FIRST | PREV | Page 2 / 18 | NEXT | LAST

Go To Page:  GO

We are scrambling to finish the next HH show. A little heads-up for those who read the blog: it is going to be a Blitz Edition of the show.

That wasn't originally the plan. I spent quite a long time researching a topic (although, admittedly, one that I knew well already...turns out there was a reason for that...) before discovering that it was way too similar to the stuff we did in our earlier podcast "Shield of the West". Luckily for us (although the audience will be the ultimate judge of this) we had a good "twist" running through that show...good enough, we thought, to make a good Blitz show.

I can't tell you what it is about...I will just say that much of it revolves around the idea summed up in the line from Thucydides (although, who really said it is hotly debated) "History is Philosophy taught by example".

Let's hope it turns out to be a good show.

I am finding it harder and harder to do both podcasts that we currently put out. The problem isn't really a question of production and productivity, but the very nature of doing a show about politics. No matter what you do some people are going to get upset about it (and likely think the host is some sort of moron/monster/Nazi/Libertarian/Communist/Gay/homophobe/radical/Code Pink/PETA/Militia Member/ Glenn Beck-Keith Olbermann wannabe).

Now I wouldn't mind this normally (after all, it comes with the territory if you are going to put out a show about politics, right?) but it is not only making some of our history audience mad at me, but it has me second guessing content for the Common Sense show.

I am finding myself listening to a show before we release it thinking; "How will the history listeners react to this?" which has a way of unconsciously affecting what we do in a direction that is less edgy and more "vanilla". But doing that probably wouldn't fix the problem of angry HH listeners, and would lose us the people who like the fact that CS deals with the important issues in a unique way.

Finally I said to "Ben" today that I just can't sit there and double-analyze everything we do to make sure we aren't going to come off in a way that doesn't really represent what we are (seen any of the podcast reviews comparing me to Glenn Beck all of a sudden? Yeah, sure, THAT's really what I need...).

We are just going to do what we do, since I think the product ends up more to our liking when we do, and we will let the chips fall where they may. My head will explode if I keep worrying about the reaction of our non-political audience to our political show. I hope we don't lose too many listeners (or potential opportunities), but I find that fretting about that isn't good for creativity. And I figure that if the creativity goes, we pretty much are doomed anyway.

The Jesse Ventura interview went great, didn't it? Haha. Well, obviously I am kidding. I don't know why my antennae didn't do a better job of making me see that this was a bad idea, especially after the interview was completed. It just isn't what we want to be doing on the podcast, and I wish now that we had scrapped it.

Well, we will try to learn and improve from the experience. As I said on one of our discussion threads, guests on our shows have really been a disappointment. With the exception of James Burke, MOST of our guests have been negatively received. We sure can pick 'em, huh? I always think I am giving you all a break from the monotony of my voice, and many of you seem to dislike it when I do (you are all a bunch of masochists obviously).

So, maybe we will stop for a while. Guests are difficult to set up anyway and they are always a crap shoot in terms of whether they will be interesting (or in the case of our most recent guest, credible). In addition, having people think I am endorsing whatever our guests are pushing makes it even harder to pick people to come on the show (they need to have a point of view that I endorse??? That's going to be, as one of your number said, a SMALL pool of prospective interviewees!).

So, for a while it's going to be just going to be me on the show. And if and when that gets on your nerves, just remember, you asked for it!

Ah...the dangers of examining race in a historical podcast.

I knew the latest Hardcore History (“Globalization Unto Death”) would ruffle some feathers. We did a number of “takes” trying to get the balance between all the various elements just right, and whether or not we succeeded is a debatable point it seems.

I remember asking myself several times: “Why even go there with the race stuff? Why enter that minefield if you don't have to?” The last time we really did anything like this was the “Apache Tears” episode, which made a lot of people mad at the time, but now is sort of an underdog cult favorite of a number of you.

In the end, as I wondered if we weren't just liable to anger a bunch of our listeners with our approach, I figured that we call the show “Hardcore History”, and we can do stuff that academics can't (like use a phrase like “white people”). Eventually I hope that we can be stimulating and provocative by exploring the stuff that is a bit edgy and controversial. Of course, you could always watch Monster Quest on the History channel instead (haha...but you get my point).

We have an ongoing discussion about this topic going on on the board right now. It is in the Hardcore History section of the board (here: http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20641 )

Feel free to join in and let us know your thoughts.

And yes...work has already begun on HH episode #33. No surprise I am sure, but I am already behind schedule.

FIRST | PREV | Page 2 / 18 | NEXT | LAST

Go To Page:  GO