3) : to be alert to catch an expected sound
These definitions are nothing alike. They are not interchangeable, and should not be used in an interchangeable manner.

It is possible to read music, but when you listen to music -- let's say "Master of Puppets" by Metallica -- do you say you are reading the music? No; you say you are listening to it.

It is possible to read a sermon, but if you go to an appearance by Franklin Graham, do you tell people you read a sermon. No; you say you listened to a sermon (or, perhaps, that a sermon was given to you).

These are related concepts, but they are NOT the same. Similarly, tacos and nachos are related but different. They may even contain the exact same ingredients, but saying they are the same thing would mean denying that presentation and preparation count, and clearly, they DO count: if they didn't, we would always call that dish by one word or by the other.

On to the questions posed: "Don't you receive the same content in your brain? Doesn't the story still get told?" I would answer those by saying: mostly, and yes.

There is more -- a LOT more, in fact -- to reading than the simple receipt of a story. Depending on one's personal opinions, the story may or may not be the most important element in reading, but whether it is or whether it isn't, it is certainly not the ONLY element. The visual arrangement of those words is also important, and can carry meanings which cannot be replicated aurally. This is especially true in the case of poetry, in which -- and this is also true of prose, but is ESPECIALLY true of poetry -- every punctuation mark, every line break, every juxtaposition of one letter with another can hold a world of meaning. Listening to poetry can sometimes rob one of those meanings, and while it may add elements -- via the emotions of the reader, or subtle vocal shadings -- it cannot replicate the visual impact of lines such as these:

I was ten years old
when Father, glistening,
slipped beneath the waters
and drowned.
That's a crap poem that I made up in ten seconds, but the offset of the final line carries a meaning. Someone reading it aloud would almost certainly pause for several seconds before delivering it, but that is not how I intended it to be read: you will note that I did not include a comma. Instead, I intend one to read it straight through, and to allow the empty page space to be something one has no choice but to ignore as though it wasn't there at all ... even though we know it very definitely IS there.

Writing it that way is an attempt to say something about the end of grieving: that while the emptiness must always remain, we may eventually learn to -- as it were -- read without pausing.

Even if one were to read it aloud correctly, without pausing, the idea of the empty page space has been lost. It cannot be replicated verbally; it is impossible. Therefore, it is impossible to properly read that poem aloud.

In the case of Stephen King, he uses prose tricks like that far more often than you might think. The novel "It" is awash in them, especially toward the end when King begins alternating between 1958 and 1985 at a rapid pace. Reading those sections aloud cannot replicate what he is doing on the page; it is impossible, because it is -- by definition -- a visual trick.

So, the answer your question, David: yes, mostly you ARE getting the same information. But not always, and assuming that you are missing out on nothing is simply incorrect.

ARGGH!! Facebook formatting destroyed the example of my poem. The final line -- "and drowned" -- should be spaced all the way over to the right. Apparently, Mark Zuckerberg is on y'all's side! ..... But my point stands.

Matt: Excuse me... could you please record that and send me the MP3 before I respond? I don't have time to read all that, I have Tumblr sluts to troll!  LOL!
David: Ahahahaha!  Me too! Nice sermon reference, Honk.  It gives you no extra points, though.
Honk Mahfah: I could ... but out of spite, I'm not gonna.
Matt: HAHAHAHA!
Honk Mahfah: Also, now I'm too distracted by thoughts of Tumblr sluts.

Matt: Yes, Honk. You say true and we all say thankee big, big!

I will not disagree with Honk in anyway. I have always said on my blog that I prefer listening to the story. I am an audio driven person. I don't call it reading at all, unless I am checking-in to a book on GetGlue. There isn't an option to check into Listening to a book. I also always state that I am actually listening, not reading said book. To prove it, I will include a link to my GetGlue profile. You will have to scroll down a bit, but you will see me referencing listening rather than reading. Unless I just have a witty comment about the moment...

"Look out B*!%*! (edited by the preacher. . . ha!) He's behind the door with a gun AND a knife!" would be an example of such wittiness.

I will be completely honest, and I've said as much on at least one episode of the Stephen King Fancast, I am not a reader. I don't read good. (LOL!) I can't follow all the separate tracks that authors like King or Koontz tends to have the reader jumping between. So I gave up on the medium. Just not my cuppa, if you will.

I do listen to an INSANE amount of audiobooks, however. And I think I hold up pretty well during book discussion on the podcast. I have no problem with people that say I didn't read the book, they are right. I think the argument comes down to how the statement was meant. Some readers, are like MAC nerds. They have to throw out that jab.. "Well, I've got a MAC." or "I ACTUALLY read the book." Good for you asshole. What those people are actually doing is trying to somehow prove that they are better than anyone that doesn't do things the way they do. I am a big fan of Apple products, and use several on a very regular basis. But I don't go runnin around to every person with an old RAZR phone shoving my iPhone in their faces either.

