Sep 4, 2022·edited Jan 1, 2023Liked by Justin Smith-Ruiu
>today we “skip straight from ignorance to deconstruction”, as Walter Kirn once put it, and one might also add that we skip straight to contempt, to rejection, to ostentatious “problematisation”
Oh man, that smarts! Great stuff.
Just keep writing stuff, man. The weak spot of real academics is that they tend to be somewhat timid and even cowardly. And this can express itself in listening to people much stupider than them... because they're blind to their own great cleverness.
Substacks' suggestions are for guys who write blogs about shampooing poodle hair and stuff. Everyone who is here is only here cause they're desperately hungry for substance. Multimedia stuff is not substance. Neither are cringe attempts to jumpstart controversial conversations. It's just inauthentic... which works if you're a rather superficial idiot, but not if you're a sensitive intellectual (which I'm assuming you are). Your strength comes in large part from that vast love you were talking about; that love can't be forced.
1. You be you. We’re here because you’re a great writer. Don’t sweat the topic. Seriously, that’s important. Don’t divide them in three or whatever. I sont follow sports at all, but I subscribe to House of Strauss because he’s a fantastic writer.
2. Comments are fun, but eh. Again, you be you.
3. Do NOT do quantity over quality. Two times a week would be great, but it’s a lot. We’re not leaving if you’re only doing once a week or twice a month.
4. Guest contributors are fine if they don’t suck.
5. Definitely no multimedia. I would rather one extra piece of writing than fifty podcast episodes.
What made me subscribe in the first place was the work your book reviews performed. Tough-minded analysis about philosophical topics I found important. I stopped subscribing after a year, simply because there wasn’t enough of that. There was more of the softer kind of writing that I find some philosophers (Agnes Callard comes to mind) are favoring these days, which is personal, autobiographical, impressionistic, and just doesn’t deliver much insight (in my experience) at the end of the day. Certainly not the kind that can justify the subscription prices that are out there. You can get an entire year’s worth of the London Review of Books for just a little more than most Substack pubs. I think there are two main factors that you are battling, only one of which is in your control. The first is is simply the way the Internet economy has devalued all kinds of writing. Secondly, there is also something about the lavish temptations that this open venue fosters, which incline people to believe that success in one kind of writing will translate into different modes. Tough as it is to hear sometimes, your dearest darlings are the ones your audience may want you to jettison. I hope this comes off as constructive. I admire your work very much, and I know from experience how difficult it is to have a weekly deadline. The subscription model based on large numbers of individuals is very tough to make work. Any kind of living from writing is, sadly.
I'm more than happy to keep paying for the Yakutian onomastics and les contes philosophiques--the whole point of the subscription model for individual writers, as I see it, is to pay a little bit extra for the stuff you really can't get anywhere else. That doesn't mean further experiments in form or content aren't worth trying, but I already feel like I'm getting my money's worth. It'd be a shame if the Hinternet TikTok Power Hour started cutting into the regular dispatches.
As for the recent downturn in high culture among our ruling elites, I believe that was the subject of Henry Kissinger's most recent book. Make of that what you will.
I think you should keep doing what you're doing and not pander to Substack nor monoglot layabouts like me. I'm not as much into fiction, but that's just me, see the end of previous sentence. “History and Philosophy of Astrobiology” sounds awesome and right up my alley, but I prefer text to videos so please provide a transcription too.
Sep 4, 2022·edited Sep 4, 2022Liked by Justin Smith-Ruiu
I was first drawn to this newsletter for pieces that relate to 'culture war' issues, in particular regarding aesthetics, because I find your thoughts on these issues to be the most erudite, patient, careful, sophisticated, and lacking in glibness and cliche of any I've encountered. (Admittedly, they also usually happen to land near my own intuitions.) More writing on aesthetics, broadly construed, would be welcome, but I do find all the material interesting and see no need for you to substantially shift the balance of topics if you're writing about what you want to write about. (It took me awhile to figure out what was up with some of the 'trumperies'—but once I thought about them in terms of things I'd seen and read at the Museum of Jurassic Technology, they clicked.)
I am an underemployed academic, and this semester in particular is a very lean one, as I'm adjuncting just two classes while waiting for a fellowship to start in 2023. I might be able to subscribe then.
