Category: Our Collaborators

Subject: Re: Literary Observances (Further Thoughts)

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

My dear Miss Jović,

I have reflected carefully upon your last message, and while I accept, readily and without reservation, your superior command of literary classification, I find myself compelled to make a modest defence. You suggest Persuasion as the ideal expression of feeling restrained, postponed, and dignified by patience. I admire this greatly. Truly.

Yet I cannot help but wonder whether such restraint, however elegant, risks becoming a kind of emotional abdication. The Brontës, Emily in particular, understood something rather different: that passion, once felt, does not always submit to civility; that it may rage, misunderstand, and wound before it ever redeems. It is untidy. It is excessive. But it is honest.

I hope you will forgive me if I confess that I find such honesty… compelling.

Yours,
Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Re: Literary Observances (Further Thoughts)

From: Maja Jović
To: Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Mr Pilkington-Sterne,

I appreciate your candour, though I must gently resist the implication that emotional restraint is a failure of courage. Austen does not deny feeling; she disciplines it. She recognises that unchecked passion may be sincere, yes—but sincerity alone does not render it wise, nor kind. Emily Brontë’s characters burn brightly, but they also leave devastation in their wake. One might admire the flame while still declining to place one’s hand in it. You speak of honesty as though it were synonymous with intensity. I would argue that true honesty often lies in knowing when not to speak.

Respectfully,
M. Jović

Re: Literary Observances (A Clarification)

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

Miss Jović,

I fear we are no longer speaking solely of books. You are right: the Brontës scorch the earth. But Austen’s world, however refined, depends upon silence so carefully maintained that one wonders how many truths perish quietly in its keeping. Is it always virtuous to wait? Or does waiting sometimes become a means of self-protection masquerading as principle? I ask this not as a provocateur, but as someone who has often erred on the side of saying too much, too soon—yet who wonders whether that failing is preferable to never speaking at all.

Forgive my frankness.
I assure you it is not lightly offered.

J.P-S

Re: Literary Observances (And Their Limits)

From: Maja Jović
To: Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Mr Pilkington-Sterne,

You are correct. We are no longer speaking solely of books. You admire the Brontës because their characters announce themselves without apology. I admire Austen because her characters understand the cost of doing so. It is easy to mistake urgency for truth, and volume for depth. What you describe as silence, I would call discernment. Not every feeling demands an audience. Not every impulse improves by being aired. And yet (you see how easily one concedes ground when conversation strays from novels) there are moments when restraint becomes its own kind of fear. I suspect we differ not in what we feel, but in how safe we believe it is to reveal it.

Yours,
Maja

Re: Literary Observances (One Last Thought)

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

Maja,

If that is so, if our difference lies not in feeling, but in courage, then I find myself wondering whether the question is not Austen or Brontë, but rather:

Who is brave enough to speak first, and who must decide whether they wish to listen?

I will say no more on the matter, lest I prove your point by excess.

But I hope you will not think less of me for preferring a storm to a calm whose price is silence.

With sincerity,
Julian

(Maja begins to type a reply. She stops. Deletes it. Starts again.)

(She does not send anything that night.)

The Courting Lives of an Ageing Tennis Player

The Courting Lives of an Ageing Tennis Player

“Tennis belongs to the individualistic past – a hero, or at most a pair of friends or lovers, against the world.” (Jacques Barzun)

£19.99
Shop now

How an Accidental Zoom Invite Turned Into a Cultural Event

Dear Team,

I am writing this email with a heavy heart, a slightly trembling hand, and a deep sense of personal responsibility. It has come to my attention (via Alex, whose tone I would describe as festive but terminal) that the Zoom link for the NOP Office Christmas Party – 18 December has been circulated somewhat more… widely than originally intended. By which I mean: I emailed it to the entire NOP CRM of over 2,000 customers, partners, suppliers. former suppliers, people who once enquired about goats and at least one person who unsubscribed in 2019.

This was not malicious. It was not strategic. It was, however, spectacularly incorrect.

What Happened (Briefly, and in My Own Words)

I mistakenly believed that the phrase “internal but celebratory” meant “internal in spirit, external in warmth.” I further misunderstood “specific guests only” to mean “specific guests… and anyone who feels emotionally aligned with NOP.” I now accept that this interpretation was wrong. Painfully. Unambiguously. Wrong.

My Apology

I apologise unreservedly to:

  • Nick, for introducing a reputational risk approximately the size of a small pantomime
  • Alex, for what will now be an inbox avalanche
  • Eleanor, for having to explain to at least three serious people why they are not invited to a Zoom party featuring novelty jumpers
  • Paul, for the inevitable confusion this will cause in the artistic realm
  • Maja, for witnessing a British man apologise in this many paragraphs

I also apologise to the team collectively for turning a modest internal celebration into what may become NOP’s most participatory cultural event since the accidental hack.

