Letters to the Editor
-
Pssssst....
....I heard a rumor the U.S. is going to attack Iran soon.
(just gossiping)
-
Go back to school and learn something
Instead of yammering your negative opinions about the worth of others to anyone within earshot, try testing your own worth and going back to school. I suggest learning some branch of science (stay away from writing). A good overview of several fundamental sciences is contained in NASA Astrobiology Institute's Astrobiology Primer, a free download available from the Arxiv, and elsewhere on the net.
-
the original goal was flawed
Why would you try to cut out harmless discussion of people's lives that offends no one? I wouldn't even be flattered if a friend of mine said, "Well, someone asked me how you are, but I didn't tell them you were doing a little better with your lupus because that would be gossiping."
My personal goal is a little different: I try not to say anything behind someone's back that I wouldn't say to his or her face.
This has two effects; first, I've become much nicer about people behind their backs, and second, I've become much less evasive to their faces.
I embarked on my scheme of self-improvement after I was involved in a throw-down which involved a "friend" passing on some very critical emails I had written about another friend. I realized that as nasty as the passer-on was, the whole ugly thing wouldn't have happened if I hadn't written the letter in the first place. If I had a complaint to make which couldn't be ignored, I should have written to the person I was complaining about.
I can't say I've been consistent, but since my vow I have been better, and more to the point, when something nasty I said comes back and bites me in the ass, at least now I acknowledge that it was my own fault.
-
My God people...
...Everything over-the-top and un-nuanced about the piece is intentionally so. It's called tone.
-
gossips are boring
The problem with being a chronic gossip is that you get caught in a vicious circle... You can't have deep relationships with healthy human beings with a modicum of depth. They won't touch you with a ten foot pole. So you end up with the rest of the bottom feeders, having nothing to talk about other than each other and other people. You feel like you are creating intimacy and deep bonds with other people, but you are not. And eventually, when you need a real friend to talk to, you won't have one and your sad misfortunes will be the fun story of the week.
There are many, many different conversational styles that don't require gossip. In fact, in the country where I live gossip is socially unacceptable (viewed as shallow and mean). What do we talk about? Books, ideas, culture, music, food (and more food), sex, current events, stuff going on in our lives, the random strangeness and minutia of life, etc.
-
What a nasty bunch of letterwriters . . .
Gossip is an important social bonding mechanism, and most importantly it is a tool for finding out information about others. Like any tool it can be used for good or bad, and it is a double-edged sword.
Please read Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, by Robin Dunbar to find out why you needn't feel guilty about gossip, for Pete's sake. How else are you ever going to find out the REST of the story?
-
Gossip as addiction
The metaphor of addiction was used early in the article and while calling something an addiction is overused, it makes a good point. A normal drinker has a drink or two and becomes relaxed, possibly even witty and engaging. A normal conversationalist shares a little bit of information about other people in reasonable circumstances and the conversation is entertaining. Alcoholics can't have just one or two drinks and are quickly drunken bores. Gossips are even more boring than drunks, except to other gossips. If your circle of friends has nothing better to discuss than each other, pulling yourself out of the mix isn't going to endear you to those friends, but that doesn't mean there aren't more interesting conversational partners available.
Normally I hate motivational posters, but saw one last week that is appropriate here:
Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.
Sounds like the writer and her friends have small minds and need gossip to entertain each other.
-
what an idiot
Really. "I pondered my own affairs aloud to fill the space where I had once contemplated others'." What, a discussion of politics, current affairs, the environment, sports, or advances in science is just impossible to imagine? The way I see it, you are boring no matter who you talk about. Why was this article published?
-
Lashon Hora
Look it up.
-
Promises, promises
"Instead of gossiping, I will allow myself only to tell good stories. Entertaining, well-edited stories, a mix of the facts and a little commentary."
Really? When do you plan to start?
-
Ideas, events and people
"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."
Excluding natural disasters (but not how people prepare for and react to them), events are often based on ideas and their effects on actual people. If you do nothing but discuss ideas and never discuss how they'll effect people, you'll have a very small mind indeed no matter how many high-fallutin' ideas fill your head. You might even foster atrocities.
Imagine only discussing Joseph Stalin's, Adolph Hitler's or even George Bush's ideas without ever discussing how the events brought about by the implementation of those ideas caused havoc for millions of people, nevermind particular individuals. Yeah, very small-minded to discuss what people are actually doing with their ideas and how their actions effect other people. Of course, there is a big difference when you talk about what you only suspect other individuals are doing and it involves strictly personal matters that aren't really any of your business.
-
Wow! this struck a nerve...
I just read all the responses to Lucy Silag's article. I think I can say this is the most rejecting I have seen a set of letters in Salon to be.
When I read "Psst! ... Have you Heard?" my reaction was: unsettling confusion. I felt vaguely guilty, not sure where to turn, curious if the problem was that I, too, was not always sure of my motivations when I spoke. Did I even know the defintion of "gossip?" And if not, ohmigod, might I be doing it and not even knowing it??
I think I had stepped into Lucy's shoes, and it was uncomfortable.
When I read books, articles, letters to the editor..I think I want--unconsciously-- to achieve some greater clarity. I don't think I want to feel guilty, shaken up, or even confused, certainly not about my supposedly sterling motivations.
Intentional or not, I think a "shake up" was what Lucy accomplished. Of course, all the readers' helpful distinctions between malice and useful info are relevant and thoughtful. Of course, her article would have been helped by a few examples. But I think there is a tinge of superiority laced through many of the letters, if not outright hostility (i.e., "you're boring," "you must not have a life," "this is the worst article I've read"...etc.).
Rejecting Lucy's confusion and self doubt as being "boring" or "stupid" helps me / you / us
reject my / your / our own self doubt (over whatever you care to name, not just gossip), and blithely return to whatever was our own status quo for talking and thinking. How convenient! Oh my, how like gossip!
Psychologists call this projection. We take that thing inside ourselves (ridiculously overwhelming self doubt and muddy thinking, for example), and expel it like a foreign object, watch it splat on someone else, and then note how bad she looks and smells while covered with puke.
Lucy accomplished with her article the very thing that gossip accomplishes. She drew out the readers' self doubts and their tendency to place that outside themselves, and onto her, exlusively. My guess is that we all--like Lucy--have something we over-indulge in, to the point where our taste buds or our eyes, or our senses in general can no longer distinguish taste, color, or contrast realistically. This is distressing. I think Lucy provided us the visceral experience of exactly what over-indulgence in gossip does. It is toxic and it is disorienting, because it is dishonest. Because it takes our our fears, and projects them outward, onto others. Secretly, we know that we are trying to put what we fear in ourselves outside of ourselves, on THAT cheating woman, or THAT gambling cousin, or THAT over-spending fool.
The letters were helpful to me. Most really are filled with helpful distinctions, clear thought, and useful examples. But what I liked the most was the opportunity to see in all of us our discomfort with the topic.