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

superchuck500 said
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.

I think as usual words have more than one meaning and language evolves. We often say that we "read" the room, "read" a situation, "read" a person, or even "read" a defense. Obviously we don't literally mean that we read anything in those situations. In the context of a book, I guess we assume that when someone says read, they actually mean physically read the words with their eyes, but I suspect that will be less so as time goes on and more and more writing is consumed by listening rather than reading the words. So, language evolves and I expect at some point we won't really distinguish between the two.

I also think that there is a certain level of snobbishness to the idea of reading a book as opposed to listening to it. And I suspect your discomfort with saying read when you listened (and my own) has something to do with not wanting to run afoul of the snobs who might call you out for listening instead of actually reading. I guess I think that snobbishness is unwarranted. I think it's important for kids to read to 1) learn how to read; 2) learn how to spell; 3) learn how to write; and 4) learn more vocabulary, but I'm not so sure it's all that important for adults. Especially since most adults are too busy or tired to read much where as they are much more likely to have time to listen while doing other things like commuting or exercising. And isn't it better to consume the art, knowledge, and information in some way rather than not get it because you don't have time or the energy to read?