It's a good way of putting it: that we see the world as stories about it. That also explains why we'll never know it all, and never the same as others.
I also live abroad, and that has basically made me less interested in the news from my original country plus from the new one. Instead, I try to understand the world and its interrelations, which isn't easy. It does, however, show me that news from just about anywhere is abundant and yet incomplete and inaccurate.
There's always a tiny degree of self-censorship in writing. It doesn't even have to do with politics. True, unfiltered honesty is hard to put into words.
Yes, I agree. What is truth, anyway? We always just see the world from where we stand and cannot convey much beside that. Any idea of a new, universal truth to exist, and be tellable, will lack all evidence.
And even if we would know about such an ultimate truth, that isn't already known, how could we possibly expect to be able to put it into words that would be understood as meant?
Writing is challenging. Deciding on what to write is just as challenging – picking a task that has a reasonable difficulty level and a reasonable chance of success is probably where we all end up, thereby skipping some of the more complex topics.
Honesty, however, is a different matter: it's just whatever you have on your mind, put into whatever words you can think of. Or?
I've come to a point where I just don't have the energy to discuss politics, especially when writing. It's a difficult place to be because I'm stuck between wanting to protect my sanity, yet not wanting to be dismissive because I'm aware it's a privilege to be able to ignore or at least filter certain things that have such a direct and vital impact on someone else's life, while they have no means of changing or escaping it...
A privilege, well – seeking shelter for the rain, protection for the harsh sunlight, a warm place to spend the time on a cold day, may all be privileges but some that I would say we all aim for having. Ruling out the mass of news is in the same range – we probably couldn't keep up with it all even if we tried, so e have to sort it, and rule out some of it.
Someone wrote recently on Notes a meme like "politics is everything you have an opinion about". I think that's correct, but we have been fed with a certain class of news under that headline, something about elections and politicians, and all the rulings they make, including the less fortunate ones.
I also find that to be too much. Especially when there is a constant wish by the media to come up with something more that needs to be said, read, understood, and acted upon. Of course, it leads to most people either not listening to all of it, or at least not acting upon it.
I sometimes think about how much more there is to know, even when we see the flood of news in front of us – all those additional pieces of news that only some people see. About their trade, for instance, or local information. It would, sometimes, feel very good, and I would feel very privileged, if I could live somewhere that would be without any other news than what I could see around me, with my own eyes. The news of spring flowers to have appeared, or about a new kind of bird singing, one I haven't heard before. The news of everything being almost the same today as yesterday: calm, safe, pleasant.
We can probably all need to create such a place, big or small, in our minds, filling it with only the news that fit.
This is such a complex topic. I was taught too early that in my country, you don't discuss politics, religion, or soccer. It's just not polite. I enjoy having these polemic conversations one-on-one. But the Internet is a whole different beast. I believe that keeping ourselves as thoroughly informed as possible empowers us. But I can't keep up with the bombardment of news that social media has brought. It makes me incredibly anxious. So, I honestly avoid them. I do enjoy reflective pieces about harsh topics, such as the ones by our mutual friend Flogerta Lessi.
Indeed, it is complex. None of us want to ignore the world, and, as you say, we are influenced by the culture we live in and were brought up with. Many ties and bounds and filters have their origin in this.
Probably, you've hit the nail on its head here: there is too much information. A while ago, before the Internet, we didn't get that much information, and not all the time. Even though there were TV channels, radio, and newspapers, these often had their times of the day – and in between, we were free to see the world with our own eyes, think our own thoughts. The eternal flood of information tends to wash away any attempt to process it all, and we often can't remember what we just a moment before read and found important.
Flo has the gift of being able to pinpoint a topic, a sense, a feeling, and bring it to you in a few, select words. Direct and perspectivated in one go, and with a reference to someone who saw this, experienced this, and expressed it through art. Flo's writing is not about now or opinions, not about oppositions or politics – they are about the innermost part of our soul, even though some of us need a reminder that we have this. That sets her writing apart from news stories or opinionated kick-ins to a debate.
Do you think that such features are what makes some journalist's writing "immune" to our wishes for ruling out news, so that we read their articles anyway – because we see our lost soul in it, or perhaps just identify their?
It is, indeed, cultural. Soccer is probably not as controversial in other countries 😜. It's good that I don't have too strong opinions on soccer. I remember I loved reading the newspaper with my mom back when we lived together, and newspapers were still a thing, but, as you say, we had breaks in between not only to see the world but also to process the information. My brain can't handle the news bombardment of these days. I do admire people who have the strength to keep up with the news. It is important. And regarding Flo, she's an incredibly talented writer, but I think, in general, I usually can cope with sadder or harsher pieces if they have a personal angle or are meant to broaden my knowledge and not just make me outraged. Most pieces these days aim for outright outrage without even too much research or even decent writing.
P.S. It made me super happy to receive the email notification of this piece. I missed our little Substack chats.
Soccer... I learned long ago to simply not talk about it, if there were any soccer fans in the room. Whatever thought or opinion I may have, or even specific knowledge, would not be accepted as valid input to a conversation – because I was not a fan. I have similar experiences with other topics, such as religion or feminism, where I can only agree or shut up, everything else will bring people in lynch-mood.
It is strange that people can feel so strong for an opinion that they will not even accept that others express a slight variation of it, or suggest some details to the edge of it. But at least it explains one of the reasons for wars to break out all the time.
I remember how you hesitated to reply to a LinkedIn post about some feminist issue. But closing off is really close-minded. We need to listen to everyone's opinion, especially if they want to enrich the conversation or learn about the topic.
News is a business, and our attention is the product.
I try to ignore it (living outside your country of birth can help this).
