I was chatting to Mr TM this morning because a blogging chum had dared raise her head above the virtual parapet and declared that vlogging (video blogging) was not for her. She wrote that she didn't like it, and wouldn't do it.
I agreed with her as did several other people, we also discussed whether maybe it was age related as young people (and here I cite DD as an example) frankly love Youtube and vloggers and would probably cheerfully watch video blogs of other young people unwrapping lipstick and boxes of Lego until the cows come home.
But some people suggested she may have 'upset some people' and she (and I ) wondered why. Why does having a personal opinion upset people online, because it certainly seems to!
In our discussion Mr TM and I decided that maybe, particularly on twitter where characters are in short supply, but also on blogs, the fact that there is no dialogue only a statement means that not only can you not quickly clarify your position, as you would if chatting, but also people read what you haven't written...and I don't know why.
For example, If I state "I loathe bananas" I am stating just that, I, me, personally, dislike bananas to an extreme amount. But often the reader, a passionate lover of yellow bent fruits, reads "Bananas are loathsome" they may also read "and therefor anyone who likes them is an idiot, only fools like bananas, bananas should be banned." But it's not there, it's not a subtext, no one said it.
By the way, I did find Wolf Hall last night dreadfully boring.