Sensationalistic Relations

How much do you need to be able to relate to someone? To understand someone? To be able to see something from his eyes? To grasp his views and perhaps in the smallest of things, be like him or her?

Talking with him? Hearing about his problems? Knowing any big stories about him?

As obvious as this might be, this is the kind of stuff that differentiate between the relationships between one another as being acquaintances, friends or strangers.

As obvious as this also might be, every person is different. The way one relates to another individual is different with each and every individual.

Unfortunately, not as obvious is the rather obvious fact that you shouldn't be taking the above two obvious facts for granted and as being obvious.

Whatever a person presents to you about himself is rarely enough for you to even begin to grasp the inner workings of a person - to actually know anyone, the onus is on someone to bother to try. This seems rather true in most circumstances, whether it is of a person presenting himself in real life or online, say a blog.

When the news reports a particular figure and a story in regards to him or her, people begin to understand a certain aspect of the character: Perhaps his personality, perhaps a situation he was in, perhaps the kind of things he has done and the choices he has made.

"Hey, do you know about this person?" The two positive replies.

"Yeah, I know him."
"Yeah, I know about him."
How many worlds apart the two answers are I don't really know.

In my encounters with the lives of two different people, one rather distant and one relatively closer, I have mistakenly interpreted one situation to be the other. Consequences generally stay rather undesirable and indicate the many decades I have before becoming remotely wise, and perhaps even saying that alone is egoistic of me.

Sensationalism and dramatization in the press (or perhaps maybe even a private medium) always leads one to a certain understanding of any particular character. Sadly, what it also does is give a horrendously shallow interpretation of the actual situation to the reader and give misconstrued ideas as to the situation. The idea that the person's life can be well understood by a single feat alone. Irregardless of the feat or the situation, one's understanding can only go as far as in regards to the feat.

The view people get is valid based on their understanding. Yet a person has commented to me that it lacks human decency.

Isn't that then true of any reader facing a similar subject matter? The thought of going through with what you really wanted to do. The persistence to continue in spite of everything. All myraids of feelings trivialized and belittled by the inept eyes of the reader. A storylike tale with a protagonist, a problem, a conflict, a resolution and a happy ending.

In hindsight I understand slightly better now; just as fiction should not be treated as non-fiction, reality should not be treated as a fairytale either. It is a grave disservice to those who face the brunt of it.