So, when I revived this thing last year, it was for three reasons. First, I had a lot of writing I still wanted to do, and I still needed somewhere for it to live. Second, I knew I was parting ways with the institution whose censorious attitude had caused me to proleptically close up shop in the first place, so I knew I’d be free to. And third, I knew my wife was stepping away from work, and so I needed all the extra income I could manage.
It’s still true that I have a lot of writing I want to do. It’s still true that I now work for a great place that does not seem to mind that I do this. And it’s still true that my small family can use all the extra help it can get, and this is a labor I do in large part to try to offer as much extra cushioning as I can. And, additionally, I think the last year of the dispatch has seen quite a bit of good work. It might be bad form, but I think I’ve genuinely been able to keep a lot of content coming out, on distinct topics, done at a higher level, for most of the last year. And I’ve seen the dispatch grow partially as a result. My desire has been that those who choose to pay for this rag should have an incentive to do so. I’m no David Hart, nor any of the other big-name folk that write on Substack, and so I’ve tried to make sure that if someone’s spending their money here, it’s worth the while, with so much other great stuff to read.
I’ve also tried to make a lot of academic reading and complex critical reasoning about matters related to religion, classics, and theology available to people who might otherwise not have the time, opportunity, or knowledge to find resources themselves. Here’s where I’ve written myself into a bit of a rut, though, because this has encouraged me to make rather free use of Substack’s virtually limitless word count and ignore its very gentle reminders that long-form essays cannot appear in an email, especially in the last three months. On the one hand I don’t regret doing that for certain topics, because some topics really are so complicated that trying to deal with them in shorter order ends up misrepresenting them by truncation. But on the other hand, I acknowledge that this schtick has got to be getting old for some readers, and I’ve seen readers that were previously engaged move on. The most frequent reason I get for unsubscribes is Time, and it has only recently occurred to me that what that means is that I’m not writing to the amount of time people actually have to spend on reading. I’m writing as though my audience had an infinite amount of time and patience for what I have to say, not as though they are graciously giving me fifteen minutes to say my piece.
It’s also the case that while I’ve mostly kept up to this point with my commitment of two articles a week, one on Mondays, one on Thursdays, one beyond the paywall, one behind it, I’m burning the candle at both ends trying to make sure that everything I put out on those days is different enough and well-written enough to justify publication, and to keep readers interested. With my day job, I’ve not yet hit the wall that that’s not doable, but I can definitely see that in the future.
So all of that said, here’s what I’m looking to do here for the spring:
The frequency will remain the same for now, but the free stuff is going to be shorter. Sometimes that will mean that longer pieces are broken up into series (a thing that I’ve grown allergic to for some reason I can’t quite fathom) and sometimes that will mean that I’m just doing something that’s more focused (perhaps walking the reader through a text or an idea in short form). But anyway, what comes out on Mondays will be briefer than what I’ve released to this point. For the next few months, in fact, it’ll be a commentary on the Greek text of the Wisdom of Solomon.
Thursdays will be the new home for all ongoing series, will stay behind the paywall, and will be longer pieces, though never longer than the recommended email length. This is mainly something I’m giving myself as a limit, to get back in the habit of more focused writing. I think that stretching my legs and ignoring email length limits for a few months has been good for me, and I know that statistically it hasn’t harmed the dispatch, but I can feel at this point that I’m releasing a lot of words into the void like so much smoke, and I want to make sure that this doesn’t become a dispatch whose length and opacity make it impenetrable. I don’t want to waste your time.
Curate ut valeatis,
David
David: I absolutely adore your work and I look forward to every post like a KPOP fangirl. I want to come out of the shadows to say that I appreciate your diligence and rhythm of posting: it is so awesome getting a taste of your mind every couple days. I understand you have a million other responsibilities (none greater than your young family), and as a subscriber I am so appreciative about how diligently and professionally you have maintained this publication. Here is the thing though: I am still digesting so much; there are about 25 bookmarks of yours that I "need to come back and reread again". I have learned so much but also (as all good learning does) feel like I have barely scratched the surface. I feel like I have taken a literal journey thanks to you but I still have so much juice I have yet to squeeze out of APD. I guess what I am trying to say is that I would be subscriber for years more even if you didn't write another word. Don't get discouraged if you can't keep it up the posting rate you have created. Take breaks to focus on your family. Just keep writing when you can because I think your voice is so important for the world today.
Cheers,
Chris
P.S. Any chance for a novum colloquium? I think we are due for another video digression with DBH.
I have been reading your posts consistently. I am personally glad you are going to write more concisely (I understand how hard that can be). I have a huge pile of scholarships books I'm trying to get through, so it can be overwhelming at some points.
I'm just glad I have someone likeminded to read from.
Thanks!