These two interpretations in reading are caused by the dire state of education which has been taken over in the States in the past 40 years by ideologies.
The same can be said of the English school curriculum, part of which I have taught as recently as last year.
The problems stem from several problems with modern education since the 1960s.
Here are the problems.
One, students do not recognize total objectivity in writing. That is, when a writer reports exactly from an objective viewpoint, the ordinary reader cannot distinguish between what the interviewer is reporting and the stand of the interviewee.
Let me give you an example. If I report on a talk by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wherein he denies the Holocaust, I am reporting on his interpretation of history. If I make NO comment on that talk, or editorial slant, which should be stated outright by the writer, then the article is about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's false idea of history and not my own.
Some readers cannot see objectivity because they have not learned to think and read objectively. They are primed to interpret everything in life subjectively and therefore assume everyone is like themselves; that is, subjective.
One can write in an objective manner. One can be taught to think objectively. Part of the problems in communication today between persons stem from the fact that people assume subject reality.
Seriously, this is not the stand of the saint, who is able to stand back and be objective not only about themselves but other people.
For example, a person is talking too much and making errors in a pub. I can step back and think, "This person is under stress and if I am kind, this will defuse the situation."
A subjective person thinks, "This person is a mess and is making my life difficult." And, so on.
Not judging another person's actions means stepping back and examining all the possibilities This is called prudence and is connected to discernment.
The second problem is that some readers cannot read nuance. Nuance is found in non-objective, subtle writing which appeals to the intellect.
I have had comments from some readers who are not reading what is in the text on the blog but only what they think is in the text. These readers have not been taught how to read.
Nuance is a necessity is one does not want to create a strong editorial stand, but incline a reader to a certain viewpoint. It is perfectly valid.
For example, if I write, "The speaker was nervous", I am making a judgment from body language or speech and this is editorializing.
If I write, "The speaker played with the cuff of his shirt and dropped his notebook twice" one can interpret the nervousness of the speaker by merely looking at the facts. This is objective writing
If I write, "The speaker played with the cuff of his shirt, dropping his notebook twice, actions which caught the attention of some observers", I have created a shade of meaning which the reader can interpret.
I write mostly from an objective point of view, especially when I am reporting some talk or discussion.
That readers think I agree with the discussion or talk if I publish the notes is absurd. To report is not to agree. To interpret is to create nuance or, more strongly, an editorialized piece of writing.
If someone objects to a topic, this reader only has to step back and look at the way in which the post is written.
If someone thinks I agree with everything I post, this reader is not reading carefully.
Readers who cannot read insult writers who are not propagandizing.
To show Catholic teaching as it is in a post is objective writing.
I usually put my comments either in parentheses or in colored text.
Those who cannot read cannot learn or judge correctly.
Those comments go into "delete" if I have tried to explain to a reader how to read but they persist in her own interpretations.
The trouble is compounded by those who already have a preconceived idea of what an article actually states.
To be continued....
