Just saw this come up again in another thread, that audiobooks don’t count as real reading. I don’t actually buying the reasoning (not active participation, can do other things, etc), but I kinda get it. I feel like I pause, rewind, zone out, and generally process the information the same. Unless I’m trying to listen while doing something that takes too much brain power.
But why doesn’t the argument get applied to people devouring 100 or 200 or more genre books a year? You have to be flying through them to the point that concentration is not worse than an audiobook while driving, but recall is likely going to be much much worse. If I read 20 mysteries I’m going to struggle differentiating anything beyond the premise? Now apply that to nearly one YA book a day. I’m sure there are savants with perfect photographic recall, but that’s not the average booktuber.
So where do you fall?
Why do people want listening to audiobooks to be classed as reading?
If I’ve listened to an Audiobook I say ‘ I listened to the audiobook of that’.
When I read a book I say ‘I’ve read that book’, Or when I’ve listened to the Audiobook I say I’ve ‘listened to that book’.
My suspicion is that people who want the definition changed want to be seen in a certain way. That there’s an implication going on. They’re portraying something and want the act to be seen in a certain way.
Perhaps they think Audiobooks are ‘inferior’ as an intellectual exercise, and that reading is more sophisticated? More culturally grandiose? And by changing ‘listened’ to ‘read’ they hope to disguise that fact. And that also works the other way.
But nobody cares. I just have a personal preference for precise use of language. When I read I read, when I listen I listen. Any changes of agreed usage have a driving mechanism that is sometimes hidden.