Do you count audiobooks in your list of read books?

[Jon_Dahl]

We used to have a thread for simple questions, where is that? But anyway, you have just listened to an audiobook. Have you thus read it?

[Palanan]

Of course. It's the same book, whether read aloud or quietly.

I used to do a lot of long-distance driving, and audiobooks were my lifeline. Continued with shorter drives whenever I could. I listened to the entire Aubrey/Maturin series that way, plus many others, fiction and nonfiction.

[SZbNAhL]

Depends why you're tracking the books you've read. If it's the stories you know or the knowledge you've learned (say, feeling qualified to join a conversation on Discworld because you've read the 41 Discworld books, or knowing about Newtonian mechanics because you've read Principia Mathematica), then you've gained the information just as much as if you'd absorbed it through your eyes instead of your ears, so audiobooks would count.

If, however, it's a test of your reading prowess, then you haven't completed the physical task of reading so it doesn't count. If you listen to the audiobook version of, say, War and Peace, then it doesn't count as having read War and Peace, because the main thing there is having slogged through the massive pile of text, not knowing the plot, themes and characters.

In fact, I'd say say listening to audiobooks counts as reading the books if and only if getting somebody to read the book to you in a non-pre-recorded way would also count. When I was 4 and my parents read me stories I couldn't readby myself yet, it would be innaccurate to say that I'd read them. However, I'd now count them as stories that I've read even though I probably haven't read all of them personally since. In fact, I don't remember which of the stories I remember are ones that I've personally read vs which were read to me.

[deltamire]

Well, if you mean read as in 'looked at the words of the book in a specific order in order to make up sentences with your peepers', no. But if you mean read in that you consumed the contents of the book, sure. You've experienced the story / information / concepts in the text intended by the author to be shared, and can probably discuss or talk about it, same as if you read the actual text version. A lot of people, for one reason or another, can't read long swathes of texts and find audio a far more productive and enjoyable way of consuming the stories. It wouldn't make sense that they somehow hadn't done it the right way just because they weren't able to read the original format.

I would agree with SZbNAhL regarding the physical task of reading, though - a lot of people do reading challenges, where you have to read X amount of books in a set amount of time, a certain type or genre of book, etc. I'm not sure if audiobooks would count for that number in that specific situation.

[factotum]

I don't ever "read" audiobooks. Problem is, the only time I would find it better to do that than just reading the thing in the first place would be if I'm listening to it while doing something else, and I'd probably miss half the plot...

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by factotum
I don't ever "read" audiobooks. Problem is, the only time I would find it better to do that than just reading the thing in the first place would be if I'm listening to it while doing something else, and I'd probably miss half the plot...

Apart from driving, I also used to listen to them while I was working on model kits and other small projects. And they're great to have on while you're cleaning. I once did a full apartment move-out clean while listening to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

[el minster]

only if I'm not doing anything at the time so I can pay attention

[Knaight]

Yes. Though in practice audiobooks are a tiny rounding error that might amount to a tenth of a percent for me regardless.

[Jon_Dahl]

Yes. Though in practice audiobooks are a tiny rounding error that might amount to a tenth of a percent for me regardless.

I didn't get the joke.

[jayem]

Audio plays (&Films) are significantly different from the respective books.
The Radio Show Hitchhikers Guide, Book HHG, Film and TV series are all different, and optimised for their respective medium.
An audio book is arguably in a different category, from any of these, and in most cases closer to the book.

Pratchett was mentioned as an example that you could get the experience by audio, along with the Principia for content, and I'd argue that neither of these work.
Moby ****&Huck Finn on the other hand, in a sense you are probably getting a more authentic experience listening to it, and part of the reason that reading it is move of an achievement is precisely because it's not the best medium.

The concentration issue seems a good point, on a similar level books traditionally-read in difficult circumstances ought to be put in a hazy category (but you really shouldn't be doing that while driving), similarly precis versions of books

[Knaight]

I didn't get the joke.
It's not a joke. I'm just saying that while I do count listening an audiobook as reading a book, it's not a particularly meaningful distinction when you've listened to maybe 8 audiobooks in your life and read thousands of books.

[Telonius]

Yes. It's one more way to get the information from one head to another. I wouldn't consider it any different than getting a braille version of a book. Using ears or hands to get the story is as valid as using eyes.

[Spike_99]

I do count it as "reading."

For some reason, when I'm posting on Reddit or FB or wherever, I'll start to write "I'm reading" or "I read" instead of "I'm listening to" or "I listened to." I don't always remember to change my post or comment to "listen" or "listened."