Thanks very much to everyone who has contributed ideas here, both about my performance and about who (if anyone) I should talk to in future. I'm sorry I can't reply to each interesting suggestion or comment, but I much apprecviate the time you have put into them, and there's much great food for thought here.
Just as an aside - being a guest on podcasts does work to raise your profile.
In the pub at the weekend, a friend mentioned that he'd heard you on a podcast when he'd had no knowledge of you before. He didn't agree with a lot of the things you'd said......so that led to quite a lively discussion.
Agree with this comment. Please do not overthink your delivery too much. Your message is beautiful, genuine and complicated and I think it would be hard to aim for perfect talk without losing some authenticity. I did not find the UnHerd podcast lacking in any way. Thanks for your work!
I second what Mark B says about watching the interviews, as we all pick up a lot from facial expressions and body language.
I would also suggest that if Paul does include video with his podcasts, to use a top notch transcription (cc) feature.
Finally, two suggestions for interviewees:
1. Lex Fridman, who wants to create the best AI robot. I would love to see if Paul could tease out his views on the negatives of AI, such as the invasion of privacy and, on a spiritual sphere, what he thinks about man’s quest to be godlike with AI.
2. Fr. John Zulsdorf, who has written the widely adapted prayer for internet users. Fr. Z appreciates the dangers and the pull of the demonic.
Took me a while to warm up to Lex, to understand his approach, but he is deceptively brilliant. Watching him spend 5 hours on the most brain-bendingly abstract talk with Stephen Wolfram blew my mind. Lex might be tough because he's very much an interviewer rather than a subject. Paul should definitely be on his show if nothing else.
Please publish these essays in a book! I think it would be a great way to spread your ideas and give them some posterity. Also, I would love for your podcast to interview both secular and religious people (especially Orthodox).
Once you stop writing essays here, it will be hard to convince people to buy a subscription so they can read from an archive. A book would solve that in my opinion.
The best interviews are with people *you* find interesting, I think. I could give you a list of people I like a lot but if you’re not into them already the interview wouldn’t get too far - I’d do a better job interviewing, since I’m the one that likes em! So follow your interests, talk to your people - even if it’s someone who isn’t famous at all and hasn’t ever done a podcast, if you like their work and ask them engaged questions about it, the end result will be far more appealing to us all than you trying to engage with someone we like that you don’t… just my two cents!
I have been a reader of your work for many years and have thoroughly enjoyed your essays here at "The Abbey." You are a profound and necessary voice in these troubling and obscure times. Unlike so many commentators that seem to grasp hopelessly for an explanation to what plagues the West, you are among those that are most on point. As such, I rarely miss an interview, missive, or comment that you offer.
When I read this post seeking input regarding your interview at Unherd, I was struck by it. I, too, felt something was missing. Normally I do not comment/answer (it is not my style), but the omission in the interview struck me so pointedly that when you asked if your listeners sensed it as well I felt I had to respond.
The omission is this: when you talk about the supernatural force(s) that seem(s) to be emerging through the Machine, notably AI, I think you are at your best. Obviously, this point is probably one of the easiest with which to criticize you because any strident rational materialist knows that use of words like "supernatural," "enchantment," inter alia or reference to the "powers and principalities" beyond is good cause for ignoring, shaming, or otherwise canceling the speaker. Nonetheless, this needs to be discussed and pressed because I think you are right. You did not hit this point in your Unherd interview despite opportunities to make it. I would encourage you to do so when the next invitation presents itself. I for one welcome it and I suspect many others do as well. Otherwise great interview and keep up the effort, you are a voice calling out in the wilderness.
Well spotted. It was a broadly secular (I think) London audience, and Unherd has something of a political/wordly focus. I wasn't sure how much of that I could talk about, or quite how. I'm still feeling my way into it. These things probably have to be explored in a supportive environment, or at least in a place where you don't sound completely mad to the listener! But maybe that's over-cautious. As I say, I'm still working out how to talk about this. Thanks for the tips.
