BIB: Stakeholder Report

Or, what I did on my summer vacation.

The structure of this post was inspired by Laura Kampf's Cisco Ball.

IDEA

In April 2024, I decided to offer a limited-run newsletter called Book in Beta 1.0, or BIB 1.0. Its aim was to develop the start of a book for the interested, non-specialist reader about philosophy. It was to include frames for thinking with philosophical tools and texts, and strategies for reflection. The project started on May 27 and ended on August 19. I indicated that on September 9 (today), I’d conclude with what I’ve learned, how this learning has shaped the work, and what’s on the horizon. This post is that.

EXECUTION

I wrote 16 posts for this project, including the current post. With the exception of the first post and the remark on June 28, these posts came out on Mondays.

Introductory Posts
Book In Beta (BIB) 1.0 - May 16 (278 words)
Book In Beta (BIB): Welcome - May 27 (756 words)

Question One: What does it mean to think?
Book In Beta (BIB): Thinking - June 3 (840 words)
BIB: Thinking and Reality - June 10 (830 words)
BIB: Thinking Fast, Slow - June 17 (909 words)
BIB: Lizard Brain - June 24 (994 words)
Remark: Sea of Monster - June 28 (1060 words)
BIB: Thinking and Ethos - July 1 (1000 words)
BIB: Exhaust a Place - July 8 (968 words)

Break
BIB: Open Thread - July 15 (258 words)

Question: How do I know if I'm thinking well or poorly?
BIB: Question Two - July 22 (875 words)
BIB: On Alternative Facts - July 29 (975 words)
BIB: Facts, Actions, and Worlds - August 5 (1036 words)
BIB: Connectivity Problems - August 12 (969 words)
BIB: Thinking and Judgment - August 19 (981 words)

BIB: Stakeholder Report - September 9 (1122 words)

• I sent posts to between 39 and 53 subscribers. These subscribers are family, friends, and are mostly (but not exclusively) past subscribers.

• The posts were behind a free subscription wall, which was important as an added obstacle to AI and machine learning tools. It's also part of why I picked Ghost as my hosting platform in the first place.
• I wasn't terribly successful at generating subscriptions from social media invitations.
• I kept to the editorial schedule I imagined when this project began. At one point, I planned to extend the writing by a week, but I decided to stick to the original parameters.
• My intention was to keep posts between 500-800 words; as you can see from the word counts listed above, I ranged closer to 800-1000 words. In total, the project was 13,851 words; I averaged 866 words per post.
• In the final week, I included a link to a tip jar.

EVALUATION: BIB was successful.

This project satisfied the aims I set out to reach when I was imagining it in April.

• I learned while doing. The work on dopamine, limbic capitalism, more mature ideas around Peter McIndoe's contributions than my first encounter with these last spring, and seeing the prospects for integrating ethos will all make it into the classroom this fall. I appreciate it when a project I expect will be 'reporting' things I've already considered and taught shows itself as needing augmentation and addition by thinking through new and/or adjacent ideas. Cooperation with ideas is the highest expression of my own creative activity, and I'm always - always - grateful when it happens.
• I met my own deadlines and stayed within the calendar I set out for the work.
  • As a writer, I work hard to meet deadlines because it is a matter of respecting the person receiving my work - reader or editor. I also hate it when people are waiting on me, so I try to minimize that feeling by being in tune and on time with the work. This project was no exception.
  • Sticking to the calendar was additionally important because it forces closure of the project; I needed to wrap things up in some kind of way before the ideas got entirely out of hand. Moreover, ending the project when I did allowed me to start transitioning to the academic year and its major - and very different - demands. Extending the project would cause overlap that would weaken both projects (in my own effort, at least).
• I received positive feedback from readers about the work. This is appreciated! Thank you! I also received frank and exacting feedback for ways to improve or consider other approaches from AV, which improved my thinking about the project and (I hope) some of the output. This is also appreciated!

There are some opportunities for growth, of course, and here are some:

• As I look at the list of posts above, it's asymmetrical in terms of time spent on the first framing question compared to the second. In its next evolution, these will need to be re-balanced.
• The framing questions became less active as invitations and more implicit for me as a writer. Keeping these questions at the fore, including their invitations to the reader, is important for the next version of this project.
• My estimation of post length was off; however, once I figured that 1000 words was the long end of things I tried to keep that target as absolute. I think that a 500-800 word post length is realistic but requires more advance planning. I'll keep this in mind for a future BIB project.
• The tip jar is tough. On one hand, I don't want my friends to think I expect you to pay me for my work that I've asked you to read (feels like a bait and switch, TBH). On another hand, I am working to develop the belief that my writing has actual monetary value and so the tip jar is a small step in this direction. Academic writing is often done for free and for "prestige" (whatever that means) so I'm not used to asking for (or expecting) material support for the work I create. I'm trying to overwrite this by putting the request out there in the form of a tip jar.

That's the report for this project. As I start the academic year and wrangle a couple of rather large writing projects that have landed in my lap (and about which I'm very excited), the BIB project will go dormant for a bit. And I have some occasional posts ready to go, which I'm excited to share when it's time for these to come out.

THANK YOU.