My Unpopular Thesis

I’ve been asked to change my position concerning repetitive, identical comments that never engage further with a text or author, and I mean never. For me, it has come to represent not reading, and I have an ethical problem with that. That was my initial complaint: repetitive commenting without reading, but it was presented to the community at large as an intentional personal attack. I resent that. As the attacks on my character piled up, first I was hurt. Then I got angry. I’m still angry.

I believe that we have a responsibility to read before commenting. I can’t assess whether I like something or have anything to say about it without reading it. I reject the condemnation of my objection to commenting without reading. I firmly believe that individual ethical responsibility as a reader/commenter on written work supersedes anyone’s personal feelings about engaging in this unethical behavior.

Before everyone sharpens their pitchforks and starts a fresh chorus about what a cruel, heartless person I am to have the values I have, I want to know how it’s your role to dictate what matters to me. It isn’t, so stop with these ridiculous requests to change my position; also, cease and desist the attacks on my character for criticizing behavior I find unacceptable.

I value comments from those who have read what they comment on, regardless of whether it’s detailed analysis or a simple emoji. A loud string of emojis is another situation entirely, especially when the person pasting them hasn’t read the text, regardless of who it is and how much you like them. Irrelevant. Commenting without reading offends me, regardless of who’s doing it, and when it’s pattern behavior, it offends me grievously.

In my line of work, I constantly deal with people who pretend they have read something that they haven’t even skimmed. It’s intellectual dishonesty, every bit as much as plagiarism. Confronting this same behavior here angers and offends me on multiple levels, each progressively deeper, wider, and thicker. This is not assigned reading. Be honest about what you have read; otherwise, you’re disrespecting the other readers, possibly encouraging others to read, with no idea what you’re encouraging them to read.

Without reading, you may be congratulating someone and promoting something that goes against everything you believe in. There’s an ethical obligation to be familiar with written work you’re endorsing. History tells us this many times, especially in European history and currently, in unread legislation in the US which goes into effect one second after midnight on Halloween, but that’s another story, even though it’s a result of this same irresponsible behavior.

If you disagree with me on this point and think there’s nothing wrong with endorsing unread material, that’s your right, but I reject your condemnation of my refusal to support behavior that violates my values. I believe that we have a responsibility to be honest and treat writing and reading with respect. If someone comments on my work without reading it, I feel disrespected (regardless of whether it’s praise or criticism), not as the author, but as a reader because it’s dishonest. Blindly endorsing or criticizing anything is, in my opinion, morally wrong. I am actively contemptuous of influencer mentality on a platform for creative work.

Further, I reject the false dichotomy designed to provoke outrage. It assumes that one must accept commenting on unread material or reject commenting altogether. It ignores the most responsible course of action: only comment on what you’ve read. Honestly, that should go without saying, and I’m not amused by the necessity of addressing this seemingly obvious responsibility of readers. The framing of this as a personal attack is an affront to genuine engagement, and I reject it wholesale.

I did not intentionally single out anyone, and I certainly didn’t name an individual or include a link to a profile. I also consider that deeply unethical. An individual’s choice to publicly self-identify was that individual’s choice and action, not mine, as was the choice to name and link me in a rhetorical work portraying persecution presented as an apology (read it out loud if you don’t see it). It’s propaganda—work created to provoke an emotional response that overrides the issue at hand, which is commenting without reading. And the rhetorical purpose was to prove the influence this person has, that I’ve offended an influencer.

Having never received any correspondence attached to this person’s “signature,” I had no idea it was such. I knew it was pattern behavior that deeply offended me. Now that I know it’s a signature, I’m more offended than I was before learning that. Ironically, my behavior that offended so deeply was a demonstration of the detachment from meaning that didn’t even scrape the surface. It’s even more ironic if you’ve read the essays that were endorsed with the signature.

I won’t tolerate any more demonization over it—my criticism was of behavior, not character. You’ll note that I’m still not naming this person, not even using pronouns. I stand by my values, and I will not reconsider my position that it’s irresponsible and unethical (and sometimes dangerous) to comment on material you haven’t read. Matthew Arnold would call it charlatanism, a sin against literature itself. Eliot addresses it in The Wasteland, under the shadow of the red rock.

*author note: Comments are disabled.