Paul - I absolutely LOVE listening to your conversations and always await with excitement another YouTube or podcast. You are extremely articulate and organized in presenting your thoughts, so not certain I can actually offer much in the way of useful criticism, but I will re-listen to the Unherd discussion again with a more critical focus to see if I can find anything to offer. I’ve spent the past several months trying read back through your writing and search out & listen to your talks and I always find some fresh new insight in your perspectives. I found the talk on ‘What is left to conserve?’ particularly well laid out and want to share it with so many people. Please DO keep talking!!! 👏😁 As for who you should talk to - hmm. As a committed Roman Catholic I’d love to hear a conversation with Bishop Robert Barron on philosophical topics that have led towards the current materialist scientism - and how to bring the church back in touch with its mysticism and foster more crossing of the East West divide to deepen connection on common ground. I’d also love to see you talk with folks across various economic & political stances - both pro & con re Capitalism, Socialism, ‘third way’ approaches like Distributism. So folks like Charles Eisenstein or folks associated with EF Schumacher Center. A discussion with Wendall Berry would be awesome. Maybe a Russell Brand discussion would be interesting. A discussion with Rod Dreher would be cool! Anyway - keep up the fantastic work. 👏👏👏
Charles, I agree with what you've said. I would welcome a conversation between Paul and those you've listed, with one caveat: they are all, aside from Wendall Berry, high profile, extremely online people. I'd be interested in talks with someone other than "the usual suspects." Roman Catholics - how about Cardinal Sarah? I bet he'd do it. Or a monk or nun who converted later in life and then went on to become a monk. I know one such monk who is fascinating...he has multiple degrees and is now the guest master at his Abbey in NM. and artists, I'd love to hear more from artists and writers...
I totally agree with your caveat (as others have also commented). Unfortunately I just don’t have the awareness of other less visible or non high profile people similarly to the ones I posted. Actually - one advantage of having at least some of ‘the ususl suspects’ is their ability to draw. But then mixing in other lower profile voices may help raise their profile & visibility to to those who came due to the higher profile. In any case, I’d also love to see some conversations with those in the environmental (non-technocratic types), voluntary simplicity & permaculture worlds also.
The podcasting idea is a good one, although it puts you in the position of being the host rather than the speaker. People will still want to hear your perspectives—perhaps by engaging more directly with your guests, or through post-interview commentary/articles.
On Q1, I similarly felt like the interview was a little off and I thought it was because Freddy seemed to want to go in directions that were other than where you wanted. That's a general impression I had at the time and I have not gone back and watched it again. It seemed like you two were subtly in different spaces, almost like he never read your work or something, or misunderstood your overall views (not in a negative way, just lacking a connection).
What I think worked spectacularly was the talk you gave a few weeks ago where it was just you talking. The one where you were at an UnHerd event and were relating your walk to the event and your foray into the church. You came across as someone who had a clear message to put forward and it worked very well without an 'interviewer'. To me, your talk showed that you had thought about your subject for a long time (and written about it) and the casual way you related it was terrific. The ending was terrific, I thought. You were in control of your subject matter and how to deliver it.
Skip the interviewers, I think, even though Freddy generally is a good one. You don't need them. You're best in front of an audience, especially in a smaller, intimate setting, saying what you think and feel.
I sincerely hope your hosting a podcast doesn't mean you'll be doing less writing. As podcasts have come increasingly into vogue, the podcast space has become very crowded and it would be ever so easy to become just one more voice lost in the general clamour.
Of course, it's true that the "online writing" space is also very crowded. For me, though, thoughtful writing lends itself to serious engagement much more readily than podcast interviews. Plus I find it a lot easier to make time to read what I consider important than I do to listen to podcasts.
I'd echo this. Hard to find time for all the interesting podcasts out there already.. but I always find time to read Paul's substack, even if in small chunks between family life and work. It has been company and guidance along strange roads the past 3 years..
Don't worry, I'm not about to become a broadcaster. Writing is what I do. If I do something like this, it will be an adjunct to the words on the page. I may not even be any good at it.
I’m not sure if this (anti-)recommendation makes me a cooked or a raw barbarian: maybe you should forego hosting a podcast in favor of epistolary-style symposia, perhaps collected in digital and print formats?
It’s not that these conversations aren't lively, lovely, and insightful. It’s more that the depth, range, and scale of your re-enchantment project could need something more formal and foundational than digital conversations (however long and high-sustenance).
I watched the UnHerd show after having read all your essays at the Abbey, and was pleased to find that it still felt like I was hearing some new things from you. That said, I understand your doubts: your writing has a personality to it (personality in the sense of flavour, but also in the sense of a unique and irreplaceable window on the world) which I only noticed having read all your work here, and it's not quite conveyed in your interviews or in the essays which end up as standalone pieces in UnHerd. Whether it's possible to boil down such a personality into something which would come across in a one-hour talk, well, I'm not sure. Mary Harrington excels at distilling her main points into a format that can be repeated across many podcast appearances, so perhaps she's figured something out. In any case, what you do wind up saying in any given appearance is still more than worth it, and I think it's enough to pique the curiosity of those likely to benefit from your work.