Current Situation (As I Understand It)

  • The Zoom link is now “in the wild”
  • People are already replying with phrases such as:
    • “Sounds fun!”
    • “Shall I bring my partner?”
    • “Do you want me to say a few words?”
    • “Is there a dress code?”
  • One supplier has asked if they can do a short sponsored segment

I have not replied to anyone yet. This restraint should be acknowledged.

Proposed Solutions (For Discussion, Not Panic)

In the spirit of taking responsibility, I propose the following options, which I present humbly, though not without optimism:

Option 1: The Polite Containment

  • Send a clarification email stating:
    • The party is internal
    • The link was shared in error
    • Attendance is limited
  • Pros: Clear, professional, finite
  • Cons: Requires emotional maturity from everyone involved

Option 2: The Waiting Room Strategy

  • Enable Zoom waiting room
  • Admit only recognised internal faces
  • Everyone else receives a warm but silent rejection
  • Pros: Technically elegant
  • Cons: I will feel their disappointment through the screen

Option 3: The Parallel Universe

  • Keep the internal party as planned
  • Schedule a separate, short, public “Festive Hello from NOP” in January
  • Frame this as intentional community engagement
  • Pros: Turns error into strategy
  • Cons: I will say “this was always the plan,” which some of you may dispute

Option 4: Radical Transparency (Not Recommended)

  • Let everyone attend
  • Observe what happens
  • Possibly write a book about it
  • Pros: Ethnographic richness
  • Cons: Absolutely everything else

What I Will Do Next (Unless Told Otherwise)

  • Pause all replies to external attendees
  • Draft a short clarification email for approval
  • Hand over all operational decisions to Alex
  • Sit quietly and reflect on the concept of boundaries

Final Thought

I understand if trust has been shaken.
I understand if this email does not fully repair the damage.
I understand if my laptop privileges are temporarily reconsidered.

Please know that my intentions were festive, my execution flawed, and my remorse genuine.

I remain, as ever,
your contrite colleague,
your cautionary tale,
and your marketing executive,

Julian Pilkington-Sterne
(Sent slowly, deliberately, and with multiple checks)

Julian writes: A Modest Proposal for a Festive Literary Observance

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

My dear Miss Jović,

I trust this message finds you in good health and untroubled spirits, notwithstanding the recent disturbances of a technological and celebratory nature, for which I continue to reflect with appropriate humility.

In light of Jane Austen’s anniversary this week, it occurred to me—quite suddenly, and with a warmth of conviction I could not ignore—that our forthcoming Christmas gathering might be enriched by a brief homage to her enduring genius.

Specifically, I wondered whether we might honour her most emotionally tempestuous work, Withering Heights, whose examination of passion, restraint, and unspoken feeling seems—if I may be bold—particularly suited to the present season, and perhaps, to certain circumstances within our office.

I envision nothing ostentatious.
Merely a reading.
A mood.
Possibly a candle.

I should very much value your opinion on this matter, as I know your judgement to be both discerning and, when necessary, corrective.

Yours sincerely,
Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Re: A Modest Proposal for a Festive Literary Observance

From: Maja Jović
To: Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Dear Mr Pilkington-Sterne,

I am grateful for your thoughtful message and for the evident care with which it has been composed.

It is indeed true that Jane Austen’s anniversary presents a most fitting occasion for reflection, particularly in a workplace where misunderstandings, suppressed feeling, and unnecessary dramatics are not entirely unknown.

However, I must gently observe—with all due respect and no desire to wound—that Withering Heights is not, in fact, a work of Jane Austen.

This is not a matter of interpretation, but of authorship.

That said, I do not doubt that your intention was sincere, nor that you are drawn, quite understandably, to stories of brooding emotion and unresolved attachment.

Should you wish to celebrate Austen, I would suggest Persuasion, whose quiet intensity and emphasis on what is felt but not spoken might offer a more… accurate reflection of her sensibility.

As for candles, I advise caution.

Yours faithfully,
Maja Jović

Re: Re: A Modest Proposal for a Festive Literary Observance

From: Julian Pilkington-Sterne
To: Maja Jović

My dear Miss Jović,

I thank you for your correction, which I accept with the grace befitting a man who has, on more than one occasion, mistaken enthusiasm for scholarship.

You are quite right.
Withering Heights—
(Wuthering, as I now understand)—
belongs elsewhere.