For me, the story is in no way just a story, whether it be read or said. I want to discuss the story with friends, on message boards, blogs and Facebook. I want to have Skype discussions with people about how the story affected them. To do that, I have to be able to grasp the story, otherwise I'll just look like a fool. In 99% of cases, I know more about the story than whatever person was trying to lord their "actual reading" over me. Sure, I sacrifice all those little things that Honk was talking about. However, if I didn't have the audiobook, I wouldn't bother at all. So what's the greater issue? The fact that I don't actually read the books, or the fact that if it were my only option, I wouldn't.

I know that plenty of people enjoy my blog and/or podcasts. Without audiobooks, those things wouldn't exist and I wouldn't be having this wonderful discussion with the two of you.

I don't read King books, or most other books for that matter. I leave that to those that are good at it. RIP Frank Muller.

Honk Mahfah: I hear what you're saying, Matt, and if it had a Like button beneath it, I'd click it.

I have no doubt at all that a great many people who listen to King books (rather than actually reading them) would be able to whip my ass in a comprehension test. I have a very poor memory for details, so my reading a book is definitely no guarantee that I am going to have a greater comprehension level than someone who opts to listen to the book rather than read it.

With that in mind, I wouldn't compare my reading comprehension to their listening comprehension. Instead, I'd compare my reading comprehension to MY listening comprehension, and I comprehend things in a vastly superior manner if I'm reading than I do if I'm listening. The reason for this is that if I am reading, I can -- and do -- stop to take notes on something I feel is worth noting, and can scan back through the pages to look for something if I so desire. Theoretically, I could do that with an audio version, too ... but not with anywhere near as much ease.

But that's just me. Many King fans would be the exact opposite, and many more would simply not care, one way or the other.

One thing is for certain: I've got no interest in trying to prove I'm a "better" King fan by virtue of the fact that I read as opposed to listen. What a lame argument THAT would be for anyone -- me included -- to make! Ugghh... No. Just no.

Instead, all I care about -- as it relates to this debate, at least -- is specifying that reading and listening are, in fact, different activities. It gives one a different relationship to the language; not "better," but different.

Matt: Well... this pretty much turned into an agreeument. LOL!

Honk Mahfah: I could put my troll hat on and try and start some shit, if I really needed to. Like, for example, I'd say "Star Trek" is superior to "Doctor Who" in every way, and then just sit back and see what happened. But then David would just go on a pro-"Star Wars" rant and we'd both have to turn on him. Sigh...
David: Wise, this one is.
Matt: Now we're talking! Lemme know if Honk and I have to get into a knock down drag out that leaves us both crying like we just watched Wrath of Kahn together. LOL!
Honk Mahfah: His was the most (quiver) ... HUMAN.
Matt: SPOCK: "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few." Me: *Deep sobbing*
David: (In Luke Skywalker voice). . . Nooooooooo !!!!
Matt: HAHAHA! I know my Trek good sir! I probably should try out those Star Wars movies I keep hearing about since before I was born... I'll get there eventually.
Honk Mahfah: I'm going to pretend I don't know what that means. But we'll have words about this some day. Oh, yes, we will...
Matt: I'm just saying that they've been out forever. You'd think I would've seen them by now... BREATH DAVID!
Honk Mahfah: I like the third one, and don't mind the second one, but the first one is mostly awful.  Also, under no circumstances watch the prequels first. Immediately distrust ANYONE who tells you to watch "Star Wars" that way.

David: WAIT! I leave the room to feed a serious civ addiction, and you two end up agreeing? And trashing Star Wars.  Knock it off and fight. FIGHT! And that really was a lot to read, Honk.

Does it change anything when the author reads the work themsvles? HUH! Don't they now have the pwoer to give the intended emphasis, thus making the story even more powerful -- it's like SUPER READING.

Honk Mahfah: I make no apologies for failing to be succinct; sometimes, a good smack-down takes a while.

I would definitely agree that listening to a reader by the author him/herself gets you closer to the source. In fact, there would be an argument to be made that that is a more valid experience even than reading it for yourself, since you are (presumably) getting the author's true intent that way.

But even then, I think you run the risk of missing out on things by not having the visual presentation of the text. An ideal solution might be to listen to the audiobook while reading along with the text; then, maybe you're getting the best of both worlds.

