How'm I Doin'?
Am I posting often enough? Too often? Are my posts typically too long? Too short? Too serious? Not serious enough? Too much about politics? Not enough? Too much philosophical noodling? Not enough? Too much about Canadian theater? Not enough? (I rather doubt that.) Do I spend too much energy on thinking up cute titles? Are the titles too obscure? Do you even read the titles? Should I interact more with the other contributors? Less? Should I be producing more commentary on other blogs? Less? More on blogs not affiliated with “The Atlantic” and less on blogs so affiliated? Is there someone or some venue in particular that I should be reading that I don’t appear to be? What am I not writing about that I should be? What am I writing about that I should stop writing about? Does this blog have a common identity? Should it? If it does (or should), do I fit into it? It I were going to change one thing about my blogging, what should it be?
Thanks.
I don’t think many people remember (or perhaps even read) the titles, so don’t sweat them too much. Less Atlantic Monthly blogs – the writers themselves (often) don’t even seem that interested in them.
More new conservative voices on other blogs. As a liberal, I enjoy reading you guys quite a bit over the standard bearers (maybe it’s a generational thing), and trust you to vet out additional conservatives for me to be reading.
Keep up the good work.
— Mike · Jul 29, 08:51 PM · #
Genuinely excellent. I don’t know that there should be more such posts, but my own favorite are those that end up referencing the tensions between modern commitments and deeply held, tradition-heavy religions commitments. It’s not the religion as such so much as a tradition sufficiently rich as to get guarded deference even from those not of that faith. (To non-conservatives—or at least this one—the choice of which traditions are to be respected because they are traditions often seems more than a little under-motivated or, even, opportunistic.)
— SomeCallMeTim · Jul 29, 08:54 PM · #
More Noah!
— Peter Suderman · Jul 29, 09:14 PM · #
I skip most of what you guys write on pop culture, especially theater; today I was tempted for the first time recently to unsubscribe b/c of too many pop culture posts.
Note that more pro-forma Republican posts aren’t exciting either: I don’t know enough about your identity to say whether you’re guilty of this or not. Conservative views are very welcome, but partisan stuff isn’t. For me.
— sal mineo · Jul 29, 09:15 PM · #
I used to want to start a business where I would sit with someone during a Shakespeare play and quietly explain the plot and dialogue and answer their questions about what was going on.
So, yeah— carry on, please.
— Freddie · Jul 29, 09:37 PM · #
I truly enjoy the posts you make, because you seem to be a man of parts: some finance, some politics, some philosophy, some literature, some theatre. (I particularly enjoyed the Shulchan Oreych, but that was probably because I had just attended a seder myself, a rather puzzling experience for an outsider.) Willingness to respond to comments is also a delight.
Glancing at your list of posts, it seems that there have been many clever titles. They’re amusing, but possibly require more effort than they’re worth. I doubt anyone decides to read the posts based upon the titles (not given how this website is set up), so consider whether it would be more productive to spend your time elsewhere.
I advise avoiding responses to other blogs, unless you really have something unique to add to the conversation. Saying something new, even if it is removed from current affairs, is much more valuable then endless circuitous discursion. This is precisely one of the strengths of the American Scene, so I think it would be undesirable for it to become more of a conversation.
More generally, I do miss the links to interesting essays that the old version of the American Scene had. I remember reading wonderful pieces on Robespierre and Washington’s Loyalist slaves that I would never have discovered on my own.
— M. Grégoire · Jul 29, 09:37 PM · #
Noah,
you are one of the most interesting, informed, and creative thinkers in the blogosphere. I enjoy almost everything you write, and in a pinch would encourage you not to change a thing for fear of screwing up such a great roll. But in response to your questions: I think you’re titles are great, when I get them, which is about half the time. In terms of subject matter, I sometimes wish you would take advantage of your great expertise in matters financial and economic. I am an international relations scholar, so I have a tad bit of IPE knowledge, but really, you could put it in a thimble. You, on the other hand, seem to know a lot. Your recent posts in this vein were great. In general, I bet you could write some really great stuff explaining the bewildering economic news to the rest of us, by just making some unstated assumptions everyone has explicit.
I love the theater stuff; but then, I also go to stratford.
anyway, mostly, just keep up the great work!
— brendan · Jul 29, 09:40 PM · #
Yes.
— mattc · Jul 29, 09:47 PM · #
you do’n mighty fine!
— Arthur Millman · Jul 29, 10:36 PM · #
The greatest flaw of TAS generally is its messed-up RSS formatting. Many of us, perhaps eventually a majority, don’t have time to sit and read blogs at the desktop, but rely on mobile newsreaders. I read you guys and others at lunch, in lines, red lights, etc. The problem is that your syndicated posts don’t denote authorship (though the comments, strangely, do). So unless the context makes authorship obvious (Coherent Applied Theology = Jacobs, Coherent Macroconomics = Suderman, Coherent Microeconomics = Manzi, Statford = Millman, Teen Zombies = Salam) I don’t know who I’m reading unless it is revealed in comments.
The best thing you could do for us Treo-Blackberry-iPhone readers is to adopt an RSS format like Sullivan’ Daily Dish when he uses “guest bloggers.” It is perfectly clear up front who authored each post.
And Millman, consider a side trip sometime to Niagara-on-the-Lake and let us know what’s worth seeing at the Shaw Festival.
— Mobile Reader · Jul 29, 10:55 PM · #
Mobile, Thanks greatly for thinking of me as the man behind TAS’s “Coherent Macroeconomics.” That does seem a little strange, however, considering that the majority of the posts I write are either about pop culture or my personal, odd attempts to make sense of the world.