Oh, and I'll add that I see no need for guest posts, video "content," or other bells & whistles. I'm also not interested in a 'community of commenters,' because I am actively trying to stop lurking on threads. (I very rarely comment on any but can spend hours reading them.) If there's something on the internet that I want to read and it's longer than a few paragraphs, I make a PDF, put it on an e-reader, and read it offline.
Justin, what I feel is special about your writing is precisely that it goes against the pop philosophy strategies that we see here and there. What you said about going from ignorance to love, we feel it, I felt it, it's rare and inspiring for young academics like me. Sometimes I read you to unblock my writing.
I'm no paid subscriber, I won't be until I get out of the state of financial mayhem of my PhD years, and I understand the need for more subscribers, but please don't lose your thing.
First, thanks for being not Agnes and not Barry with your “public philosophy.” I really like both of them, and all of it is needed, but I really like that your flavor can be an acquired taste. I think you’ve lost me more with the fiction/metafiction but am also aware you prefer it to more commentary about cancel culture, so you do what you gotta do to keep going. Let that freak flag fly. Re #2 idea: would much much prefer you have guest panelists providing thoughts on such questions rather than whoever your readers are. Even Daily Nous’ comment thread is just ok.
What I like most are your writings n popular music - they transcend anything in the pages of Pitchfork or Uncut and aspire to heights only glimpsed occasionally in those of Revolver.
You may find readers knowing you WANT comments and engagement, in itself, may provide enough forward momentum for now.
I do not have a strong preference among the current types of posts: the erudite eclecticism itself attracts me. I usually copy more than one phrase per newsletter for my notebook of thoughts.
I am retired and enjoy being schedule free, plus video is not my preferred usage of time (reading/skimming is faster). That said, a course with some presentations on a theme/subject could be very attractive.
The questio of the week concept could be very interesting, and likely is the simplest to try among the proposals you mention. It certainly will invite familiarity with the comments section and the possible development of “community.”
Likewise, an occasional guest writer (or perhaps a video of you and guest discussing a topic) also seems promising - and relatively simple to try without long-term commitment.
I like that you write about anything you feel like at any time. A few of the memorist pieces have made an outsized impression on me, but I like all three basic types. I would also not feel ‘cheated’ if we didn’t get a long essay some Sundays if you weren’t feeling it. I might spend some time with a shorter question/discussion on Thursdays, but not sure how consistent I’d be. Guest writers would be ok, theoretically. There’s so much to read every minute of the day that I might not get to all of it, but that’s the way it goes.
I am pleased to more/less directly support artists I like. I think that’s how it should be (vs advertising). “Hinternet” is already an embarrassment of riches for $60/year.
One thing you might try - not sure if this is practical - is to now and then recycle past essays, i.e. do a greatest hits. I know what got me to subscribe and then pay was people RTing (on twitter) some past essays that killed me. You never know what will hit any particular person, but you have no shortage of good writing - I’m sure I have not read all the good stuff just from the last 2 years and I’m a fan. Maybe an occasional email sent to non subscribers (or everyone) citing a past essay? Just a thought.
I like all of your writing, Justin. You are extremely erudite, endlessly curious, and you write like a dream. An economist friend said to me years ago that he would read a laundry list if were written by Karl Ove Knausgård. I feel exactly that way about your writing. You could write about Sappho or Elagabalus or Athanasius Kircher and I would want to read your every word.
Another shorter piece a week is a great idea. More product should equal more subscribers, though it doesn't guarantee it, of course. Allowing comments is good and so is responding to some of them, engagement with readers should drive more subscriptions and counter your plateauing. You are anything but a vox populi person but maybe give comments a try on an extended basis?
A course on the philosophy of astrobiology is a superb idea, though it might not be a big draw. I would be interested. How about a unique course on philosophy from Heraclitus to Thomas Nagel that only you could do? Guest posts are a good idea, I've read numerous Substackers say that such a move has expanded their readership.
The internet is indeed not what we think it is but it may become more of what we hope it might be through the dissemination of your learning, your eloquence and last but certainly not least, your infectious enthusiasm.
