I've checked back here a couple of times but it seems to be a largely inactive Substack newsletter. I won't check again, at least for a while, but I'd like to abandon on a constructive note. I came here following a rec from Ian Leslie. That's a very strong rec ('The Ruffian' has a decent claim to being the best newsletter on Substack), b…
I've checked back here a couple of times but it seems to be a largely inactive Substack newsletter. I won't check again, at least for a while, but I'd like to abandon on a constructive note. I came here following a rec from Ian Leslie. That's a very strong rec ('The Ruffian' has a decent claim to being the best newsletter on Substack), but the author of this newsletter doesn't seem to have realised that or chosen to capitalise on it. So I'd say two things. First, Substack works by creating communities of interest; authors really have to work at that and engage with readers or it won't work for them. I see that the author has started off by making two apologies for engaging too little in the past, but then failed again to engage with posters at this very article; maybe it's time to call it a day here and maybe try another platform? Perhaps the occasional post on Medium would be a better option for this author? Second, Ian Leslie recommended because of the author's interesting and useful description of an area he (the author) has a professional background in. But I, and I think other readers (going by the unusually negative replies), found the article weaker than I'd expected. On reflection, I think this is because the author is neither a scholar nor a subject matter expert in the areas he writes about at the article. I guess the author is in a similar position to someone who's served a single appointment an ambassador to a lesser but now- important state in his last appointment for a few years; maybe a recent ambassador to Ukraine, or perhaps a uniformed head of Royal Navy's procurement branch or something? The appointment doesn't confer either deep subject matter expertise nor a true knowledge of the top-level politics, but it does provide, for a few years, an interesting and perhaps even unique perspective on some things. That tends to have a recent-historical flavour to it, because things change quickly, but that can help flesh out discourse about what's going on today. That's really what the author should write about, I think - I'd be interested to hear his thoughts about how he thought things might go when he was in the job, and perhaps compare that to how things might appear to be going now. Personal stories and broad inferences are useful and interesting. But if I want an academic analysis, I'll read people with a strong publishing record who cite relevant literature, if I want a techie analysis then I'll read people with a strong techie background and if I want a poltical/policy analysis I'll read former top level policymakers. The author here isn't constraining himself to where he might be useful and interesting, that over extension is perhaps most obvious when he refers to legislative priorities. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that this could be a decent newsletter; at present, I'll give it a miss for now. Genuine good luck with it, though!
I've checked back here a couple of times but it seems to be a largely inactive Substack newsletter. I won't check again, at least for a while, but I'd like to abandon on a constructive note. I came here following a rec from Ian Leslie. That's a very strong rec ('The Ruffian' has a decent claim to being the best newsletter on Substack), but the author of this newsletter doesn't seem to have realised that or chosen to capitalise on it. So I'd say two things. First, Substack works by creating communities of interest; authors really have to work at that and engage with readers or it won't work for them. I see that the author has started off by making two apologies for engaging too little in the past, but then failed again to engage with posters at this very article; maybe it's time to call it a day here and maybe try another platform? Perhaps the occasional post on Medium would be a better option for this author? Second, Ian Leslie recommended because of the author's interesting and useful description of an area he (the author) has a professional background in. But I, and I think other readers (going by the unusually negative replies), found the article weaker than I'd expected. On reflection, I think this is because the author is neither a scholar nor a subject matter expert in the areas he writes about at the article. I guess the author is in a similar position to someone who's served a single appointment an ambassador to a lesser but now- important state in his last appointment for a few years; maybe a recent ambassador to Ukraine, or perhaps a uniformed head of Royal Navy's procurement branch or something? The appointment doesn't confer either deep subject matter expertise nor a true knowledge of the top-level politics, but it does provide, for a few years, an interesting and perhaps even unique perspective on some things. That tends to have a recent-historical flavour to it, because things change quickly, but that can help flesh out discourse about what's going on today. That's really what the author should write about, I think - I'd be interested to hear his thoughts about how he thought things might go when he was in the job, and perhaps compare that to how things might appear to be going now. Personal stories and broad inferences are useful and interesting. But if I want an academic analysis, I'll read people with a strong publishing record who cite relevant literature, if I want a techie analysis then I'll read people with a strong techie background and if I want a poltical/policy analysis I'll read former top level policymakers. The author here isn't constraining himself to where he might be useful and interesting, that over extension is perhaps most obvious when he refers to legislative priorities. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that this could be a decent newsletter; at present, I'll give it a miss for now. Genuine good luck with it, though!