Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign [View all]Read it for what it probably says, and it's not that interesting.
Read it for what we'd like it to say, and it's riveting.
The interpretations differ, but the words remain the same. I can't bring myself to say that neither reading is privileged. One clearly is. And if it goes to a committee or jury that's unbiased, that's likely to be the dominant reading.
What I mean to say, and say plainly, is that one should never let one's own reading of a text efface what the creator of the text probably intended. If for no other reason that when others do it to us, we get highly incensed. If that's not sufficient, and it likely won't be for many since it involves a particular sense of morality, there's another.
Consider this: We read it one way because it suits us to do so (and we're what really matters). Others will read it a different way because it suits them to do so. We remember not the words we saw but the words that express the meaning we gleaned, but we're all too thick to realize that the words we recite in quotation are very often not the words we saw. We know what we remember; but that doesn't mean we know what we saw.