— Peter Suderman · Jul 29, 11:10 PM · #
Suderman,
My bad; as I mentioned, my bearings are a bit messed up. I’ve apparently credited you for the work of others. Jacobs is the only one of you with whom I’m familiar outside of this blog. I added TAS to my newsreader in response to frequent citations in other blogs (Larison/Eunomia, Crunchy Con, Atlantic, etc.) and I’ve never commented before. Adding author credits to your RSS feed would be immensely helpful to interested newbies.
— Mobile Reader · Jul 29, 11:26 PM · #
You were rockin’ on along until this post, which smacks of “loser.”
— Sanjay · Jul 29, 11:39 PM · #
Your theatre pieces are the best things on the entire site. Worth saving and returning to, even though I’ll never make it Strafford. I always come away with some new insights on the (usually familiar) works being performed, not just on the particulars of the performances. Bravo.
— nadezhda · Jul 30, 12:35 AM · #
Mobile Reader:
Grab the RSS feed’s address from the link on the front page, not from autodiscovery. Authors are included.
Noah:
More on your elite-centered political vision, and let’s us all get caught up on the Russian Reading Challenge.
— Matt Frost · Jul 30, 12:42 AM · #
Matt Frost,
Clue me in, please. On my PC, I click “subscribe to TAS.” The RSS feed shows up in the browser. It appears just as it does in my mobile NewsReader: Title and content, no author. The “subscribe to comments” shows author, but not “subscribe to TAS.”
— Mobile Reader · Jul 30, 01:26 AM · #
“You were rockin’ on along until this post, which smacks of ‘loser.’”
Not at all—I wish more people in this world were gracious enough to want to hear what others are thinking. That comment was probably meant humorously, but it’s hard to snap out of Mom mode so I’ll just assume it was serious so I can give out one more wise, motherly comment for the day.
I enjoy the theater and religious tradition posts especially, plus any time anyone posts about favorite authors/books it’s welcome.
— Joules · Jul 30, 04:09 AM · #
Don’t change a word for me not if you care for me. -A Constant Reader
What’missing? YESELSON!
— Fred · Jul 30, 05:01 AM · #
Doin fine.
— Justin · Jul 30, 05:13 AM · #
contrary to sal mineo’s fear i think there is little danger of either noah specifically or TAS generally decaying into party-line talking points hackery. recall that noah is the one who described the trifecta of intelligent design, supply-side, and iraq-optimism as the “unified theory of nonsense.”
i personally skim or skip the theater posts but it doesn’t bother me to do so and i very much enjoy the rest of noah’s posts. (there are some group blogs where i dread the posts of particular authors but this blog is not one of them).
— gabriel · Jul 30, 03:33 PM · #
I look forward to all Millman posts, but especially to your comments to others’ posts and to your posts on finance.
— J Mann · Jul 30, 04:49 PM · #
I generally agree with the commenters who’ve already praised your work. The only recent post of yours that I didn’t enjoy was the “Veepstakes” entry. It’s not that it was a particularly bad blog post or anything – I just feel that warmed-over political analysis isn’t TAS’s strong point. I dig your site because you guys take a broader, more idiosyncratic approach to cultural and political issues. Leave the political prognostications to the TPM crowd.
— Will · Jul 30, 05:44 PM · #
Noah, don’t change a thing. I’m not sure where a banker gets the time to write deeply on so many subjects, but I’m glad you make the time.
— Ferrell · Jul 30, 05:46 PM · #
A sincere question deserves a sincere answer.
The tone of your writing is perfect, as is the, ah, writing. I also greatly admire your curiosity, fairness, and your elite/prole social ecumenism, which I agree is a core issue in politics (I’m not sure what you think of Spengler the First, but he’s got a great poetical take on this, abridged here).
In addition to your online personality, I very much appreciate the breadth of your knowledge and interest. Many of the subjects you write on are, to me, very tedious (at least in other venues and media). Despite this existential handicap and embarrassing undercultivation, I find myself very happy to read someone who actually, sincerely cherishes this stuff — especially someone like you, who thinks as well as he writes. This way I can learn about it without having to experience it.
In other words, I’m definitely getting more than I pay for, so thank you.
— JA · Jul 30, 07:27 PM · #
More on economics. No one does has clarity and common sense like you do on that subject. But your philosophical/literary stuff tends to go long. Perhaps keep it shorter. I don’t get your weakness for paleocon reductionism and I’m not impressed with your self satisfaction about your openmindedness to it. All in all I enjoy reading your work. It is always interesting and creative.
— Steven · Jul 30, 10:36 PM · #
Noah — As a guy who followed your work on Gideon’s, I’m just excited to see you posting regularly. I can’t say I read every word of your Stratford posts (especially the non-Shakespeare ones), but I think their uniqueness is one of the things that makes TAS eclectic in a good (great!) way. I guess I’d be more interested in those posts if they were more about the play itself (which often enough they are) and less about this or that actor/director, whom I have no familiarity with.
I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on the current economic/financial situation. If you can tell me when to panic, that’d be swell.
Earlier today I heard the news about Olmert and, if you can believe it, I said to myself, “Gee, Noah doesn’t post about Israeli politics much at all anymore, does he?” I suppose you answered why in your latest.
Overall, I guess your posts (arguably second to Reihan’s) represent what’s great about TAS: diverse in topic, length, and depth. Give us more.
— Chris Floyd · Jul 31, 02:48 AM · #