What I do mind is that people often disregard what is posted, but then argue, instead, against their own projected statements.
Like this:
PERSON ONE: A, A, A. Definitely and clearly A.
PERSON TWO: So what you're saying, then, is B.
And so on.
I wonder, too, how many people misread fiction in the same ways that they misread comments on the Web -- and not only fiction. Back in the days when Internet Movie Data Base included discussions, I often suspected that people had in mind films that played more in their heads than on the screen.
Yes, there will always be variations in how we interpret any work of narrative (and certain stories thrive on ambiguity) but is it too much to ask for people to interpret what is actually there on the screen or in the prose?
Another way to look at this (I call it the Shakespeare way, but many writers and artists follow it), is to recognize that most people live in their own heads, perceive only what they want to see, project the inside of their skulls onto everything and everyone around them; to recognize all of this and to not grieve, but, instead, to revel in the spectrum of our human variety, inanity, insanity. Education is a myth, correction is impossible, self-awareness remains a struggle even for the best of us, and so why not salute the madness while our time runs out?
I wish I could.