I'm a South African aged 59. Our currency, the rand, was about on a par with the dollar when I was a boy in the 1970s, but now exchanges at about 16 to one. As a former newspaperman, I firmly believe that writers should be paid. But, alas, apart from the exchange rate being against me, I'm also under debt review (a kind of soft version of bankruptcy that we have here). I hope to have more money from November onwards, if a little venture I've gone into pays off. My little joke is that I'm exploiting child labour -- by which I mean I've gone into partnership with the 21-year-old son of a friend of mine. Have staked him to an FTMO challenge (forex trading), and he has passed Stage 1. He's about to start Stage 2, and if he passes that, the shekels should start to flow from about November. If they do, I'll gladly pay for a subscription.
I’m not a person who follows content makers across the written internet... especially not those with communities and groupies. I only downloaded subtrack because of you and your eclectic and erudite mind, that flows with verve, precision, and delight in the unexpected twists and turns of your brilliant language.
I’m currently reading your Nature, Human Nature, & Difference, which is a booming joy of lucid thought on every page. I found you via your Irrationality book, when I got curious whether there were more modern takes on the subject when reading Lukacs’ The Destruction of Reason in German. I haven’t laughed so much in a long while as I came upon your description of Heidegger marching on a Holzweg through the Black Forest while the brothers Grimm found a much more enchanting path through true German Romanticism! I continued and fell in love with your semi-fictional Philosopher. It felt really liberating to hear your voice piercing all the inflated narcissism and opaque stupidity of the postmodern “protection rackets” and the degeneration of the academia in our times. It was great to know that thinking and philosophizing hasn’t been completely smothered by stifling institutions who have lost their youth, souls, and marbles.
So why am I posting here?
1) To tell you how much I value your books! It’s a relief to know the world I felt most at home in (sound reason, sharp wit, and and irreducible humanity), which I sought in vain in the 2000s at universities infested with postmodern dogma, is still alive and kicking! Your words are like elegant rapiers, as precise, sharp, and pleasurable as ever welded by great philosophers of yore, when pruning their powerful enemies down to size. Please keep writing these great books! It’s voices like yours that will not only clear away the house of cards coming down on the decomposing post-modern suicide, but plant the old/new/true seeds so much needed for a new flourishing of strong, thriving, abundant intellectual life in a world that needs exactly more Margaret Cavendishs to overcome existential threats before us.
2) To ask you to not succumb to the noises of the internet, and trade in your brilliance for dull pennies of content creation. I know Spinoza’s frugality isn’t something anyone would wish for brilliant minds. But perhaps focusing on your books instead of churning out word counts and multimedia soundbites against subtrack engagement schedules would be a better investment of your time and unique talents… with better rewards also for your readership? I’m happy to buy every single book I find from you (just finished The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is, enjoyed your poetic ending and the unexpected ride)
As a reader, my feelings about micro-publishing online are ambivalent. I really love your books and see this online presence as something more of an author’s playground - either you do it for fun and throughly enjoy sharing your musings and eclectic explorations with your readers, or it quickly becomes a job-to-be-done, and lose vitality. You need to know: how much of your time do you want to invest in Subtrack for pecuniary subsidies to your day job, or do you want it to be an indispensable staple of your economy? The former makes you independent of the fickle nature of the internet audience and of private fancy. The second is a career choice with opportunity costs to your bigger endeavors. Audience engagement is hard work, and to increase mass appeal, you will inevitably have to sacrifice some eccentricities and quality.
Perhaps a third path: explore subtrack subscriptions not as “pay-for-post”/online engagement, but really as more of a sort of crowdfunding/ sponsorship. Philosophers, troubadours, artists, and poets have a tradition of analog crowdfunding. Digitally, it might be easier? Tell us what you are up to, working on, and get your readers to support you so you can write the books you want to write. That way, you don’t need to artificially attend to engagement algorithms or grow audiences groups that might never read your published works. With such sponsorship, you can easily keep subtack as your own playground and sandbox, without commitment stress or posting deadlines.