And as for truth, there are few universal ones. Our entire perception of life is stories, and everyone's story is different.
A thought provoking piece as ever.
Thanks! :)
It's a good way of putting it: that we see the world as stories about it. That also explains why we'll never know it all, and never the same as others.
I also live abroad, and that has basically made me less interested in the news from my original country plus from the new one. Instead, I try to understand the world and its interrelations, which isn't easy. It does, however, show me that news from just about anywhere is abundant and yet incomplete and inaccurate.
There's always a tiny degree of self-censorship in writing. It doesn't even have to do with politics. True, unfiltered honesty is hard to put into words.
Yes, I agree. What is truth, anyway? We always just see the world from where we stand and cannot convey much beside that. Any idea of a new, universal truth to exist, and be tellable, will lack all evidence.
And even if we would know about such an ultimate truth, that isn't already known, how could we possibly expect to be able to put it into words that would be understood as meant?
Writing is challenging. Deciding on what to write is just as challenging – picking a task that has a reasonable difficulty level and a reasonable chance of success is probably where we all end up, thereby skipping some of the more complex topics.
Honesty, however, is a different matter: it's just whatever you have on your mind, put into whatever words you can think of. Or?
I've come to a point where I just don't have the energy to discuss politics, especially when writing. It's a difficult place to be because I'm stuck between wanting to protect my sanity, yet not wanting to be dismissive because I'm aware it's a privilege to be able to ignore or at least filter certain things that have such a direct and vital impact on someone else's life, while they have no means of changing or escaping it...
A privilege, well – seeking shelter for the rain, protection for the harsh sunlight, a warm place to spend the time on a cold day, may all be privileges but some that I would say we all aim for having. Ruling out the mass of news is in the same range – we probably couldn't keep up with it all even if we tried, so e have to sort it, and rule out some of it.
Someone wrote recently on Notes a meme like "politics is everything you have an opinion about". I think that's correct, but we have been fed with a certain class of news under that headline, something about elections and politicians, and all the rulings they make, including the less fortunate ones.
I also find that to be too much. Especially when there is a constant wish by the media to come up with something more that needs to be said, read, understood, and acted upon. Of course, it leads to most people either not listening to all of it, or at least not acting upon it.
I sometimes think about how much more there is to know, even when we see the flood of news in front of us – all those additional pieces of news that only some people see. About their trade, for instance, or local information. It would, sometimes, feel very good, and I would feel very privileged, if I could live somewhere that would be without any other news than what I could see around me, with my own eyes. The news of spring flowers to have appeared, or about a new kind of bird singing, one I haven't heard before. The news of everything being almost the same today as yesterday: calm, safe, pleasant.
We can probably all need to create such a place, big or small, in our minds, filling it with only the news that fit.
This is such a complex topic. I was taught too early that in my country, you don't discuss politics, religion, or soccer. It's just not polite. I enjoy having these polemic conversations one-on-one. But the Internet is a whole different beast. I believe that keeping ourselves as thoroughly informed as possible empowers us. But I can't keep up with the bombardment of news that social media has brought. It makes me incredibly anxious. So, I honestly avoid them. I do enjoy reflective pieces about harsh topics, such as the ones by our mutual friend Flogerta Lessi.
Indeed, it is complex. None of us want to ignore the world, and, as you say, we are influenced by the culture we live in and were brought up with. Many ties and bounds and filters have their origin in this.
Probably, you've hit the nail on its head here: there is too much information. A while ago, before the Internet, we didn't get that much information, and not all the time. Even though there were TV channels, radio, and newspapers, these often had their times of the day – and in between, we were free to see the world with our own eyes, think our own thoughts. The eternal flood of information tends to wash away any attempt to process it all, and we often can't remember what we just a moment before read and found important.
Flo has the gift of being able to pinpoint a topic, a sense, a feeling, and bring it to you in a few, select words. Direct and perspectivated in one go, and with a reference to someone who saw this, experienced this, and expressed it through art. Flo's writing is not about now or opinions, not about oppositions or politics – they are about the innermost part of our soul, even though some of us need a reminder that we have this. That sets her writing apart from news stories or opinionated kick-ins to a debate.
Do you think that such features are what makes some journalist's writing "immune" to our wishes for ruling out news, so that we read their articles anyway – because we see our lost soul in it, or perhaps just identify their?
It is, indeed, cultural. Soccer is probably not as controversial in other countries 😜. It's good that I don't have too strong opinions on soccer. I remember I loved reading the newspaper with my mom back when we lived together, and newspapers were still a thing, but, as you say, we had breaks in between not only to see the world but also to process the information. My brain can't handle the news bombardment of these days. I do admire people who have the strength to keep up with the news. It is important. And regarding Flo, she's an incredibly talented writer, but I think, in general, I usually can cope with sadder or harsher pieces if they have a personal angle or are meant to broaden my knowledge and not just make me outraged. Most pieces these days aim for outright outrage without even too much research or even decent writing.
P.S. It made me super happy to receive the email notification of this piece. I missed our little Substack chats.
Thanks, that's why I write ;)
Soccer... I learned long ago to simply not talk about it, if there were any soccer fans in the room. Whatever thought or opinion I may have, or even specific knowledge, would not be accepted as valid input to a conversation – because I was not a fan. I have similar experiences with other topics, such as religion or feminism, where I can only agree or shut up, everything else will bring people in lynch-mood.
It is strange that people can feel so strong for an opinion that they will not even accept that others express a slight variation of it, or suggest some details to the edge of it. But at least it explains one of the reasons for wars to break out all the time.
I remember how you hesitated to reply to a LinkedIn post about some feminist issue. But closing off is really close-minded. We need to listen to everyone's opinion, especially if they want to enrich the conversation or learn about the topic.