My wife objects to my using the verb “to read†in reference to an audio book. She is a teacher, and knows there is a great difference between reading something and having it read to you. Still, I don't think that “listening to†is quite right. It sounds bad to me especially in the past: “I listened to Atlas Shrugged last week.†doesn't really work for me.
The blind can “read†books in Braille; they don't “feel†them. But I can acknowledge that there is a difference there: Braille doesn't insert another person between the author and the reader; audio books create a three-way relationship between the author, reader, and listener.
I do note that I was compelled to use listener for clarity in this case.
So, what verb do you use? What else have you heard in your community?
She is a teacher, and knows there is a great difference between reading something and having it read to you.
With due respect to your wife, that kind of remark makes my ear hairs bristle! There are plenty of folks who believe - actually and sincerely believe - that reading Shakespeare is somehow superior to watching - and listening - to the play. Shakespeare would have thought that much ado about nothing. Do those same people believe that reading jokes and song lyrics is superior to listening to them? Why have so many people come to think that ripping the aural elements from a story is so good?
One theory is that it's been so long since the days of story telling and troubadouring that we have forgotten that the aural word is ideal while the written word is a convenience. A great convenience, no doubt, but a convenience none the less. Many people hold the mistaken assumption that listening to a story is easier than reading it, that reading requires us to engage more of our brain. That is simply not so, in terms of how much of the brain is engaged in taking in the story. I would argue that listening to a well-told story, or watching a play, involves much more of our brain (and emotions), without the "distractions" of squinting at words on a page. I am a reader, and I love to read, but I also love to listen to stories, and I feel more involved with a story when I'm listening. I am actually working harder when I listen rather than read because I must concentrate and pay attention, if I want to get immersed in the "flow" of the story and avoid constant rewinding.
I will never forget my first "epiphany" with listening to stories. Huckleberry Finn had always been one of my favorites, and I loved to read it. But then I heard it read by a master story teller - an English Lit college professor - and entire new dimensions opened up for me. I remember thinking it odd that a college prof would read a story to college-age students. Story telling was for kids! Boy, was I wrong! For years after that class I sorely missed that kind of engagement with literature. But then audio books started to come out. But I didn't jump on that bandwagon right away. It wasn't until my job required me to drive a long daily commute that, in desperation, I started to listen to audio books in my car. I was instantly hooked. Sometimes I actually wished for traffic to be bad! I was amazed at what a master story teller could do, even with books I had read many times.
Listening to well-told stories teaches us how to tell stories and improves our overall ability to communicate. There is so much more of a story that is communicated through sound as well as sight. Readers, even good readers, stand to lose a lot when they don't listen to a well-told story. Sure, your wife could argue that one reason reading is "better" is that the reader must create the sounds and sights in his own mind - "put on the show," so to speak. Reading is more "active" and listening or watching is passive. I think this myth comes from observing people passively watching bad TV shows, or worse, reruns of bad TV shows, while mindlessly munching on potato chips. Believe me, there are just as many people who passively read books. I remember plenty of my classmates in school who could hardly remember any details of the books they were forced to read. The mind has the marvelous ability to wander and not absorb what it has no interest in.
Anyway, maybe your wife didn't mean any criticism with her remark about the "great difference between reading and listening." But I used that to get this great pet peeve off my chest! And to answer your question, I think it makes perfect sense to say that you "read" a book when in fact you listened to it. I say the same thing. If you tell people that you listened to a book, it confuses some of them. Also, some people - even some people in my book club! - think that listening to a book is "not the same" as reading it. Unless I'm in the mood to engage in a debate with them, why bother bringing it up? If I say I read it I can get on to discussing the book with them, without the hassle of dealing with their prejudice.
One more thing: I'm sure that Martha and Grant will soon stop doing their radio show and switch over to a written blog format. It would be so much better to read them than to listen to them!
To clarify my wife's position, she makes no value judgment as to the relative merits of reading a book, or having it read to you. She actually is a Special Education teacher, with a specialty in reading skills. She must communicate through many different learning modes to a variety of students. She also develops her students' skills in reading silently, reading aloud, and listening to reading — and taking in the important content in all of these activities.
Perhaps it is her specialty that is making her sensitive to my word choice.
So at least I have one other “reader†out there. Maybe I just need to do air quotes when I say "read."
Instead of saying, "I read an audio book." you could use the same words and say, "I audio read a book."
If you object to the adverbial use of "audio", you could say, "I aurally read a(n audio) book."
Emmett