Uber-blogger-turned-substacker Matt Yglesias was profiled in the Washington Post last week, so now everyone is talking about Matt Yglesias. What's his secret? Why is he so popular? Whatever you happen to think of the quality, wit, or erudition of Matt's writing, there's no question that one of his talents is sheer quantity. He can churn out a lot of stuff and he can (apparently) do it forever without burning out.
Max Read says this is a key requirement for contemporary bloggers, content creators, and newsletter proprietors, which he calls regularity:
I say “regularity” instead of “consistency” because “consistency” sort of implies quality to me, and reliable quality is of only passing importance compared to reliable production. “Regularity,” on the other hand, reminds me, appropriately, of bowel movements.
Ahem. But I have to admit this is disturbingly accurate. I've never had Matt's ambition, mainly because I'm older than he is and already had lots of money by the time I started blogging, but we do share one thing in common: we like to write all the time.
My first real job was as a technical writer for a tech company. During the interview, my prospective boss—who currently fixes classic cars in Florida—asked me what seemed like an odd question: "Do you enjoy the act of putting your fingers on a keyboard and making words come out?"¹
Well . . . yes. I do. I've spent the past 40 years putting my fingers on keyboards and making vast quantities of words come out. As it happens, I don't think you can feel this way unless there's some minimal quality to your work,² but it hardly has to be Shakespearian level. My writing is basically workmanlike—sort of AP style writ large—but that's enough. It's reasonably clear, personal, and easy to read, which is enough for anyone who happens to enjoy reading about my particular hobby horses (i.e., charts, lead, inflation, amateur research, Republicans, other people being wrong on the internet, etc.).
And that's about it. Accuracy is great. Wittiness is great. Good spelling is great. But in this business it's really all about enjoying the act of writing constantly and quickly. There are surprisingly few people like this, and those who are can do well if they also demonstrate at least a minimum level of quality—which I will not try to define.
I'm a walking, talking example of this. In fact, this very post is an example of this. It would have gone entirely unwritten and unmissed if something else had flitted across my brain this morning, but nothing did and I really felt like putting my fingers on the keyboard and making some words come out. So I did.
¹Or something along those lines. It was 40 years ago, so cut me some slack.
²Psychopathic serial killer types excepted, of course.
You need to meet more crackpots.
Google is providing a staggering benefit of 6850 USD per week in local currency, which is amazing considering that I was laid off in a very horrible financial situation a year ago. “W Many Thanks Google Dependably for Gifting the ones Rules and Soon It’s My Commitment to Pay and Rate It With Everyone..
right now I Started… https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com/
Mr. D, howza bout putting your fingers on the keyboard and banning "Eve" and all of its spam?
There are lots of people churning out lots of words that don't gain the notoriety or success of Yglesias. His unique skill is to spew forth stuff that enrages, which is the fertilizer of social media. Frankly, I often can't tell when he is making a serious point or when he is deliberately trolling, which is infuriating. Obviously, it works for him, but it doesn't help to find actual solutions to real problems.
I think actually Yglesias' unique skill, beyond being able to write fast (Kevin is right about that) is that he's actually very smart and absorbs a lot of information. That doesn't mean he's right all the time- nobody is- but it means that when he, for instance, decides to write about energy policy he has absorbed a ton of esoterica about things like geothermal energy and permitting issues and micro-nuclear generators.
Most people who have the talent and desire to write fast can't go in depth into topics. Yglesias can. Again, that doesn't mean he's always right. But you can't fake depth. That's what he has that Internet cranks do not have.
He spews forth lots of information, but he often brushes over or ignores real-world facts that are by far the most important because they don't fit his narrative.
Who doesn't do that?
People who aren't shooting their mouth off all the time.
(Rolls eyes) No, Yglesias has no such facitility. And no, from what I've seen of him interacting with commentors on his blog, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer (You don't know the difference between average and marginal costs? Really Matty?)
Something that helps Yglesias is that he doesn't churn out the typical sort of left-leaning article that a lot of online media outlets put out, which makes his center-left stuff seem more edgy and contrarian than it really is.
But I do think it's also that he just churns out content constantly, and pretty decently written content as well on a variety of subjects.
Something that helps Yglesias is that he doesn't churn out the typical sort of left-leaning article that a lot of online media outlets put out...
