Good point George. As I mentioned this topic, for whatever reason, is incredibly polarizing. My experience from having this conversation frequently over the last decade + is that about 30% of people feel that the medium is sacred. If it’s not the written word read by the eyeball, then it doesn’t count (some go so far as insisting that it must be printed on paper, e-readers don’t count.) My perspective is that comprehension of the content is sacred and I’m agnostic about the medium. The goal to me is learning and growing, different people have different ways of getting there. I, for instance, would say that a blind person who consumed a braille book through the sense of feel (not sight) has still “read” the book. I’m an auditory learner, always have been. So, I retain more from hearing than sight. Because of that audio works for me. I realize it’s not for everybody.
You share with pride how much “reading” you’ve accomplished this year. However, reading is not listening. As a lawyer, I would think the difference is pertinent: Would you consider a child who is yet to learn how to read literate for listening to an audiobook? Or rather as someone who consumed the story?
Audiobooks are a valid medium through which to consume a story and have made stories accessible to those who may have previously not read them—and that should be celebrated, but be clear: listening is not reading.
Good point George. As I mentioned this topic, for whatever reason, is incredibly polarizing. My experience from having this conversation frequently over the last decade + is that about 30% of people feel that the medium is sacred. If it’s not the written word read by the eyeball, then it doesn’t count (some go so far as insisting that it must be printed on paper, e-readers don’t count.) My perspective is that comprehension of the content is sacred and I’m agnostic about the medium. The goal to me is learning and growing, different people have different ways of getting there. I, for instance, would say that a blind person who consumed a braille book through the sense of feel (not sight) has still “read” the book. I’m an auditory learner, always have been. So, I retain more from hearing than sight. Because of that audio works for me. I realize it’s not for everybody.
You share with pride how much “reading” you’ve accomplished this year. However, reading is not listening. As a lawyer, I would think the difference is pertinent: Would you consider a child who is yet to learn how to read literate for listening to an audiobook? Or rather as someone who consumed the story?
Audiobooks are a valid medium through which to consume a story and have made stories accessible to those who may have previously not read them—and that should be celebrated, but be clear: listening is not reading.