The best route to financial security is probably the success of your books with knock-on effects for academic prestige/ career (depending on how tight the protection rackets are, more or less desirable). You write wonderful books, they deserve wider readership and more public attention. I tried to watch some of the “podcasts” on YouTube promoting your books, but excuse me for being harsh: you deserve better hosts and discussion partners! It was painful to watch your exquisite thinking lost on the heavily railed and opaque minds who couldn’t follow your stellar flight paths. I think these are cases of publishing house PR gone wrong.
Ok, sorry for the long comment. All the best and I can only encourage you to write more in your exquisite way and publish. If a subtrack subscription helps you achieve that, your readers will not be averse to the contribution. But don’t let digital subscriptions reduce you to a digital content producer. Only write and post for yourself and your own eccentricities, not to be a crowd pleaser or indeed a click-baiter. But I’m sure you know that already, judging by your books.
Thank you for keeping the lights on,
Marianne
PS - I just wanted to place a subscription, then realized why I didn’t have one to start with: Subtrack wants Apple Pay… and I didn’t want to activate Apple Pay. I’m too old fashioned, and prefer non-proliferation in my digital entanglements. Paypal would be possible(since I was already forced into it). So feel free and let me know if I can send you a modest postcard via Paypal. Nobody should grind glasses to write philosophy these days. :)
Until I have the option of funding it with something other than eye-wateringly expensive student loan monies, a paid subscription is going to have to remain a fantasy. But since I’m a regular reader, and you asked:
(1) Please don’t start bringing in guest writers. This has diluted and eventually ruined several other newsletters I liked. I keep reading your essays because you have a voice and technique like no other writer I know—wonderfully and self-consciously erudite, dense but light, always approaching the object of your interest indirectly by circling round and round it as you draw in. I am sure that any guest writer you tabbed would be terrific in their own way but I read this newsletter for you.
(2) Personally I like your fictions. (I especially enjoyed the one on the Voynich Manuscript, and “On the Job” from April of last year.) I’m not surprised to hear this is by far the least popular category of post, but it’s definitely the sort of thing one is not going to find anywhere else on Substack.
(3) Our apparent collective insistence on making everything into videos is going to kill the written word faster than anything. If you do decide to do video lectures, I hope it doesn’t come at the expense of your writing.
>today we “skip straight from ignorance to deconstruction”, as Walter Kirn once put it, and one might also add that we skip straight to contempt, to rejection, to ostentatious “problematisation”
Oh man, that smarts! Great stuff.
Just keep writing stuff, man. The weak spot of real academics is that they tend to be somewhat timid and even cowardly. And this can express itself in listening to people much stupider than them... because they're blind to their own great cleverness.
Substacks' suggestions are for guys who write blogs about shampooing poodle hair and stuff. Everyone who is here is only here cause they're desperately hungry for substance. Multimedia stuff is not substance. Neither are cringe attempts to jumpstart controversial conversations. It's just inauthentic... which works if you're a rather superficial idiot, but not if you're a sensitive intellectual (which I'm assuming you are). Your strength comes in large part from that vast love you were talking about; that love can't be forced.
1. You be you. We’re here because you’re a great writer. Don’t sweat the topic. Seriously, that’s important. Don’t divide them in three or whatever. I sont follow sports at all, but I subscribe to House of Strauss because he’s a fantastic writer.
2. Comments are fun, but eh. Again, you be you.
3. Do NOT do quantity over quality. Two times a week would be great, but it’s a lot. We’re not leaving if you’re only doing once a week or twice a month.
4. Guest contributors are fine if they don’t suck.
5. Definitely no multimedia. I would rather one extra piece of writing than fifty podcast episodes.
What made me subscribe in the first place was the work your book reviews performed. Tough-minded analysis about philosophical topics I found important. I stopped subscribing after a year, simply because there wasn’t enough of that. There was more of the softer kind of writing that I find some philosophers (Agnes Callard comes to mind) are favoring these days, which is personal, autobiographical, impressionistic, and just doesn’t deliver much insight (in my experience) at the end of the day. Certainly not the kind that can justify the subscription prices that are out there. You can get an entire year’s worth of the London Review of Books for just a little more than most Substack pubs. I think there are two main factors that you are battling, only one of which is in your control. The first is is simply the way the Internet economy has devalued all kinds of writing. Secondly, there is also something about the lavish temptations that this open venue fosters, which incline people to believe that success in one kind of writing will translate into different modes. Tough as it is to hear sometimes, your dearest darlings are the ones your audience may want you to jettison. I hope this comes off as constructive. I admire your work very much, and I know from experience how difficult it is to have a weekly deadline. The subscription model based on large numbers of individuals is very tough to make work. Any kind of living from writing is, sadly.
