I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I want to point it out: while I appreciate your feedback, it’s impossible for me to please everyone because no matter what you think about my work or the subjects I write about or my pace, there’s someone else who’s telling me the exact opposite. The exact, exact opposite. I’m currently trying Monday and Wednesday posts for everyone and subscriber-only posts on Fridays. This is because of complaints, stretching back to the very beginning of this newsletter, that I publish too much and should write less and let the posts breathe more. So I’m trying to stick with that, finally, after a lot of dithering about it. And you know what complaint I got multiple times about last week? That it wasn’t enough content.
Thanks Freddie. I don't always read every word of everything you write, but when a piece hits for me, you really nail it. Keep doing whatever it is you're doing, and I'll keep subscribing.
Agree. If someone isn't interested in something you write, they don't have to read it. Personally I love the amount of content -- you have a lot to great stuff to say and the things that don't interest me, I skip -- duh.
I want less posts about reader feedback, Freddie! I also demand that you only write about NFL gambling and obscure fuzz-rock bands from the early 90's. JK love the Substack. It's the only one I pay for, after all.
Assigning the value of feedback is tough. I like exactly what you do and how you do it...of course, as you change things, I'll most likely adjust and keep reading because your voice has a significant value to my world.
A teaching management strategy might work well here: using sample students to measure how well you are (generally) addressing the needs of different groups in a classroom. In the same way, you could pick two of each general kind of person as samples (too much, too little, this topic, that topic, etc) and use their comments a barometers of your audience and their preferences, rather than weeding through the polarized comments. This is an idea that works well when you have many different needs in a classroom.
At the end of the day, you have to enjoy what you are writing, and that will always comes through in the art. Keep doing what you are doing. I think there are enough of us that just appreciate your view on things and how you write about it. (subscriber, 2x Cult of Smart purchaser, book preorder-er).
How about you write what you want when you want and those who don't like that can eat a dick? Can they write a post like a Roster of Good White Men, something I still re-read to laugh? No? Than they are opinion on how you do it is mostly irrelevant. I think Freddie is a not too bright Leftist too set in his thinking about social problems, but by no means would I tell him what and how to write about stuff.
You do a great job. Not once have I regretted my paid subscription. Unlike some of the other Substacks that seem to be almost cult facilities where only believers are welcome, you have a very diverse population of commenters that keep the conversation interesting and lively. One caveat though... and one that brings down the entire value assessment... is the infrequent commenter that goes straight to personal attack. I think that should be your line... commenters that attack you personally or attack other commenters with personal invective. Too much of that I will cancel my subscription.
It is literally just now occurring to me that you have subscribers who think that paying for this newsletter means they get to tell you how to run it.
Holy cats.
People: you are paying to read the work of a writer you like. Not all of the things a writer creates will be your cup of tea. Deal. He’s a human, not a dancing circus bear.
You are supporting work, creative and journalistic: he is not beholden to your whims. If you don’t like a piece, use the Delete button. That provides (I assume) data back to his Substack dashboard. Let Freddie do with that data what he will. If you like it, click the heart, leave a comment. Easy peasey.
Amen. It would never in a million years occur to me to write to any author of any substack I subscribe to and complain about what they write and how much they write (either way). Those people have more hutzpah than I do.
God, that's annoying! You provide an embarrassment of riches and I accept that I won't always have time to consume and digest all of it, but the idea that should adjust your pacing to suit me is ludicrous and I can't imagine why anyone would think they're entitled to weigh in on this point. Do you, Freddie!
PS I'm laid up with COVID this week and am more or less caught up , including watching Chang Can Dunk, which was just about the right pace for me. Never would have stumbled upon that myself.
Just do what you want to do, seriously. The bitchers will bitch regardless. My husband and I both thought your crime Q&A was hilarious and spot on, btw.
Of course, you don't have to please everyone. You just have to please that one most important person. The only one whose opinion really matters, in the end:
Me, a total stranger you've never met halfway across the country who has a fraction of your political experience, most of it navigating the realpolitik of local-level suburban DFL, and whose only interaction with you is leaving comments of varying value on your Substack.
(Obviously, that was a joke. I've actually unsubscribed from blogs before because they agreed with me too much without offering interesting or novel insights. That's definitely not gonna happen here.)
The person that got banned in the comments section was a regular, and the only thing I remember about their name was that it was "Two letters".
I just realized that your name could be mentally abbreviated to "two letters". Anyway, does anyone remember the guy's name who got banned in yesterday's comments? Curious on if they're just a frequent commenter or they have their own substack to stalk.
This post of yours helped inspire me to upgrade to paid (which I should have done sooner), so I could comment. So...positive blowback or whatever! Anyway, if you look at your ratio of subscribers to commenters, I assume you have a lot more of the former than the latter. Which means there must be a lot of people who basically like and support what you do, whatever it is, since they subscribe but never or rarely comment. I am one of those people. You should remember that there are a lot of us, and take comfort when you are buffeted one way or another by commentors.
Keep doing you!
You do just fine, thank you.
Thanks Freddie. I don't always read every word of everything you write, but when a piece hits for me, you really nail it. Keep doing whatever it is you're doing, and I'll keep subscribing.
