1) If I try to listen to an audio book I just drift off and end up with the Cd ending and not having paid attention. Its just too passive for me although it is good for many people who drive long distances.

2) I see the value of audio "books," but I also agree that they aren't real books. You get the same story as you would reading a book, but listening isn't the same as actively reading. As an English teacher, I see the convenience in listening to a book, but you simply don't get the same experience as you do in reading a book. To me, it's similar to reading a book vs. watching the movie.

3) I used to listen to audio books all the time. When I was out photographing daily I had to be on the road by 4 or 5 am alot of mornings and drive for several hours. I loved audio books. They kept me awake and entertained. But I definitely see both sides of your pros and cons. I listened to alot of biographies and really enjoyed Michael J Fox's book "Lucky Man" since he narrated it. There were definite emotional parts since he was telling his story. Total flip side: "Never Have Your Dog Stuffed: And Other Things I've Learned" by Alan Alda. I love Alan Alda. He did not narrate his audiobook and I felt totally let down like this guy was not telling the same story.

4) I like them both and I think they both have the proper time and place. I feel the same way about chocolate and vanilla ice cream. One of them is a favorite standing alone (chocolate) but the other is a favorite in certain desserts (strawberry shortcake, a la mode with fruit pie, etc). So now that I've equivocated, maybe the question is really, "what does a book signify to you?" I see a book as lots of things: a gate to a different world, a story-place where you can learn new things without really living them, a decorative object, a piece of clutter, a perception or worldview adjuster... the list could go on.

So maybe the folks who think audiobooks aren't "real books" think real books are the ones they can hold in their hand while they upload it's information with their eyes.

To me both audio and text books are real books, they both enter your brain and give you a stream of thought that you haven't come up with yourself.

In the end, I advocate consuming a regular diet of books, however you decide to upload them into your brain ;-)

Merrick- any favorite audio books? There's a NPR thing where a long-haul trucker reviews books (mostly thrillers) which is kinda fun. I don't have the link but I'm sure you could find it on NPR. Cheers!

5) I don't equate an audio book to a movie at all. A movie has limitations in scope of time and has to abridge ANY book--not to mention most of them cleverly say "based on xxx" which means they can pretty much change it all as long as they keep the base notion. I came kicking and screaming into the audio book age. I felt like Mrs. Shoo and felt it wouldn't be the same without the feel of the book, the caressing of the words with my eyes, the rolling around of the words in my brain, the distinctive smell of a library book (sorry, bookstore books don't have it!) when I open it.

I tried my first audio book when I moved to Oregon. As Merrick and I discussed at work, I felt it impossible to spend 1700+ mi. on the road and (as it ended) 30 hours+ in the car with 16 CDs or dragging more along for variety. I loathe radio stations. An audio book sounded like a good idea. I got two of the biggest (30+ CDs) I could manage at the library and took off. I will admit my brain went a little nuts at first concentrating on the road and the book (nearly ran a red-light the first few blocks!) but after I adjusted and realized I could turn it off when I needed to concentrate on directions, I loved it and was hooked.

I ride a bus roughly 40 mins. a day. I can't read a "real" book on the bus--I get motion-sick. I guess I could live on motion-sickness meds and factor the weight of the book into my weight in the backpack but an audio book gives me many advantages. Light, less awkward in crowded conditions, ear-buds block chatter to distract me from the book. Rather than sit like a rock, I opt to "read" a book. I think I was even one of the people who suggested audio books to Merrick because she was suffering from pains in her hands from holding heavy books on the bus and from the weight in her pack for the long walk to the bus-stop when she rode a bus.

Where do you draw the line between "really reading" and not? The new electronic book-readers that are more prevalent now--are they more a real book? You are physically reading them. You are ingesting words with your eyes and brain. Am I less of a reader because I use my ears instead of my eyes to ingest the book?

