Does it Count as "Reading" if You're "Listening"?

My lovely sister-in-law Ashley posed this question on an earlier post, and since I have lots and lots of love for audio books, I thought today might be a good idea to discuss this question a bit more in depth.

Does it count as "reading" if you're "listening"?

Short answer: Absolutely positively.

Long answer: I suppose we could wax philosophical here about what exactly "reading" is. Is it an experience? A series of neurological transactions that take place according to certain stimuli? What role does the visual or aural senses have to play in this definition?

Okay, I'm not going to get too deep into the philosophical or even scientific question of what "reading" is. I'll keep it simple here. For me, reading is simply about comprehension of information. Granted, the vast about of information we "comprehend" comes in the form of visual cues, whether it be words on a page or emotions on a face, but comprehension can occur aurally too. So to answer the question of whether or not "listening" counts as "reading," I'd say it depends on comprehension level, and there are three big factors that can influence aural comprehension: your learning style, the book in question, and the context in which you are listening.

Learning Style
Do you have a visual learning style, or an auditory learning style? I think this is the crux at the heart of the question of whether "listening" to a book counts as "reading" it, because it defines how well a person processes information in these two mediums. I think I have a slight preference toward auditory learning (although I also consider myself a strong visual learner, luckily it's not an either/or thing), so to me, audio books feel like a completely natural way to consume the written word. I can follow and comprehend a story just as well as if I were reading it. To me, this means that even if I'm listening, I'm fully "reading" a story. Sometimes, I even get more out of a story when I listen to it or read it aloud to someone else, mostly because when I read silently I tend to skim and skip copiously and speed read. But even when I listen to a book at double speed, the narrator still has to say every word so I really get the details.

However, if you have a strong preference for visual learning, if your mind processes information better that you see in print, or if your mind tends to wander while listening, then you might want to stick to printed books. It's all about how your brain processes information. (I suspect Ashley might be more of a visual learner, and thus her conflicted feelings about audio books).

The Book in Question
Some books just don't work in the audio book format very well. Is this a non-fiction text that relies heavily on graphic information, or contains lists or quizzes? Might want to stick to the book format for that. I made the mistake of listening to Gottman's Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work as an audio book, and I do not recommend that. The book is full of lists and quizzes, and it was not only a fruitless way for me to consume this information (rather difficult to take a quiz when you are listening to it while driving), but it made for pretty tedious listening when the narrator read every. single. item. on the quizzes, even repetitious phrases like "Sometimes, always, or never" for each question. Ugh.

That being said, I also "read" The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up by listening to the audio book, which is not the format I would recommend for that book either, but we all know how that managed to impact my life. So I guess that just proves that learning style matters more than medium.

However, there are some books that make better audio books than real books. If you get a good production and a stellar narrator, listening to the audio version can be an immersive experience. Here is where I will whole-heartedly plug anything performed by Jim Dale, who is without question the best narrator in the history of everything. I loved Harry Potter in print just fine (understatement), but I haven't actually re-read Harry Potter in print, because once I listened to Jim Dale's version of those stories, there was just no other way to "read" Harry Potter for me.

Audio tends to work really well for me for lighter fiction novels, books that are plot or narrative heavy, stories with really engaging immersive worlds, books where the characters speak in accent, or books with lots of hard-to-pronounce names or made-up language (#fantasyproblems).

Context

So, you can be listening to the best audio book in the world, but if you keep getting interrupted, it can really mess with your "reading" experience. This is true for my daily life with a talkative and demanding preschooler who expects me to actually listen and respond to him (the effrontery!) whenever he wishes to converse (which is pretty much every moment of all day long). While he's awake (most of the time now, since he doesn't nap), I prefer to have paper books on hand because they're easier for me to pick up and put down at a moment's notice. Audio books are less convenient for such interruptions. They require some focus, and if you get distracted, it's much more difficult to go back and re-listen to an audio book.

That being said, I still prefer audio books for certain activities, like whenever I work on a hands-on projects when the kids are sleeping. Nothing makes cleaning the bathroom more palatable than a good audio book. I also love audio books in the car, but generally only when I commute to school, not so much when I'm toting the kids around (that interruption thing).

In short, if you have a strong enough audio learning style, the book lends itself well to audio, and you have some good time with minimal distractions and interruptions (and even better, something to do with your hands), then I absolutely believe that listening to a book counts as reading it.

Which medium do you prefer? Are you an audio or visual learner? Do you consider "listening" to count as "reading"? What are your favorite audio books?