If you listened to an audiobook, do you say you "read" it?

mjcouvi said

I listen to the Joe Rogan podcast sometimes, and he says he "reads" books when really he listens to them, and I admit that bothers me a bit. If you didn't actually READ the words in the book, I think it's misleading to say you read it. You can just say "I listened to the book" and that would be a better explanation of how you consumed content, as I see it. Reading is not the same as listening. The definitions are clear, so if you listened to a book, rather than read it, just say you listened to it.

Click to expand...

In casual conversation we often say things that aren’t literally true. But this gets to the heart of the issue, I think. Is that really “misleading”? Why is listening to a book not the same as reading it for purposes of discussing the content?

I suspect that there’s some judgment or bias underlying this idea - I sense it within my own thinking so I’m not any different. What I’m questioning is whether that judgment has merit. If it’s an empty bias, than we shouldn’t cling to it. And I can’t come up with a reason why it’s wrong to say you read a book that you listened to. Would you tell a blind person that listens to audiobooks that they “shouldn’t” say they have read them?

I get that people who read books might think reading is just more pure, requires more effort (perhaps intellectual effort), and is therefore superior. But I can’t figure out why that matters - so what? There’s no awards being given out here, just people talking about books. If you take away the same content and the thought it inspires, I don’t see a difference that warrants such judgment.