I'll give you an example of something King does a lot, or at least used to do a lot. He uses a style of writing which is designed to give readers a glimpse into characters' subconscious. He'll do something like this (from Pet Sematary, as Louis and Jud are scaling the deadfall):

"The flash's beam centered brightly on the jumbled heap of
(bones)
fallen trees and old logs."

In that sentence -- this is how I read it, at least -- you are meant to think that Louis, without entirely realizing it, is looking at the deadfall and seeing stacks of old bones. This is a glimpse into Louis's mind, but it's difficult to read aloud and have it convey that meaning. Not impossible ... but very, very difficult.

Another example I might use is this: in Greory Maguire's "Wicked" novels, talking animals are referred to with capitalized letters. A lion is not the same thing as a Lion; a bear and a Bear are completely different creatures; etc.

Let's take a hypothetical. Let's say I've written a novel in which, when God is referred to by the characters, I use the spelling "Him." However, in the case of one specific character, who is a nonbeliever, I use the spelling "him." To any reader, the dropping of the capital letter would carry an instantaneous meaning. But how would that be conveyed in audio format? Can't be done without doing something goofy like changing the way the word is said, but that wouldn't work; using the word "Him" indicates a mental and spiritual belief, NOT a different pronunciation.

David: Yes, I see your point. But that is a very techincal situation you are describing. Besides, Pet Sematary is not on audio. Which brings us to a change in topic: Who is the best reader in the SK universe?
Honk Mahfah: Frank Muller. There is no competition.
David: WOW! I totally agree!
Matt: I have Pet Sematary in audio... Frank Muller is the best. I also think Vincent Price, Basil Rathbone and Ian McKellen did a great job on "Poe's Greatest." *NOTE: That is how I have the book titled in my iTunes, might not be the actual title. Question... is "Translated by" the same as "Read by"? Or at least is it supposed to be?
David: How do you get Pet Sematary in audio? Do you mean that BBC dramatization. . . or a real audio book?
Matt: I found it at the library, brought it home and ripped it... oh... it is BBC drama.

David: You know, I'm glad audio books have gone mainstream. It used to be you had to pretend to be blind in order to listen to an unabridged book!
Matt: HAHAHAHA! That's hilarious!
David: I hear you laughing, but I can't see you. . . pass me another blind man's audio book.
Matt: Will do sir... What's you fav non-king audio?
David: This is not horror at all. . . but I liked Richard Thomas' reading of Cold Sassy Tree by Olive Anne Burns. Unfortunately, it was abridged. Then I bought it unabridged and found out. . . some books are better with editing!
Matt: HAHAHAHA! That's awesome! Not sure how much of a Utopian fan you are, but I really enjoy some Huxley. Perhaps it's spelled Eutopian... not sure... Think it depends on useage.
David: Somehow I lump Huxley and Orwell together.
Matt: Similar content... The government is taking over and is going to control every aspect of our lives! Funny that the drug used to keep the people timid in "Brave New World" was called SOMA and recently SOPA was a thing.

Honk Mahfah: I'm going to interrupt the conversation at this point to say that I've got an unabridged reading of Pet Sematary. I, uh ... found it online. Not sure what its origin is; I assume it was never commercially available.
Matt: It's cool... I have some torrented books still too. LOL!  I got them a few years ago and have slowly been replacing them via Audible.
David: ME pointing finger accusingly at Honk: You "FOUND" it. . . eh. I spent something like a billion dollars buying the tapes of The Stand and then transferring them to mp3 and CD. NOW they come out with it unabridged at audible. . . which makes it $16 or something.
Matt: Hey! I want the finger wagged at me as well! LOL!
Honk Mahfah: I've got a lot of them. A LOT. (Don't unfriend me, David!) But I've got a lot of real ones that I bought, too, and also a clean conscience: nobody has ever lost money off of me torrenting things, because I only torrent stuff that isn't otherwise available (or that I had no plans to buy in the first place).
David: Nope, no pointing at matt. . . I think he might enjoy getting judgmental fingers pointed at him . . . Okay okay okay: ME pointing finger accusingly at Matt: . . . wait, i forgot what I was judging you for. . .
Matt: LOL! Thank you! I have a judgement fetish, and it gets me sooo... this has gone too far hasn't it. K. Sorry for that...
Honk Mahfah: Ewwwww..... Too much beard.....
Matt: How dare you bring the beard into this! LOL!
Honk Mahfah: More like pyrite.
Matt: HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Honk Mahfah: Off to work, gentlemen...
Matt: Have a great day Honk.
David: fools gold. but that's it. . . . it's all going on the blog. Behold, even me judging you.  thanks guys
Matt: Thanks David!