If you feel inclined, I've had a question for you on my mind for some time now. How did becoming a Christian affect how you think about the nature of time? You've talked quite a bit about the Apocalypse, but I haven't got a real sense of how you understand ideas like Judgement Day or the actual possible end of the physical world (or not). Even without being a believer, it seems quite clear to me that the modern myth of progress is a perversion of the Christian salvation story; I'm not sure if the Orthodox church has a different understanding of these questions than the Western churches, perhaps one less amenable to this kind of perversion. (Though the grandest twisting of the salvation story arguably found its home, for a while, in the Soviet Union and its satellites.)
Hey Paul! I watched all three of those conversations! I’ve been laid up with pneumonia so I had an unusually inordinate amount of time on my hands. I especially loved your conversation on Unherd. It was exactly what a conversation should be; relaxed, real, disconcerting, loosey-goosey and honest. I watched McGilchrist on Unherd recently too and heard him express little things that I hadn’t heard publicly before. (I think it was the Scotch:) but I loved it. You can’t compare a conversation with an essay and it shouldn’t be the same thing. I do a lot of conversations and I do them mostly because it gives me the opportunity to articulate my ideas better. I’m a writer(at heart) and am much better at expressing myself with words on a page, but I felt like I owed it to others to learn to communicate those ideas in a conversational form. Like you, I don’t seek any notoriety and like to stay away from the limelight, but these conversations that I have had have really enriched my life. The podcast idea sounds like a great arena in which to do this. Like anything it gets easier as you go along. What got me interested in This Little Corner of the internet was a Calvinist pastor named Paul Vanderklay. He started musing out loud about Jordan Peterson (at first) and then just continued musing. What was really interesting about his channel was that a community started forming in the YouTube comments. People started talking to each other and setting up their own conversations to explore things that interested them. Then Paul Vanderklay began featuring some these “Randos” in conversation with him. Mostly they told their stories. This part of his channel became the highlight. And the community has continued to grow into real life get togethers and so on. I could go on and on here about all the good things. If you ever want to talk about it more I’m more than happy to lend an ear. I wish you all the best in the upcoming endeavours! Just promise me one thing.......you won’t stop writing. God bless.
I had briefly thought of mentioning Paul Vander Klay in my own comment but didn't follow through, so glad to see it here! I'm wondering if you're the same Shari (unique spelling) who just did the video with Jess on the Chino conversation between Pageau and Vervaeke, in relation to the Book of Job? That was one of the most interesting things I've ever seen/heard, and I'm planning to watch it again. I hardly ever watch anything twice.
Coming to Wisconsin; into the belly of the beast. Madison, still home to many classical liberals I would like to believe, is certainly a bastion of the newer leftwing politics that tend to support many aspects of the machine. Being a mere 40 minutes away, I will not miss this opportunity to see one of the great thinkers of our time. Can't wait.
Thanks very much to everyone who has contributed ideas here, both about my performance and about who (if anyone) I should talk to in future. I'm sorry I can't reply to each interesting suggestion or comment, but I much apprecviate the time you have put into them, and there's much great food for thought here.
Just as an aside - being a guest on podcasts does work to raise your profile.
In the pub at the weekend, a friend mentioned that he'd heard you on a podcast when he'd had no knowledge of you before. He didn't agree with a lot of the things you'd said......so that led to quite a lively discussion.
If you do a podcast, a poet/priest who I think you could have a very interesting conversation with is Malcolm Guite.
Don't worry, I won't be a doing a Jordan Peterson ;-) If I do this, it'll just be me chatting away, only hopefully in a coherent and useful fashion.
wait, I thought you were dead.
Was about to say the same but you got there first v
Monsieur, you are spot on! A somewhat online person who'd be good is Brian Kaller.
Agree with this comment. Please do not overthink your delivery too much. Your message is beautiful, genuine and complicated and I think it would be hard to aim for perfect talk without losing some authenticity. I did not find the UnHerd podcast lacking in any way. Thanks for your work!
I second what Mark B says about watching the interviews, as we all pick up a lot from facial expressions and body language.
I would also suggest that if Paul does include video with his podcasts, to use a top notch transcription (cc) feature.