I agree with Merrick--a narrator can make or break a book (Charles Frazier should have NEVER read Cold Mountain--like watching paint dry!) but I wouldn't argue good book or bad by a bad narrator. I'd argue a bad audio book--but not bad book. On the other hand, a great narrator can make a book come to life even more than my imagination (and I have a good one!). The Mitford Series is one that comes to mind. One narrator did the whole series and was great with all the characters. Jan Karon, the author, started a new series and changed narrators and the roar of disapproval and dismay was heard throughout her loyal readership. In fairness, I didn't think the new narrator did that bad a job but he was coming in like a ghost writer who tries to finish or continue a series when the author dies--it just doesn't sound right. And I think the writing is more the factor than the narrator--her writing isn't the same in the new series. Even my mom, who isn't a book person like me noticed the difference.

As you can tell, I'm passionate about this topic too. :) Books are my friends and companions and family and diet and entertainment. I live, eat and breathe books. To argue I don't read a book because I don't physically touch it and see the words is telling me I hardly read. Considering my average checkout at the library averages 15-30 books (some just for browsing recipes) I would argue that. And I think both Merrick and I could argue a book and it's contents as easily and maybe even better than some "real" readers.

Last comment (promise). I do abhor abridged books in any form. I won't read or listen to any abridged books. After making the mistake of listening to a few, I realized they were edited like a movie being shown on TV and chopped into pieces to allow for ads. No one will edit my reading. As an author, I would feel a lot of anger about anyone abridging my book. I didn't write it with 15,000 wasted words for someone to chop out--deciding no one cared about that sub-plot or description of an area.

Ok...I'm done. I'll go "read" an audio book by Robert Jordan after I finish Zoo'ing the rest of the blogs and photos and comments. :)

6) Like I said, I really see the value of an audio book (long trips/car rides, biking, working out). It's just the teacher in me...you use different parts of your brain to read and listen. You can listen to a book and concentrate on it, and most definitely appreciate it (some even more listening to it than reading it), but it just isn't the same. I consider reading online to be reading a book. It's not the actual sitting down, curling up and holding a book that makes it reading (although, it wouldn't be the same for me); it's the actual physical and mental act of reading. I could give you studies on the difference between listening and reading, but I think they might be slightly boring...

Again, remember, this is the teacher in me.

7) I'm very much like Linda but proably even to more an extreme. I started listening to audio books when my Dad was sick and I was on the road alot. Then I started listening while I was painting or doing house work.Right now I am reading a mystery, listening to Eat, Pray and Love (the actual author is reading it and it is wonderful-Gilbert)while I work in my studio and have another book going in the car. I can't go to sleep if I don't have a book to help me wind down. I sgree to some extent with Mrs. Shoo but I also think there is room for both methods.Some people learn bettter with audio, some by reading. When I am with the grands we do it both ways-I read to them and they read to me.I love to collect books and I have a terrible time parting with my hardbacks.I have a couple of friends that I exchange paperbacks with. I buy my audio books from Amazon and try to get them used. I lend them out but I am trying to build up my library for my old age. I could live without tv, computers, telephones, cells but please don't take away my books!

8) I'm with Dannie.... I sure hope I am able to read til the end of my life. I get out of bed every morning looking forward to crawling into bed at the end of the day with my current book. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and read just because I love the book.

I've tried audio books only a couple times. I found it very hard, impossible really, to pay attention. Maybe I'm not a good listener. LOL! One problem is that there are sometimes things I don't understand and want to read back over, or incidents that had foreshadowing that I want to go back and read again, or characters that I cannot keep straight. I can do all that with a book, but it would be so much harder with audio.

As far as what is a REAL book, I don't think hard core book lovers will agree that audio books are the same, just like letter writers are not convinced that email is the "same".

9) Good analogy.

10) Dannie, that's the way you should do it: you read some/they read some. I use audio books and read alouds in a lot of my classes, but I also make them read on their own. Listening to the book is one thing, but actually reading for themselves is another. I think audiobooks in the context of learning can be valuable, but I can also see children becoming dependent on them and not reading for themselves. I suppose at least with audiobooks they're hearing the entire book, unlike when they read Sparknotes.

Chinacalling, I was trying to come up with a really good analogy for audio vs. "real" books, and I think you've come up with the perfect one.

11) I wish you could hear our Caroline,who is 6 read. It has clicked for her and I just love listening to her because for a child, she reads with great expression. She is so excited that she is reading everything and I am so excited for her. I learned to read because I wanted to read the Sunday comics in the newspaper.We lived out in the country and I had no playmates except for my siblings ,so I spent the summers with my nose in a book.