I'm more than happy to keep paying for the Yakutian onomastics and les contes philosophiques--the whole point of the subscription model for individual writers, as I see it, is to pay a little bit extra for the stuff you really can't get anywhere else. That doesn't mean further experiments in form or content aren't worth trying, but I already feel like I'm getting my money's worth. It'd be a shame if the Hinternet TikTok Power Hour started cutting into the regular dispatches.
As for the recent downturn in high culture among our ruling elites, I believe that was the subject of Henry Kissinger's most recent book. Make of that what you will.
I would love to subscribe.
But the reality of day to day economics, prevents me.
As a retiree living on a fixed income, suffering form mild inflation.
Every single dollar has to be cared for as a dying friend.
Good luck, and I wish for you greater support.
I think you should keep doing what you're doing and not pander to Substack nor monoglot layabouts like me. I'm not as much into fiction, but that's just me, see the end of previous sentence. “History and Philosophy of Astrobiology” sounds awesome and right up my alley, but I prefer text to videos so please provide a transcription too.
I was first drawn to this newsletter for pieces that relate to 'culture war' issues, in particular regarding aesthetics, because I find your thoughts on these issues to be the most erudite, patient, careful, sophisticated, and lacking in glibness and cliche of any I've encountered. (Admittedly, they also usually happen to land near my own intuitions.) More writing on aesthetics, broadly construed, would be welcome, but I do find all the material interesting and see no need for you to substantially shift the balance of topics if you're writing about what you want to write about. (It took me awhile to figure out what was up with some of the 'trumperies'—but once I thought about them in terms of things I'd seen and read at the Museum of Jurassic Technology, they clicked.)
I am an underemployed academic, and this semester in particular is a very lean one, as I'm adjuncting just two classes while waiting for a fellowship to start in 2023. I might be able to subscribe then.
Oh, and I'll add that I see no need for guest posts, video "content," or other bells & whistles. I'm also not interested in a 'community of commenters,' because I am actively trying to stop lurking on threads. (I very rarely comment on any but can spend hours reading them.) If there's something on the internet that I want to read and it's longer than a few paragraphs, I make a PDF, put it on an e-reader, and read it offline.
Justin, what I feel is special about your writing is precisely that it goes against the pop philosophy strategies that we see here and there. What you said about going from ignorance to love, we feel it, I felt it, it's rare and inspiring for young academics like me. Sometimes I read you to unblock my writing.
I'm no paid subscriber, I won't be until I get out of the state of financial mayhem of my PhD years, and I understand the need for more subscribers, but please don't lose your thing.
First, thanks for being not Agnes and not Barry with your “public philosophy.” I really like both of them, and all of it is needed, but I really like that your flavor can be an acquired taste. I think you’ve lost me more with the fiction/metafiction but am also aware you prefer it to more commentary about cancel culture, so you do what you gotta do to keep going. Let that freak flag fly. Re #2 idea: would much much prefer you have guest panelists providing thoughts on such questions rather than whoever your readers are. Even Daily Nous’ comment thread is just ok.
What I like most are your writings n popular music - they transcend anything in the pages of Pitchfork or Uncut and aspire to heights only glimpsed occasionally in those of Revolver.
You may find readers knowing you WANT comments and engagement, in itself, may provide enough forward momentum for now.
I do not have a strong preference among the current types of posts: the erudite eclecticism itself attracts me. I usually copy more than one phrase per newsletter for my notebook of thoughts.
I am retired and enjoy being schedule free, plus video is not my preferred usage of time (reading/skimming is faster). That said, a course with some presentations on a theme/subject could be very attractive.
The questio of the week concept could be very interesting, and likely is the simplest to try among the proposals you mention. It certainly will invite familiarity with the comments section and the possible development of “community.”
Likewise, an occasional guest writer (or perhaps a video of you and guest discussing a topic) also seems promising - and relatively simple to try without long-term commitment.
