Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

oldadapter t1_j6n27h6 wrote

Reply to comment by Tokenvoice in The 10 Inalienable Rights of the Reader by swedish_librarian

Would you object to a blind person who tells you they’ve read a certain book? It’s not that words don’t matter, it’s just the rules of language need a little give so it stays resilient as society changes.

1

Tokenvoice t1_j6ons95 wrote

No because you read brail, you don’t say I felt a good book the other day. But here’s the fun part you would assume that a blind person who said they read a book would mean it was in brail and not that they listened to an audiobook, which reinforces the point that listening to an audiobook isn’t the same as reading contextually.

And to reiterate my original point because we have moved a wee ways down in the conversation and I don’t want to be mistaken, it doesn’t matter so much how you consumed the book they are all valid for a conversation on the book.

2

oldadapter t1_j6p1z5i wrote

Sure but I’m just saying that ‘reading’ has this flexibility/broader meaning for only a few contexts, not as standard rule - but braille can also be one of these. If someone can read by touch in that context, there’s no good reason someone can’t also read by listening in another. I agree, in most cases choosing the most clear, unambiguous term is going to be best (especially to make that braille/audiobook distinction) - but if the medium isn’t the important part of the conversation/context - it seems unnecessary to pick someone up for saying something like “oh yes I read that last year too and found it tedious” if they in fact felt or listened to the text.

1