In other words he's unique, or, relatively rare? It's probably good for commercial purposes not to be duplicating the same takes as lots of other writers.
I haven't read him in years, but when he first started blogging he would sometimes pick up on things that other writers missed. Other times, his takes were quite frankly rather dumb. I stopped reading him at some point when he switched publications, because it seemed like he was no longer better than a lot of other writers, but maybe he was just having a dry spell.
"Even the liberal Matt Yglesias ..." Yeah, that definitely has a market. Just not one that has much cachet around these parts.
Luck/chance. You're missing a critical piece of the puzzle of why some writers/bloggers are successful. Just like a lot of rich people, everyone thinks their success in life/career is solely due to hard work and skill.
But, but Kevin, you are witty and we love your blog posts and graphs. That is why we are here. Here for you!
Yglesias writes a lot because he's on the Autism spectrum, pretty far down, and has little understanding of actual human beings to get in the way of the things buzzing through his head.
Is that true? I hadn't heard that and a quick google (your comment piqued my curiosity) didn't turn anything up...
You left out the cats. And after all, the Internets are made of cats! and porn.
Random observations (and yes, these are mine, yours may differ!):
1) Yglesias is extremely clever, and has a knack for examining or re-examining and unpacking complex policy issues.
2) He's a solid writer (a bit long-winded), but not quite at Kevin's level.
3) Kevin's amazing. Of my regular reads, he writes with more clarity than any of them save Paul Krugman.
I saw you getting thumped for similar comments over at the Post. I'm not at all surprised most people disagreed with you on that one. For that matter, I'm going to remember your high opinion of the idiot in our future interactions.
"the idiot"
I prefer to call him Matty Useless. He's just a privileged white male who's never had to struggle for anything in life or work a real job. And thinks he knows everything without doing any in-depth study. The sooner people like him disappear from the planet, the better.
I keep trying to like M. Yglesias but what I find is that he never says in 200 words what he can say in 3000. Not sure how that relates to his success.
Yglesias has been boring for years. It clearly works out for him, so that's fine, I guess. But I can't remember the last thing I read from him.
As a few others here have pointed out: Yglesias is dull.
It's nothing personal.
He's obviously smart. And he's a competent writer.
But I've rarely felt interested to actually finish any of his substack articles after starting them.
Those articles are just too long. They seemingly take forever to actually make a point. And if, halfway through an excessively long article, I still can't even discern if there really is a point, I tend to lose interest.
And yet that approach seems to work out well for him. Whatever. If people get something out of his work, that's great.
But I'm fairly certain that a competent editor would reduce an average Yglesias substack article by half (at the very least) and that those articles would benefit greatly as a result.
Lurker here. Kevin, I loved this post and I am extremely fond of you. Honestly, you crack me up all the time. "It's reasonably clear, personal, and easy to read, which is enough for anyone who happens to enjoy reading about my particular hobby horses (i.e., charts, lead, inflation, amateur research, Republicans, other people being wrong on the internet, etc.)." I only get 2 of your hobby horses (Republicans and other people being wrong on the internet) but I read every word and think that I am better for it. Best wishes from Virginia.
Oh yeah, Matt Y is still around. He was one of my original regular reads along with some guy called Calpundit.
But I've been boycotting Matt Y for years, ever since he doxxed (or rather, excused the doxxing of) someone I can't remember.
same advice my Beginning Fiction Writing prof gave me 40 years ago.
"And that's about it. Accuracy is great. Wittiness is great. Good spelling is great. But in this business it's really all about enjoying the act of writing constantly and quickly."
Then it seems that ChatGPT should be a star in the blogosphere. It seems to be almost there already. It might not enjoy it, but no human can top it in speed and regularity. It just needs someone to put it to this particular use....
If you've never read Isaac Asimov's autobiography, I highly recommend it. It is two thick volumes, but the writing is terrific and the story of his life is interesting throughout.
In it he mentions that everything he ever submitted for publication was a first draft. Considering the enormous volume of lucid prose that he produced, I find that astonishing. He wrote much more than science fiction, everything from chemistry and physics to commentary and annotations of both old and new Testaments. He had a monthly non-fiction column in one of the science fiction magazines that was a string of one gem after another.
Definitely someone who liked putting his fingers on the keyboard -- and no delete key.