Just please keep doing it.
I like that you write about anything you feel like at any time. A few of the memorist pieces have made an outsized impression on me, but I like all three basic types. I would also not feel ‘cheated’ if we didn’t get a long essay some Sundays if you weren’t feeling it. I might spend some time with a shorter question/discussion on Thursdays, but not sure how consistent I’d be. Guest writers would be ok, theoretically. There’s so much to read every minute of the day that I might not get to all of it, but that’s the way it goes.
I am pleased to more/less directly support artists I like. I think that’s how it should be (vs advertising). “Hinternet” is already an embarrassment of riches for $60/year.
One thing you might try - not sure if this is practical - is to now and then recycle past essays, i.e. do a greatest hits. I know what got me to subscribe and then pay was people RTing (on twitter) some past essays that killed me. You never know what will hit any particular person, but you have no shortage of good writing - I’m sure I have not read all the good stuff just from the last 2 years and I’m a fan. Maybe an occasional email sent to non subscribers (or everyone) citing a past essay? Just a thought.
Cheers to all
I like all of your writing, Justin. You are extremely erudite, endlessly curious, and you write like a dream. An economist friend said to me years ago that he would read a laundry list if were written by Karl Ove Knausgård. I feel exactly that way about your writing. You could write about Sappho or Elagabalus or Athanasius Kircher and I would want to read your every word.
Another shorter piece a week is a great idea. More product should equal more subscribers, though it doesn't guarantee it, of course. Allowing comments is good and so is responding to some of them, engagement with readers should drive more subscriptions and counter your plateauing. You are anything but a vox populi person but maybe give comments a try on an extended basis?
A course on the philosophy of astrobiology is a superb idea, though it might not be a big draw. I would be interested. How about a unique course on philosophy from Heraclitus to Thomas Nagel that only you could do? Guest posts are a good idea, I've read numerous Substackers say that such a move has expanded their readership.
The internet is indeed not what we think it is but it may become more of what we hope it might be through the dissemination of your learning, your eloquence and last but certainly not least, your infectious enthusiasm.
I'm a South African aged 59. Our currency, the rand, was about on a par with the dollar when I was a boy in the 1970s, but now exchanges at about 16 to one. As a former newspaperman, I firmly believe that writers should be paid. But, alas, apart from the exchange rate being against me, I'm also under debt review (a kind of soft version of bankruptcy that we have here). I hope to have more money from November onwards, if a little venture I've gone into pays off. My little joke is that I'm exploiting child labour -- by which I mean I've gone into partnership with the 21-year-old son of a friend of mine. Have staked him to an FTMO challenge (forex trading), and he has passed Stage 1. He's about to start Stage 2, and if he passes that, the shekels should start to flow from about November. If they do, I'll gladly pay for a subscription.
I’m not a person who follows content makers across the written internet... especially not those with communities and groupies. I only downloaded subtrack because of you and your eclectic and erudite mind, that flows with verve, precision, and delight in the unexpected twists and turns of your brilliant language.
I’m currently reading your Nature, Human Nature, & Difference, which is a booming joy of lucid thought on every page. I found you via your Irrationality book, when I got curious whether there were more modern takes on the subject when reading Lukacs’ The Destruction of Reason in German. I haven’t laughed so much in a long while as I came upon your description of Heidegger marching on a Holzweg through the Black Forest while the brothers Grimm found a much more enchanting path through true German Romanticism! I continued and fell in love with your semi-fictional Philosopher. It felt really liberating to hear your voice piercing all the inflated narcissism and opaque stupidity of the postmodern “protection rackets” and the degeneration of the academia in our times. It was great to know that thinking and philosophizing hasn’t been completely smothered by stifling institutions who have lost their youth, souls, and marbles.
So why am I posting here?
1) To tell you how much I value your books! It’s a relief to know the world I felt most at home in (sound reason, sharp wit, and and irreducible humanity), which I sought in vain in the 2000s at universities infested with postmodern dogma, is still alive and kicking! Your words are like elegant rapiers, as precise, sharp, and pleasurable as ever welded by great philosophers of yore, when pruning their powerful enemies down to size. Please keep writing these great books! It’s voices like yours that will not only clear away the house of cards coming down on the decomposing post-modern suicide, but plant the old/new/true seeds so much needed for a new flourishing of strong, thriving, abundant intellectual life in a world that needs exactly more Margaret Cavendishs to overcome existential threats before us.