Yet I cannot entirely regret the confusion, for it has prompted me to reflect upon Persuasion, which you mention with such discernment.

Is it not a novel that concerns itself deeply with what is left unsaid?
With feelings postponed, deferred, and—one hopes—not entirely lost?

I wonder whether such themes might resonate, not only as literature, but as lived experience.

I would not presume to suggest that you see matters as I do. Still, I cannot help but feel that a shared reading, however brief, might offer a moment of… mutual understanding.

If this proposal causes you the slightest discomfort, I beg you to say so at once.
Your ease is of the utmost importance to me.

Awaiting your thoughts,
with sincere regard,
Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Re: Re: Re: A Modest Proposal for a Festive Literary Observance

From: Maja Jović
To: Julian Pilkington-Sterne

Mr Pilkington-Sterne,

You are correct in your assessment of Persuasion. It is a novel that rewards patience, reflection, and the courage to recognise one’s feelings, particularly when they arrive later than expected.

I agree that its themes are appropriate, and that a short reading would not be misplaced at a Christmas gathering, provided it is undertaken with restraint and without excessive interpretation.

As to whether such a reading might offer mutual understanding, that is a more delicate question.

Some things, Mr Pilkington-Sterne, are best left to be discovered gradually, rather than declared with enthusiasm or accompanied by candles.

Still, I will consider your suggestion.

I trust you will understand if my reply is not immediate.

Yours,
M. Jović

(No further reply is received that evening.)

Maja writes: he’s behind you…

Jealousy.

There. I wrote it. It looks pathetic in ink.

It wasn’t even that she was impressive – she was, of course – it was the way Julian seemed to grow into someone else around her. Someone more articulate, more intentional, someone who managed to keep his shirt tucked in for a full twenty minutes. A version of him I didn’t realise I minded missing until it appeared.

At one point she laughed – really laughed – at something he said. Not out of politeness. Not the “yes, English humour is peculiar” diplomatic laugh. A proper laugh. He lit up like a festival lantern. And I hated it. And I hated myself for hating it. Because none of this is… anything. It’s just Julian being Julian. And me being… what? More attached than I realised? More fragile than I admit? After she left, the whole office exhaled.

Julian floated. Actually floated. Muttering things like: “She understood my joke about footnotes,” and “I think she admired our organisational ecosystem,” which is the most delusional sentence I’ve ever heard in this building, and that includes Paul’s claim that he can “feel fonts emotionally.”

I pretended to be busy. I couldn’t look at him. Not while he was glowing like that. I don’t know what any of this means. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with this knotted, restless feeling in my chest. But I know one thing. If Shaila returns, I am absolutely sitting in on every meeting. Not because of Julian. Absolutely not. Just… cultural diplomacy. Professional curiosity. Normal reasons.

God, I’m a mess.

Maja writes: oh yes I do!

I was about to tell you about what happened with Shaila Rao and Julian silly double barrel name but the bosses got in the way… but I have triumphed! Read my full story below! This is where I left off…

‘Tall, composed, astonishingly alert, as if she’d already assessed the structural weaknesses of the entire building on entry. She carried herself with this calm, contained power that made the fluorescent lights look embarrassed to be near her. And from the second Julian saw her, his brain simply evaporated.

I have never watched a human transform before. One minute Julian was babbling about microphone echo on Zoom calls, the next he was practically levitating with awe, speaking in a pitch that reminded me of a woodwind instrument having a breakdown.

“Oh—hi—hello—welcome—this is Nick Owen Publishing—we make books—sometimes on purpose—tea?”

I could have throttled him with the HDMI cable.

He led her through the office like a tour guide trying to impress royalty.

“You’ll see here, this is Eleanor, she keeps us alive,”

“This is Alex, he runs the place,”

“And here is Maja—yes Maja—who is completely calm, and not at all glaring at me for absolutely no reason.”

He said that. To an international delegate. In front of me.

And cool, observant Shaila simply smiled as if she’d encountered this species of man before and had long ago decided it was not worth emotional energy. But what burned me  was watching him look at her like she was the solution to the entire publishing sector’s structural problems. Like she was brilliance made visible. Like he had forgotten, entirely, that he is normally incapable of speaking to strangers without spiralling into chaos.

I shouldn’t care. I know I shouldn’t. I am not…’

EDITOR’S NOTE: WE APOLOGISE FOR THE UNNECESSARY EMOTION IN THIS POST. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DELETING IT BUT ARE STILL STRUGGLING FROM THE IMPACT OF A WEBSITE HACK OF SOME WEEKS BACK.

IF YOU REQUIRE MORE INFORMATION PLEASE SUBSCRIBE HERE.