Twilight, Fifty Shades, or Z-list celebrities autobiographies.
People don’t have to read Tolstoy or Naipaul, but if you’ve only read these type of books, rate them as works of quality, and you’re an adult; I’m afraid It’s not going to work.
Unless they’re really hot and then it’ll work for a little bit, but not for long.
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.