Listening is the new reading

[Catlady]

The definition of read in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, includes:

• to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch
• to learn from what one has seen or found in writing or printing
• to become acquainted with or look over the contents of (as a book)
• to receive and understand (a voice message) by radio
• UNDERSTAND, COMPREHEND

Full definition:

Spoiler:

transitive verb
1 a (1) : to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch (2) : to study the movements of (as lips) with mental formulation of the communication expressed (3) : to utter aloud the printed or written words of *read them a story* b : to learn from what one has seen or found in writing or printing c : to deliver aloud by or as if by reading; specifically : to utter interpretively d (1) : to become acquainted with or look over the contents of (as a book) (2) : to make a study of *read law* (3) : to read the works of e : to check (as copy or proof) for errors f (1) : to receive and understand (a voice message) by radio (2) : UNDERSTAND, COMPREHEND
2 a : to interpret the meaning or significance of *read palms* b : FORETELL, PREDICT *able to read his fortune*
3 : to recognize or interpret as if by reading: as a : to learn the nature of by observing outward expression or signs *reads him like a book* b : to note the action or characteristics of in order to anticipate what will happen *a good canoeist reads the rapids* *a golfer reading a green*; also : to predict the movement of (a putt) by reading a green c : to anticipate by observation of an opponent's position or movement *read a blitz*
4 a : to attribute a meaning to (as something read) : INTERPRET *how do you read this passage* b : to attribute (a meaning) to something read or considered *read a nonexistent meaning into her words*
5 : to use as a substitute for or in preference to another word or phrase in a particular passage, text, or version *read hurry for harry* — often used to introduce a clarifying substitute for a euphemistic or misleading word or phrase *a friendly, read nosy, coworker*
6 : INDICATE *the thermometer reads zero*
7 : to interpret (a musical work) in performance
8 a : to acquire (information) from storage; especially : to sense the meaning of (data) in recorded and coded form — used of a computer or data processor b : to read the coded information on (as a floppy disk)
intransitive verb
1 a : to perform the act of reading words : read something b (1) : to learn something by reading (2) : to pursue a course of study
2 a : to yield a particular meaning or impression when read b : to be readable or read in a particular manner or to a particular degree *this book reads smoothly*
3 : to consist of specific words, phrases, or other similar elements *a passage that reads differently in older versions*
–read between the lines : to understand more than is directly stated
–read the riot act
1 : to order a mob to disperse
2 a : to order or warn to cease something b : to protest vehemently c : to reprimand severely

My earlier definition may have been a bit clumsy, but it was not analogous to Humpty Dumpty creating his own definitions.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by tomsem

I consider it reading. It is a different way of experiencing the book. It’s how many of us got started reading: having our parents read to us.

And yet when I was a kid and my mom read me The Cat In The Hat, I wouldn't go around telling people I know how to read.

Reading and listening to someone else speak are not the same thing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My earlier definition may have been a bit clumsy, but it was not analogous to Humpty Dumpty creating his own definitions.

You are of course entirely free to consider it "reading" if you wish. I shall continue to consider my consumption of audiobooks as listening to someone else read.

[DiapDealer]

I tend to not worry overly about having commonly shared definitions of easily mutable words. Certainly not when I understand perfectly well what some is trying to say.

When the guy on TV says "don't touch that dial!" I feel no need to explain to him that my TV has no "dial."

I know very few phones around today are capable of being "dialled" yet I feel no urge to correct anyone who says they're dialling theirs.

I know a newspaper article didn't really "say" anything.

I pointed to the NEC when someone asked if they could use the xerox.

Words rarely stay stagnant in a living language.

And while I agree that "listening is the new reading" is a bit of a problematic statement for me, It doesn't help me in the least to know whether someone "read" a book, or "listened" to one when we're discussing said book.

In this context, I have no problem whatsoever with someone who listened to an audiobook claiming that they've "read" the book. If I'm unaware they were talking about an audiobook, it changes nothing, and if I AM aware, I understand perfectly what they meant anyway.

