Sometimes if I check online to see what other people think a cryptic passage in the Wheel of Time means (because Robert Jordan seemed to love being enigmatic and making readers work), I end up falling down the rabbit hole of old online discussions. That everyone would have a different opinion makes sense when it comes to these cryptic passages (especially those that prophesy the characters’ journeys), but this difference holds true even when Jordan is very clear about what is happening.
For a hypothetical example, say that a character went to a tavern to eat, and someone in a forum asked what Jordan meant. By the end of the discussion, you would think that the character was motivated by a desire to foment rebellion rather than a simple desire to assuage hunger. Admittedly, it’s not necessarily a cut-and-dried sentence since, as I said, Jordan delighted in being enigmatic, but still . . . The character went to a tavern to eat. Simple. No discussion required. And yet there are dozens of different points of view even though everyone read the exact same sentence. Or maybe they didn’t read the same sentence; maybe everyone’s eyes saw different words and hence the confusion.
There is also a difference in the way readers look at the saga as a whole. Everyone seems to admit that Jordan got caught up in his vision, and lost the forward momentum of the story about three-fourths of the way through. Some people see this as a vindication of their belief that he is a terrible writer. Others, like me, overlook those parts (that might have made sense if Jordan had been able to finish his epic) and see the brilliance that he did display elsewhere.
So, yes. We do see things differently even when we see the same thing.
A few years back there were all sort of photos going around the internet, like a pair of shoes or a dress. Oddly, though everyone saw the same photo, people saw different colors. I think the shoe was supposed to be pink and white, but I saw grey and turquoise. The dress was supposed to be blue and black, which is what I saw, but some people saw white and gold. Even when people would look at the same screen, such as on one person’s phone, they still saw different colors. Supposedly, there is an explanation, but explanations differed, so who knows the truth of it. The point is the vast difference in perception.
[It reminds me, though, of something I always wondered — do two people actually see the same color in the same way? If I were to show a blue flower, for example, everyone who is not color blind would agree that it was blue, but are we actually seeing the same color or do we just give the name “blue” to whatever color it is we see when shown that color?]
In cases like those I mentioned above, where opinions vary widely, where even what one sees varies, the difference is rather meaningless, since it doesn’t affect anything.
But this divergence holds true even when it does mean something, when it’s not a simple difference of opinion, when the disagreement can affect our very lives. Like the direction the country is going. Some people want open borders, equity more than equality (equality is giving everyone the same opportunity; equity is making sure everyone ends up in the same place), free trade, and a continued move toward globalism. Others want a sovereign nation with closed borders, putting legal citizens first, fair trade, less reliance on inimical countries, and a return to nationalism.
Those who want globalism also, paradoxically, believe in democracy. They believe that they are able to choose their own destiny, and so they can’t see that the policies they support are being pushed on them by outside global influences. The nationalists often do see that globalism hides in certain policies, such as open borders and punitive tariffs placed on American goods, and so they want to retract from world-wide policies that seem to go against sovereignty. For years, these nationalists were hushed by taunts of “conspiracy theorist,” but labels don’t affect the truth that these are two disparate visions of the United States.
It makes me wonder if both sides are seeing the same thing but interpreting it differently, as in the example of the hypothetical sentence in the Wheel of Time mentioned above, or if we are seeing completely different things as with the example of the shoes and dress.
I used to not pay much attention to current doings (it’s easier to study the past because it’s not ever changing as is the present). But now I worry about what could happen when the difference is so great, when whatever opinion you have is subsumed into one of those two vastly different visions. I also worry that the country I die in will be unimaginably different from the one I was born in.
Oh, well. That’s my fault for blogging every day. When I wasn’t blogging, if I had ideas such as these, I’d just let them pass, but now I think about them so I can write a cogent essay. A good reason to stop blogging, but so far, I don’t have an opinion about whether or not to continue.
***
Pat Bertram is the author of Grief: The Inside Story – A Guide to Surviving the Loss of a Loved One.
Bertram's Blog 