Underwhelmed, if that’s a word

I’d say the book was disappointing, but I had no expectations of its excellence, so that would be misleading. I’d say my team’s performance fails to satisfy, but its salary …

I’d say the book was disappointing,
but I had no expectations
of its excellence, so that would be
misleading. I’d say my team’s performance
fails to satisfy, but its salary
and management point to precisely
such a mediocre season. I’d complain
about the weeds that choke my garden,
but their presence is testament to my
indifferent stewardship. I’d say inadequate
is not the aptest word to summarise
the manifest insufficiencies
of life here as we know it, but I
can think of nothing better at the moment.

This appeared in the March 2011 issue.

Zachariah Wells

Join our community

Dear Readers,

For years, experts have raised the alarm about political polarization. It’s been said the left and right can’t talk to each other. Blame the political climate. Blame the rise of tech platforms and social media algorithms. But we don’t talk enough about the difference in the quality of the information that we receive and share.

As more and more media outlets die and as parts of Canada become “news deserts,” there are two types of citizens emerging: those with access to high-quality, fact-based journalism, like the kind you’ll find in The Walrus, and those without it.

One thing all reliable media outlets have in common: it takes time and adequate funding to produce good journalism.

If you like reading The Walrus, we ask that you consider becoming a monthly supporter. Your donation helps us keep The Walrus’s fact-checked online journalism free to all.

Jessica Johnson
Sincerely,
Jessica Johnson
Editor-in-Chief