When asked, "Did you read Stephen King's latest?", I think it would be silly (and quite counter-productive, actually) to expect someone to respond, "No, I didn't. But I did listen to it."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

When asked, "Did you read Stephen King's latest?", I think it would be silly (and quite counter-productive, actually) to expect someone to respond, "No, I didn't. But I did listen to it."

I think that using "reading" as a synonym for "listening" is one of those things that irritates some people (and I'm in that camp), while others will happily use it. Fortunately we can all use words in the sense we wish to.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Apache

Marketers are always looking for a new catch phrase that will make consumers rush to buy their wares. Anyone remember the Pink Ice craze of 1991. Before the term Pink Ice the correct term was Pink Cubic Zirconium. Change the name to Pink Ice and people went nuts buying it. Mostly set into light weight 10K jewelry. The buying frenzy last approximately one year and died. Then they tried to market Lavender Ice (purple CZ). Lavender Ice did not catch on and died quickly. A good thing in my opinion.
Never buy anything because someone, who knows nothing about the product, comes up with a catchy phrase. When you listen (or read) a commercial listen closely. Most, commercials say very little that gives useful or factual information about the product. Anyone remember Jogging In A Jug?
Apache

Chocolate diamonds?
I hear they sell well in some areas. I also heard they don't resell well.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Philippe D.

(I don't want to use the word "consume" here).

YAY!!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are of course entirely free to consider it "reading" if you wish. I shall continue to consider my consumption of audiobooks as listening to someone else read.

I'm sure the folks at Merriam-Webster are happy to hear they have your permission to define reading more broadly than you do. I know I am.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm sure the folks at Merriam-Webster are happy to hear they have your permission to define reading more broadly than you do. I know I am.

Excellent. We're all happy bunnies, then!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

And yet when I was a kid and my mom read me The Cat In The Hat, I wouldn't go around telling people I know how to read.

Reading and listening to someone else speak are not the same thing.

Learning to read is an entirely separate issue and not what we've been discussing.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Excellent. We're all happy bunnies, then!

Impenetrability!

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Learning to read is an entirely separate issue and not what we've been discussing.

Sorry. I thought the discussion was that if someone else read a book to you, you have effectively read the book. My mistake.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Sorry. I thought the discussion was that if someone else read a book to you, you have effectively read the book. My mistake.

You specifically compared being read to with knowing how to read.

And yet when I was a kid and my mom read me The Cat In The Hat, I wouldn't go around telling people I know how to read.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I thought the discussion was that if someone else read a book to you, you have effectively read the book.

In my opinion, they have effectively read the book (I'm referring to literate adults here, of course). They've only not (possibly) semantically read it.

If someone's experience with a work allows them to summarize it, write a personal review of it, discuss its various plot points and character development, and generally discuss it with others who have "partaken of the contents" of that work, then it seems fairly petty to me to deny their notion of having "read" the book for purely semantic reasons.

When the question means, "have you experienced Stephen King's latest book", then why the heck shouldn't someone answer "yes"?

"Hey Bob, have your eyes perused the words to Stephen King's latest book (on paper or screen) from beginning to end yet?"

[issybird]

I've posted elsewhere that I consider myself as having read a particular book once I've finished the audiobook. But to say that one is reading an audiobook is just silly, IMO. If you're going to specify audiobook, then you're listening. If someone mentions the latest bestseller and you say you're reading it without mentioning medium, that's fine. But "reading" and "audiobook" disagree on a fundamental level.

I identify chips on shoulders in two camps: those who insist that listening is reading when it patently isn't and those who somehow think that audiobooks don't "count." For the life of me, I can't see why consumers of audiobooks (of which I'm one) bristle their feathers at the word "listen," when whatever is wrong with that? Nor do I see why the reading purity camp has to insist that if you've "only" heard a book, you somehow didn't experience it for the purpose of counting it or acquiring the material therein.

I think we lose useful information by fudging reading and listening to the extent that we say it's the same experience, because it isn't. The chips-on-shoulders campers refuse to coexist and worse, don't admit that each experience has its advantages relative to the other. Why would we want to lose this distinction?

It's akin to the ebooks v. pbooks contretemps, for those who insist that one is better than the other, always and in every respect. Except that it's worse, because in the real (physical) sense, listening isn't reading.