Torill has more insight in my own hiding in writing mechanisms than I do myself:

With the advantage of knowing Jill, when her posts turn impersonal and businesslike, I know there’s something wrong – which is why I tried to call her at odd intervals this last week. (11/4)

Mark likes the point that blogs do not reveal all, and notes that

It’s time for weblogs to grow up, to move beyond their obsession with authenticity and to get over the panic that accompanies any hint that a weblog writer might not be exactly what they say they are. Who is?

And yesterday it was exactly a year since Lisbeth’s mother died. She writes that grief and change affect everything in your life, and yet we acknowledge them less than happiness: a wedding or a birth or a tax rebate. I agree. I’ve been leaning on my friends (who are wonderful) and discovering that almost everyone has survived a breakup or many, and their stories are wonderful comforts. After all, if they became happy again, then so will I.

I had two miscarriages before I had my daughter, and another afterwards for that matter. Miscarriages are even more taboo in polite conversation than are breakups. When I lost my first baby I thought noone I knew had ever been in the same situation. Of course, when I began to tell people, stories came out everywhere, stories of old grief were brought out like small treasures wrapped in lace and carefully kept in a scented but rarely opened chest. These women (mothers of friends, friends of friends) showed me I was not alone. And that helped me so much.

Now I rarely think of my miscarriages, but I remember the grief, far greater than my rational expectations of appropriate mourning for a life barely begun. And I remember I promised myself not to be silent, because silence hurts far more than speech.

Why shouldn’t we speak of grief, breakups and miscarriages as we speak of joy?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “not to be silent

  1. vika

    Because, too often, grief prompts precisely the reactions one doesn’t want to hear – you wrote about this in a later post.

    Or, due to some social norms I’ve no idea about, public expression of grief may be perceived as a Cry For Attention.

    I’ve written publicly about my father’s death, but refrain most of the time, for the above reasons. Aha, but here is a *great* use for the disable-comments feature.

    (But then, if one disables comments, why blog? – my brain asks. And so forth in a circle.)

  2. jill

    I deleted a trackback to my post about my partner leaving me. It’s not exactly that I don’t want trackbacks to it but I guess I’m – oh I don’t know. I just didn’t want that trackback.

    Kind of like when one of my nosier friends, having heard about my breakup, rang only so she could hear the gossip. No “how are you?”, only “So what happened? I bet he was cheating on you! (no, btw, that’s not it) Tell me how he broke up!” I hung up on her and would have deleted any phoned-in trackbacks.

  3. beta blog

    blogs and mediation
    i try to read Jill Walker’s blog now and then – jill looks at blogging in an interesting academic and cultural context. there’s on jill’s blog which makes a point that deserves some comments: Blogging is about hiding. It’s about…

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.