I suspect that those who react this way are uncomfortable with what you have said, want to critique it, but lack any foundation for doing so. Painting themselves into a corner of critiquing the text without engaging with it, they punt to something outside the text without identifying how it should belong.
I love your work. I think you write beautifully. I don't always agree with the points that you make; in fact, I often disagree. What makes your work special is that your written word engages my brain and stimulates thought. Very often, it stimulates thinking in areas I wouldn't ordinarily spend any mental energy on.
One issue I have with your work, and with other writers, perhaps more so, is that you create essays that are more like a paper that one would turn in for an assignment their professor gave them. You cite too many supporting works, explain your point too thoroughly, cross too many t's, and dot too many i's. You repeat the main point. Very often, you and the other writers have an important observation to share, a fact that people really need to know, a trend that really IS alarming, and your message is lost in all of the supporting verbiage. Your written thoughts are just TLTR. (Too Long To Read).
I have to wonder if your motive for writing is to pass along information or to prove yourself as a worthy author? (Honestly, you're not nearly as bad as other SubStack writers I read.)
Sooo, your piece claims that the really hard work in creating it often lies in what to leave out. I commend the hard work you do and suggest you work even harder. (Please don't take this the wrong way.)
Thanks for your comments, Dave. When I stopped writing music in 1984 and turned to words instead – my first book was The Management Myth – I realised that unlike most "writers", it still felt like I was "composing" – only with words. That was possibly the first inkling I had that I had an original voice that I needed to develop and make my own. After 26 books, almost 800 issues of The Hames Report, and around 2,000 posts from The Virtual Activist, I am just beginning to gain confidence in that originality. My entire raison d'être in writing as much as I do is to communicate ideas I believe are important; ideas that don't get enough airing – and increasingly so. I acknowledge the density of my writing. It's a hallmark of my style, and it's now what my strongest advocates, some of whom are in very influential positions, expect. So while I accept your comments as your perceptions of my work, to cut a word that's been precisely placed for a reason or to change the lyricism of a phrase would be tantamount to Salieri's criticism of Mozart: "There are just too many notes!"
Like I started my comment, I love your work. I was just thinking that you might be trying to reach a wider audience with ideas that don't get enough airing. I AM a fan.
I certainly need a wider audience, and the factors you mention all mitigate against that. Some fairly powerful people I know personally have stopped reading entirely. Not even executive summaries! Just headlines...
I must confess that I am also irked by the fact that the wider audience for my work (and others possessing a similar gravitas) has already been captured by the spoken word and video podcasts. Diary of a CEO, for example, where ideas are examined from the surface but purport to go deep. That's so very misleading. Today's viewers don't have the patience or the time to delve into anything remotely "difficult".... I do a lot of public speaking, and so I understand that. But surely that also points to the need for deeply philosophical writing in order that human consciousness doesn't become entirely hooked on the vicarious and charismatic? Sorry, I haven't expressed that well. But you probably understand what I'm getting at.
I do understand, and I agree. For an exercise this morning, I read your article and asked myself what I could do to make it shorter, to create a Reader's Digest-friendly version. Not being Australian, and not being all that well informed , the only name I recognized was Greta Thrunburg's. Still, I understood (maybe) what you were saying and was able to apply it to realities that I've experienced first-hand. I spent much more time doing this than I wanted to (I've got a really busy morning ahead.) After considerable thought, I came up with....... Nothing! Each word was well chosen, and to remove any of them would possibly alter the message. Sooooooo, again, my apologies. Our world IS getting too busy for readers to "have the patience or the time to delve into anything remotely "difficult". Writing like yours IS very necessary. Please, keep up the good work.
I suspect that those who react this way are uncomfortable with what you have said, want to critique it, but lack any foundation for doing so. Painting themselves into a corner of critiquing the text without engaging with it, they punt to something outside the text without identifying how it should belong.
I love your work. I think you write beautifully. I don't always agree with the points that you make; in fact, I often disagree. What makes your work special is that your written word engages my brain and stimulates thought. Very often, it stimulates thinking in areas I wouldn't ordinarily spend any mental energy on.
One issue I have with your work, and with other writers, perhaps more so, is that you create essays that are more like a paper that one would turn in for an assignment their professor gave them. You cite too many supporting works, explain your point too thoroughly, cross too many t's, and dot too many i's. You repeat the main point. Very often, you and the other writers have an important observation to share, a fact that people really need to know, a trend that really IS alarming, and your message is lost in all of the supporting verbiage. Your written thoughts are just TLTR. (Too Long To Read).
I have to wonder if your motive for writing is to pass along information or to prove yourself as a worthy author? (Honestly, you're not nearly as bad as other SubStack writers I read.)
Sooo, your piece claims that the really hard work in creating it often lies in what to leave out. I commend the hard work you do and suggest you work even harder. (Please don't take this the wrong way.)
Thanks for your comments, Dave. When I stopped writing music in 1984 and turned to words instead – my first book was The Management Myth – I realised that unlike most "writers", it still felt like I was "composing" – only with words. That was possibly the first inkling I had that I had an original voice that I needed to develop and make my own. After 26 books, almost 800 issues of The Hames Report, and around 2,000 posts from The Virtual Activist, I am just beginning to gain confidence in that originality. My entire raison d'être in writing as much as I do is to communicate ideas I believe are important; ideas that don't get enough airing – and increasingly so. I acknowledge the density of my writing. It's a hallmark of my style, and it's now what my strongest advocates, some of whom are in very influential positions, expect. So while I accept your comments as your perceptions of my work, to cut a word that's been precisely placed for a reason or to change the lyricism of a phrase would be tantamount to Salieri's criticism of Mozart: "There are just too many notes!"
Annnnd, please accept my apologies. I confused messaging with writing. Please keep up the good work.
Like I started my comment, I love your work. I was just thinking that you might be trying to reach a wider audience with ideas that don't get enough airing. I AM a fan.
I certainly need a wider audience, and the factors you mention all mitigate against that. Some fairly powerful people I know personally have stopped reading entirely. Not even executive summaries! Just headlines...
I must confess that I am also irked by the fact that the wider audience for my work (and others possessing a similar gravitas) has already been captured by the spoken word and video podcasts. Diary of a CEO, for example, where ideas are examined from the surface but purport to go deep. That's so very misleading. Today's viewers don't have the patience or the time to delve into anything remotely "difficult".... I do a lot of public speaking, and so I understand that. But surely that also points to the need for deeply philosophical writing in order that human consciousness doesn't become entirely hooked on the vicarious and charismatic? Sorry, I haven't expressed that well. But you probably understand what I'm getting at.
I do understand, and I agree. For an exercise this morning, I read your article and asked myself what I could do to make it shorter, to create a Reader's Digest-friendly version. Not being Australian, and not being all that well informed , the only name I recognized was Greta Thrunburg's. Still, I understood (maybe) what you were saying and was able to apply it to realities that I've experienced first-hand. I spent much more time doing this than I wanted to (I've got a really busy morning ahead.) After considerable thought, I came up with....... Nothing! Each word was well chosen, and to remove any of them would possibly alter the message. Sooooooo, again, my apologies. Our world IS getting too busy for readers to "have the patience or the time to delve into anything remotely "difficult". Writing like yours IS very necessary. Please, keep up the good work.