2) To ask you to not succumb to the noises of the internet, and trade in your brilliance for dull pennies of content creation. I know Spinoza’s frugality isn’t something anyone would wish for brilliant minds. But perhaps focusing on your books instead of churning out word counts and multimedia soundbites against subtrack engagement schedules would be a better investment of your time and unique talents… with better rewards also for your readership? I’m happy to buy every single book I find from you (just finished The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is, enjoyed your poetic ending and the unexpected ride)
As a reader, my feelings about micro-publishing online are ambivalent. I really love your books and see this online presence as something more of an author’s playground - either you do it for fun and throughly enjoy sharing your musings and eclectic explorations with your readers, or it quickly becomes a job-to-be-done, and lose vitality. You need to know: how much of your time do you want to invest in Subtrack for pecuniary subsidies to your day job, or do you want it to be an indispensable staple of your economy? The former makes you independent of the fickle nature of the internet audience and of private fancy. The second is a career choice with opportunity costs to your bigger endeavors. Audience engagement is hard work, and to increase mass appeal, you will inevitably have to sacrifice some eccentricities and quality.
Perhaps a third path: explore subtrack subscriptions not as “pay-for-post”/online engagement, but really as more of a sort of crowdfunding/ sponsorship. Philosophers, troubadours, artists, and poets have a tradition of analog crowdfunding. Digitally, it might be easier? Tell us what you are up to, working on, and get your readers to support you so you can write the books you want to write. That way, you don’t need to artificially attend to engagement algorithms or grow audiences groups that might never read your published works. With such sponsorship, you can easily keep subtack as your own playground and sandbox, without commitment stress or posting deadlines.
The best route to financial security is probably the success of your books with knock-on effects for academic prestige/ career (depending on how tight the protection rackets are, more or less desirable). You write wonderful books, they deserve wider readership and more public attention. I tried to watch some of the “podcasts” on YouTube promoting your books, but excuse me for being harsh: you deserve better hosts and discussion partners! It was painful to watch your exquisite thinking lost on the heavily railed and opaque minds who couldn’t follow your stellar flight paths. I think these are cases of publishing house PR gone wrong.
Ok, sorry for the long comment. All the best and I can only encourage you to write more in your exquisite way and publish. If a subtrack subscription helps you achieve that, your readers will not be averse to the contribution. But don’t let digital subscriptions reduce you to a digital content producer. Only write and post for yourself and your own eccentricities, not to be a crowd pleaser or indeed a click-baiter. But I’m sure you know that already, judging by your books.
Thank you for keeping the lights on,
Marianne
PS - I just wanted to place a subscription, then realized why I didn’t have one to start with: Subtrack wants Apple Pay… and I didn’t want to activate Apple Pay. I’m too old fashioned, and prefer non-proliferation in my digital entanglements. Paypal would be possible(since I was already forced into it). So feel free and let me know if I can send you a modest postcard via Paypal. Nobody should grind glasses to write philosophy these days. :)
Until I have the option of funding it with something other than eye-wateringly expensive student loan monies, a paid subscription is going to have to remain a fantasy. But since I’m a regular reader, and you asked:
(1) Please don’t start bringing in guest writers. This has diluted and eventually ruined several other newsletters I liked. I keep reading your essays because you have a voice and technique like no other writer I know—wonderfully and self-consciously erudite, dense but light, always approaching the object of your interest indirectly by circling round and round it as you draw in. I am sure that any guest writer you tabbed would be terrific in their own way but I read this newsletter for you.
(2) Personally I like your fictions. (I especially enjoyed the one on the Voynich Manuscript, and “On the Job” from April of last year.) I’m not surprised to hear this is by far the least popular category of post, but it’s definitely the sort of thing one is not going to find anywhere else on Substack.
(3) Our apparent collective insistence on making everything into videos is going to kill the written word faster than anything. If you do decide to do video lectures, I hope it doesn’t come at the expense of your writing.
Keep up the great work, this newsletter is a gem.