Finally, two suggestions for interviewees:
1. Lex Fridman, who wants to create the best AI robot. I would love to see if Paul could tease out his views on the negatives of AI, such as the invasion of privacy and, on a spiritual sphere, what he thinks about man’s quest to be godlike with AI.
2. Fr. John Zulsdorf, who has written the widely adapted prayer for internet users. Fr. Z appreciates the dangers and the pull of the demonic.
I'd love to see Paul with Lex. The guy is adorable in his quirkiness. And he's turned into a really wonderful conversationalist.
Took me a while to warm up to Lex, to understand his approach, but he is deceptively brilliant. Watching him spend 5 hours on the most brain-bendingly abstract talk with Stephen Wolfram blew my mind. Lex might be tough because he's very much an interviewer rather than a subject. Paul should definitely be on his show if nothing else.
Two thumbs up to the idea of Paul talking with Lex!
Please publish these essays in a book! I think it would be a great way to spread your ideas and give them some posterity. Also, I would love for your podcast to interview both secular and religious people (especially Orthodox).
Once you stop writing essays here, it will be hard to convince people to buy a subscription so they can read from an archive. A book would solve that in my opinion.
I agree. I would absolutely love acollection of essays in book format!
I was just thinking the same thing the other day! Yes!!!
It's on the cards!
The best interviews are with people *you* find interesting, I think. I could give you a list of people I like a lot but if you’re not into them already the interview wouldn’t get too far - I’d do a better job interviewing, since I’m the one that likes em! So follow your interests, talk to your people - even if it’s someone who isn’t famous at all and hasn’t ever done a podcast, if you like their work and ask them engaged questions about it, the end result will be far more appealing to us all than you trying to engage with someone we like that you don’t… just my two cents!
Dear Paul,
I have been a reader of your work for many years and have thoroughly enjoyed your essays here at "The Abbey." You are a profound and necessary voice in these troubling and obscure times. Unlike so many commentators that seem to grasp hopelessly for an explanation to what plagues the West, you are among those that are most on point. As such, I rarely miss an interview, missive, or comment that you offer.
When I read this post seeking input regarding your interview at Unherd, I was struck by it. I, too, felt something was missing. Normally I do not comment/answer (it is not my style), but the omission in the interview struck me so pointedly that when you asked if your listeners sensed it as well I felt I had to respond.
The omission is this: when you talk about the supernatural force(s) that seem(s) to be emerging through the Machine, notably AI, I think you are at your best. Obviously, this point is probably one of the easiest with which to criticize you because any strident rational materialist knows that use of words like "supernatural," "enchantment," inter alia or reference to the "powers and principalities" beyond is good cause for ignoring, shaming, or otherwise canceling the speaker. Nonetheless, this needs to be discussed and pressed because I think you are right. You did not hit this point in your Unherd interview despite opportunities to make it. I would encourage you to do so when the next invitation presents itself. I for one welcome it and I suspect many others do as well. Otherwise great interview and keep up the effort, you are a voice calling out in the wilderness.
Well spotted. It was a broadly secular (I think) London audience, and Unherd has something of a political/wordly focus. I wasn't sure how much of that I could talk about, or quite how. I'm still feeling my way into it. These things probably have to be explored in a supportive environment, or at least in a place where you don't sound completely mad to the listener! But maybe that's over-cautious. As I say, I'm still working out how to talk about this. Thanks for the tips.
Paul - I absolutely LOVE listening to your conversations and always await with excitement another YouTube or podcast. You are extremely articulate and organized in presenting your thoughts, so not certain I can actually offer much in the way of useful criticism, but I will re-listen to the Unherd discussion again with a more critical focus to see if I can find anything to offer. I’ve spent the past several months trying read back through your writing and search out & listen to your talks and I always find some fresh new insight in your perspectives. I found the talk on ‘What is left to conserve?’ particularly well laid out and want to share it with so many people. Please DO keep talking!!! 👏😁 As for who you should talk to - hmm. As a committed Roman Catholic I’d love to hear a conversation with Bishop Robert Barron on philosophical topics that have led towards the current materialist scientism - and how to bring the church back in touch with its mysticism and foster more crossing of the East West divide to deepen connection on common ground. I’d also love to see you talk with folks across various economic & political stances - both pro & con re Capitalism, Socialism, ‘third way’ approaches like Distributism. So folks like Charles Eisenstein or folks associated with EF Schumacher Center. A discussion with Wendall Berry would be awesome. Maybe a Russell Brand discussion would be interesting. A discussion with Rod Dreher would be cool! Anyway - keep up the fantastic work. 👏👏👏
Charles, I agree with what you've said. I would welcome a conversation between Paul and those you've listed, with one caveat: they are all, aside from Wendall Berry, high profile, extremely online people. I'd be interested in talks with someone other than "the usual suspects." Roman Catholics - how about Cardinal Sarah? I bet he'd do it. Or a monk or nun who converted later in life and then went on to become a monk. I know one such monk who is fascinating...he has multiple degrees and is now the guest master at his Abbey in NM. and artists, I'd love to hear more from artists and writers...