12) Wow this got the words flowing. Good points made by all!
Shoo - I have found that audio book narration and reading seem to use the same part of my brain. If I have to read something (like directions on a box, or take a peek at the computer) my audio book automatically gets tuned out. I use my eyes (and brain!) to read constantly duing my workday and at home on the computer so I am hoping those aren't in danger of weakness due to misuse.
ChinaCalling- At times I do miss the actual reading for reasons you mentioned, like character and location names, intricate details or plot changes and just generally "seeing" them. However, I have found that usually by the second or third disk the items have been repeated or given enough context that they are clear and reinforced...and there is always the option to rewind.
LGrant -I do not consider them the same as movies either. Several times have listened to an audio book and been sorely dissapointed by the movie version, just like with printed books. Lionheart - I read books for almsot all of the reasons you mentioned. I will blog soon on my "summer reading". I recently got some recommendations from other folks on the site and am eager to try them.

13) Merrick, I'm glad you brought up the part about your brain using the same area for listening to a book and reading a book. I've tried a couple of times to look at a catalog or a cookbook while listening to a book, thinking "I can drive and listen to a book" but I can't do it. I can do things with my hands like fold clothes or make a bed but once I try to use my brain for any reading, even if mostly with pictures, I find it impossible to listen to the book and comprehend it.

China, I have a real problem with names and tend to forget them easily (ask Merrick!) so a book with lots of characters with lots of plots can overwhelm me at times and I have to backtrack and figure out who is who and related to whom. Audio books are tracked and easy to back up a couple of tracks if needed. At times that helps me keep the story or characters straight. Occasionally if the narrator is really good I recognize the character more by the "voice" than the name and can keep up with the plots and characters more easily.

Mrs. Shoo, maybe my problem is I'm coming at reading from a librarian's mind instead of a teacher's. I think people should read books by holding them and taking in the words that are physically on the page and I certainly think that children need to be encouraged to read books they can hold and learn the words that will be needed in their day-to-day lives, but it bothers me that we have to call books with spines "real" books and audio books something less like "a movie" or "an email". Neither apply in my opinion and lessen the audio book to a poor substitute rather than another medium. I think it insults people who enjoy them and people who require them due to vision impairment.

I also wonder what you would call a Braille book? It's a physical book with a binding and pages but certainly not the written word. Is a Braille book not a "real" book? Would someone who is blind be told he can't say he read a book using Braille because the phrase "read a book" is limited to people with the necessary vision and physical ability to hold a book or use a computer for online reading? I'm not trying to be antagonistic about it--just feeling a little defensive because I choose to listen to audio books as well as physically read a regular paper book and feel I have the right to say I read the book either way.

The word read has a lot of meanings--not all of which involves a group of pages with words on them with a spine and book-cover. Not to mention I hear parents saying all the time "my child and I read the book together". Does that mean the child has to physically read a portion of the book to be included in the "we read"? If the book is read to the child, should the parent be required to say "I read to my child" to avoid confusion?

I realize it is all symantics but I, as a librarian-mind, worry that we limit reading of any type if we put rules on how a book can and can't be read rather than options to encourage reading in any form--be it CD, cassette, LP, paperback, hardback, online, comic book. From what I have heard from studies done with audio books, they encourage children to read standard books--sounds better than a movie, an email or a sparknote. :)

14) I'm not limiting books by saying they must have a spine. I'm limiting "reading" by saying it's the process of understanding a written message, which is the definition for reading. As I've stated several times before, I think there's a time and a place for audiobooks, but it isn't the same as reading an actual text. I'm not insulting anyone, simply stating that there's a vast difference between reading and listening to a text.
Someone using audiobooks because of an impairment would fall under that category of time and place for them.
A Braille book is still a written text. It may not be in a language I'm familiar with, but it is written. Again, different from an audiobook.
Most studies encourage audiobooks in connection with an actual text of some sort, which is extremely effective. I've used it quite frequently with my struggling readers. But an audiobook doesn't replace the act of reading.
Again, this is my opinion.

15) I don't think anyone ever used the word replace but rather alternative. Obviously we won't agree on this topic. I will continue to say I read the books--whether I listen to them or read them as text as you will argue I don't. :)