# Is it cheating to "read" an audio-book classic?



## Violanthe (Aug 27, 2007)

I've recently discovered the value of audio-books for pleasure reading. It's a great time saver, allowing me to "read" while I do a variety of other things. I also find that I have an easier time paying attention and absorbing information while listening. When I browse the audio-book section of the library, however, I see a bunch of the classics (Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc.) that I have already read for school. I can't help thinking that I wish I had had these audio-books in back school. I believe I could have gotten better grades in high school English, and that I could have gotten more out of discussions in college English. But I also get the same feeling about audio-books as I did about cliffnotes, since it is easier to "read" an audio-book (at least in my estimation). So, what do you think? Is it "cheating" to use an audio-book for reading the classics? For school or otherwise?


----------



## HLGStrider (Aug 27, 2007)

Definitely not cheating though the profitablity of it is going to depend on A. how you learn and B. what other activities you are doing while listening. If you are listening to the audiobook while writing a history paper or watching tv or vacuuming (without earphones), obviously the value would be somewhat compromised. 

I simply don't like being read aloud to. Even as a child, I was always stealing the books my mom used for the family reading time because the pace was too slow for me and I didn't really care to hear every character in my mom's voice. Audio books were good for the car, of course, but generally if I wasn't driving, I would prefer just reading. 

So, as a matter of personal preference, I'm not hugely into audio books, but cheating? No, not unless you are doing some insane form of multitasking.


----------



## Urambo Tauro (Aug 31, 2007)

I agree. You can get just as much out of an audio-book as you can out of written text. (Sure beats reading a computer screen!)

BUT- you do have to focus on it.

Of course, focus comes somewhat naturally when reading a book because you can't really do anything else as you read. With an audio-book though, it's much much easier to get distracted, whether you're driving, cooking, mowing, or whatelse. (Sometimes, I have caught myself having to start a track over because, I wasn't paying attention.)

Once you can concentrate on listening, the rest depends on not just the material, but on the voice(s). Sometimes it's very beneficial to hear the author reading and adding emphasis to his own material. Other times, a narrative may be helped by an ensemble of voice-actors (& sound-effects).

So, I'd only call it cheating if you're "multi-tasking".


----------



## Starbrow (Sep 25, 2007)

I wouldn't necessarily consider it cheating to hear a good story, but it depends on your purpose. Personally, I generally prefer to read something rather than listen to it. However, I think somethings may be better in audio. For example, I listened to Romeo and Juliet during one long car trip. I enjoyed it far more than reading Shakespeare's other works. Probably, part of the reason is that Romeo and Juliet is a play and was intended to be heard. You get a better sense of the beauty of the language than when you read it to yourself.


----------



## Violanthe (Oct 1, 2007)

HLGStrider said:


> Definitely not cheating though the profitablity of it is going to depend on A. how you learn and B. what other activities you are doing while listening. If you are listening to the audiobook while writing a history paper or watching tv or vacuuming (without earphones), obviously the value would be somewhat compromised.


 
I have certainly learned that only particular activities are conducive to audiobook listening. Most errands, line-waiting situations, housework, and driving are good for audio listening. Anything that involves reading, writing or talking does not go well with audio listening.


----------



## Talierin (Nov 18, 2007)

I listen to audio books all the time while working in studio, especially those long hours in the darkroom. I'm currently listening to Dune. It's really the only time I get to "read" much anymore, unless I stay up ridiculously late, way later than the late hour I usually make it to bed


----------



## Josephine (Nov 18, 2007)

I like audio books. It's not that I'm too lazy to read or don't have enough time. I simply like being read to. I don't know whether I'd take an audio book for something I have to read in class, though. It depends on the book, and also on the person reading it. When I listen to any of the HP books, I can remember everything that has been said, but when I got "The grave tatoo" by Val McDermid from the library a few weeks ago, I brought it back soon because I found my attention straying too often. The woman reading it simply didn't manage to capture my attention.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 19, 2007)

Listening to an Audio Book is like having someone read to you ... someone who doesn't get fatigued.

CS Lewis loved to have Tolkien read aloud to him; maybe it was something missing from his bereaved and boarding schooled childhood.

And with MP3 players now in gigabytes, you can keep an entire library in your pocket.


----------



## Halasían (Nov 26, 2007)

Audio books are great but by definition, you not really "reading", you're "listening" to it being read. I think there's a difference.


----------



## Starflower (Jan 7, 2008)

I recently bought His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman as audio production. It is just great, doubly so as the author himself serves as the narrator. I agree with Eledhwen, to listen to a very good audio production is like having someone read it to you.


----------

