If you listened to an audiobook, would you tell people "I've read that" vs "I've listened to that"?

I would say, "I've listened to an audiotape."

Most audiotapes are abridged Versions of a book. Full version audiobooks are available, but certainly not the rule. "Game of Thrones - A Song of Ice and Fire" is 34 hours long. "The Hunger Games" is an easy read; The audiotape is 11 hours long. There are also abridged versions of these books.

When someone has "read" an audiobook, I assume that it is the abridged version because that is most often the case, and these whittled down "books" are similar to seeing-the-movie (but not nearly as removed). This does not even come close to having read the book! The perso has not read the book, nor have they listened to someone else read the book.

If someone has listened to 34 hours of Game of Thrones, they can say that they "read the book", but even then it is not a reading experience, since it is filtered through the expression, interpretation, and timing of the reader's voice; It is much less of a personal experience where the reader is alone in the world of the book (one major reason why people love to read).

So, this is why I agree with your friend's response.

I listen to a lot of audiobooks and generally just say I read them. It doesn't bother me either way though, and sometimes I read and listen to the same books. The two experiences are different, but I don't think they are different enough that someone really need to distinguish between the two. I personally use them interchangeably.

I agree it's two different things.

When I listen to audiobooks, I've always read the books first. So I would tell people I read it. But if I were to listen to the book on audio cds, then I would tell people that I listened to it.

I personally don't really think it's a big deal, and I'm not likely to get hung up on it, but I do think the experience is a different one. Technically the books are the same, so whether they read it or listened to it, really doesn't matter much. If someone told me they read the book when they listened to it, I'd probably just think, whatever.

Game Of Thrones Audiobooks

Well, it all seems a bit silly to me. Your friend's need for a distinction, I mean. I'll offer my jurisdiction in three parts.

Firstly, it's the exact same words registering through both your minds, exact same story, exact same sentences and commas and periods and whatnot. You can't distinguish between the words of the Harry Potter story and the ... um, words of the Harry Potter story.

Out goes the significance of the audio/book content.

Secondly, when a reader reads a book, their own voice in their head is telling them the story. When you listen to an audiobook, another person's voice is telling you the story.

Out goes the significance of reading/listening.

And thirdly, lastly, there's another definition for "reading". It's to apprehend or interpret the meaning of something. To "read" means, on the surface, to pick up a book and go through the words. But to read literature means to look into it, understand it, to find themes and analyze characters. You can do that as long as you know the story, be it by print or by audio.

And out goes the significance of saying you "read"/"listened to" it.

So none of these things really matter. I wouldn't be annoyed if someone said that. I'd tell them, "Cool, what'd you think of it?" Because s/he knows what everything I know about it and that's all I need to discuss it with them.

Now, if listening to the audiobook detracted from the content of the HP series, I would care. But it doesn't. Refer to my first point about identical content.

I'd probably make a distinction and say I listened to an audiobook version. I don't really think it matters though. If you read the store or listened to the story you still got the story and you can still talk about it, so what's it matter?

Personally I prefer to read though. Helps my grammar and punctuation. Also helps me remember the story better lol.

lol, I suppose if someone mentioned a book and asked if I read it I would probably say, "I have the audio version." For all intents and purposes, reading and listening are two different things. You don't have to be able to read to experience an audio book so maybe "reading" is an important distinction to your friend in that it's the fact that you're literate and can actually read what's on a page :) Therefore you're more "cultured." Somehow it sounds more impressive if you say you read Shakespeare as opposed to "Yeah, I listened to Romeo and Juliet on audio-book. The words just jumped right out of the speaker and transported me to Stratford-Upon-Avon!"

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

If you listened to an audiobook, would you tell people "I've read that" vs "I've listened to that"?

I have a friend who gets a bit up in arms when I say I've read a book but finds out that I listened to the audiobook. "You didn't read it, you listened to it."

To me, even though the experiences aren't exactly the same, it gets confusing when I have to make the distinction...

You could just say something creative like "oh, the words of that book are branded on my brain", or "That book is a real work of art", or "that book has got to be one of the worst books ever". Just stay away from read and listen all together.

Some people actually understand a book better when it is read to them than when they read it. I am like this, listening to my audio Bible helps put things to perspective more than reading it. I am he who hears the word...

In my opinion no, you don't actually read a book when you listen to the audio version. However, if saying you read it is easier to deal with, no big deal. I personally can't understand the appeal of audio books. I feel as though I'm being forced to hear someone else interpret the mood and flow of the story. I don't have a chance to let the words sink in and reflect on passages. It's too artificial, too mechanical.