Actual Rant
That last rant wasn’t ranty. Here is my real beef.
My friends started talking about the hunger games and my buddy said that he had read the books, then he corrected himself and indicated that he hadn’t actually read the books but had listened to them on cd. If a person listens to a book on tape, can they say that they read the book? Is this offensive to you book readers out there?
Here are the two sides’ best arguments as far as I can tell. (I can tell a reasonably far distance.)
You cannot say you read the book because reading includes visually or physically (Braille) interpretating written material. It is possible to listen and understand a book while being illiterate.
You can say you read the book because all that is important is that the imformation is communicated the mind from any sense (sight, hearing, taste, seeing ghosts.)
I think the strongest argument is made in the direction of not being able to say you read the book. If that is the case, why not tell people you listened to the book on tape? There seems to be a certain negative connotation associated with listening to a book rather than actually reading it. To avoid the shame, a person may simply indicate that they had read the book. This is fine with me but is a odd thing to lie about.
In the end, it’s just bad taste to tell someone who has listened to the book on tape that they now need to actually turn a page in order to join the book reading association. Just enjoy each others common knowledge that the hunger games movie did a fair job of representing the book.
In that same vein, I would still rather just watch the movie. The movie is always better than the book. Can I say that I read the book now that I watched the movie? Now that’s a stretch. But so is Lenny Kravitz as a costume designer. And Donald Sutherland as an evil guy.