You are at your best when you write what you want to write, and the audience naturally shows up.
Don't write to perform for us. It's unseemly, worthy of dogs and monkeys and not cats.
Agree. If someone isn't interested in something you write, they don't have to read it. Personally I love the amount of content -- you have a lot to great stuff to say and the things that don't interest me, I skip -- duh.
I want less posts about reader feedback, Freddie! I also demand that you only write about NFL gambling and obscure fuzz-rock bands from the early 90's. JK love the Substack. It's the only one I pay for, after all.
Assigning the value of feedback is tough. I like exactly what you do and how you do it...of course, as you change things, I'll most likely adjust and keep reading because your voice has a significant value to my world.
A teaching management strategy might work well here: using sample students to measure how well you are (generally) addressing the needs of different groups in a classroom. In the same way, you could pick two of each general kind of person as samples (too much, too little, this topic, that topic, etc) and use their comments a barometers of your audience and their preferences, rather than weeding through the polarized comments. This is an idea that works well when you have many different needs in a classroom.
At the end of the day, you have to enjoy what you are writing, and that will always comes through in the art. Keep doing what you are doing. I think there are enough of us that just appreciate your view on things and how you write about it. (subscriber, 2x Cult of Smart purchaser, book preorder-er).
How about you write what you want when you want and those who don't like that can eat a dick? Can they write a post like a Roster of Good White Men, something I still re-read to laugh? No? Than they are opinion on how you do it is mostly irrelevant. I think Freddie is a not too bright Leftist too set in his thinking about social problems, but by no means would I tell him what and how to write about stuff.
You do a great job. Not once have I regretted my paid subscription. Unlike some of the other Substacks that seem to be almost cult facilities where only believers are welcome, you have a very diverse population of commenters that keep the conversation interesting and lively. One caveat though... and one that brings down the entire value assessment... is the infrequent commenter that goes straight to personal attack. I think that should be your line... commenters that attack you personally or attack other commenters with personal invective. Too much of that I will cancel my subscription.
It is literally just now occurring to me that you have subscribers who think that paying for this newsletter means they get to tell you how to run it.
Holy cats.
People: you are paying to read the work of a writer you like. Not all of the things a writer creates will be your cup of tea. Deal. He’s a human, not a dancing circus bear.
You are supporting work, creative and journalistic: he is not beholden to your whims. If you don’t like a piece, use the Delete button. That provides (I assume) data back to his Substack dashboard. Let Freddie do with that data what he will. If you like it, click the heart, leave a comment. Easy peasey.
Good LORD. People. People are the problem.
"Good LORD. People. People are the problem."
Amen. It would never in a million years occur to me to write to any author of any substack I subscribe to and complain about what they write and how much they write (either way). Those people have more hutzpah than I do.
God, that's annoying! You provide an embarrassment of riches and I accept that I won't always have time to consume and digest all of it, but the idea that should adjust your pacing to suit me is ludicrous and I can't imagine why anyone would think they're entitled to weigh in on this point. Do you, Freddie!
PS I'm laid up with COVID this week and am more or less caught up , including watching Chang Can Dunk, which was just about the right pace for me. Never would have stumbled upon that myself.
Just do what you want to do, seriously. The bitchers will bitch regardless. My husband and I both thought your crime Q&A was hilarious and spot on, btw.
Now I wish I would have commented this morning. I loved the structure of your article as well as the arguments posed by A and B.
Plus, as many others have said (me too) you just write so well Freddie.
Of course, you don't have to please everyone. You just have to please that one most important person. The only one whose opinion really matters, in the end:
Me, a total stranger you've never met halfway across the country who has a fraction of your political experience, most of it navigating the realpolitik of local-level suburban DFL, and whose only interaction with you is leaving comments of varying value on your Substack.
(Obviously, that was a joke. I've actually unsubscribed from blogs before because they agreed with me too much without offering interesting or novel insights. That's definitely not gonna happen here.)
The person that got banned in the comments section was a regular, and the only thing I remember about their name was that it was "Two letters".
I just realized that your name could be mentally abbreviated to "two letters". Anyway, does anyone remember the guy's name who got banned in yesterday's comments? Curious on if they're just a frequent commenter or they have their own substack to stalk.
Possibly KT?
Sounds right. Thanks.
KT's nihilism(?) was more often entertaining than not, to me, but they did have a tendency to needle Freddie.
Will be missed by at least a few of us.
I loved the piece this morning: its style reminded me of the Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man by the Marquis de Sade: https://eupraxsofia.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/marquis-de-sade-dialog-between-a-priest-and-a-dying-man.pdf -- I trust your instincts, Freddie. Do what feels right to you.
This post of yours helped inspire me to upgrade to paid (which I should have done sooner), so I could comment. So...positive blowback or whatever! Anyway, if you look at your ratio of subscribers to commenters, I assume you have a lot more of the former than the latter. Which means there must be a lot of people who basically like and support what you do, whatever it is, since they subscribe but never or rarely comment. I am one of those people. You should remember that there are a lot of us, and take comfort when you are buffeted one way or another by commentors.