I totally agree with your caveat (as others have also commented). Unfortunately I just don’t have the awareness of other less visible or non high profile people similarly to the ones I posted. Actually - one advantage of having at least some of ‘the ususl suspects’ is their ability to draw. But then mixing in other lower profile voices may help raise their profile & visibility to to those who came due to the higher profile. In any case, I’d also love to see some conversations with those in the environmental (non-technocratic types), voluntary simplicity & permaculture worlds also.
The podcasting idea is a good one, although it puts you in the position of being the host rather than the speaker. People will still want to hear your perspectives—perhaps by engaging more directly with your guests, or through post-interview commentary/articles.
Yes, if I were to do it I would want it to be a conversation rather than an interview. But it would be a big experiment!
On Q1, I similarly felt like the interview was a little off and I thought it was because Freddy seemed to want to go in directions that were other than where you wanted. That's a general impression I had at the time and I have not gone back and watched it again. It seemed like you two were subtly in different spaces, almost like he never read your work or something, or misunderstood your overall views (not in a negative way, just lacking a connection).
What I think worked spectacularly was the talk you gave a few weeks ago where it was just you talking. The one where you were at an UnHerd event and were relating your walk to the event and your foray into the church. You came across as someone who had a clear message to put forward and it worked very well without an 'interviewer'. To me, your talk showed that you had thought about your subject for a long time (and written about it) and the casual way you related it was terrific. The ending was terrific, I thought. You were in control of your subject matter and how to deliver it.
Skip the interviewers, I think, even though Freddy generally is a good one. You don't need them. You're best in front of an audience, especially in a smaller, intimate setting, saying what you think and feel.
I agree, Paul doesn't need an interviewer. He does a great job of presenting his own comments in what he sees as the best direction.
I sincerely hope your hosting a podcast doesn't mean you'll be doing less writing. As podcasts have come increasingly into vogue, the podcast space has become very crowded and it would be ever so easy to become just one more voice lost in the general clamour.
Of course, it's true that the "online writing" space is also very crowded. For me, though, thoughtful writing lends itself to serious engagement much more readily than podcast interviews. Plus I find it a lot easier to make time to read what I consider important than I do to listen to podcasts.
I'd echo this. Hard to find time for all the interesting podcasts out there already.. but I always find time to read Paul's substack, even if in small chunks between family life and work. It has been company and guidance along strange roads the past 3 years..
Agree!
Don't worry, I'm not about to become a broadcaster. Writing is what I do. If I do something like this, it will be an adjunct to the words on the page. I may not even be any good at it.
That’s reassuring 🙂
I’m not sure if this (anti-)recommendation makes me a cooked or a raw barbarian: maybe you should forego hosting a podcast in favor of epistolary-style symposia, perhaps collected in digital and print formats?
It’s not that these conversations aren't lively, lovely, and insightful. It’s more that the depth, range, and scale of your re-enchantment project could need something more formal and foundational than digital conversations (however long and high-sustenance).
Dear Paul,
I watched the UnHerd show after having read all your essays at the Abbey, and was pleased to find that it still felt like I was hearing some new things from you. That said, I understand your doubts: your writing has a personality to it (personality in the sense of flavour, but also in the sense of a unique and irreplaceable window on the world) which I only noticed having read all your work here, and it's not quite conveyed in your interviews or in the essays which end up as standalone pieces in UnHerd. Whether it's possible to boil down such a personality into something which would come across in a one-hour talk, well, I'm not sure. Mary Harrington excels at distilling her main points into a format that can be repeated across many podcast appearances, so perhaps she's figured something out. In any case, what you do wind up saying in any given appearance is still more than worth it, and I think it's enough to pique the curiosity of those likely to benefit from your work.
If you feel inclined, I've had a question for you on my mind for some time now. How did becoming a Christian affect how you think about the nature of time? You've talked quite a bit about the Apocalypse, but I haven't got a real sense of how you understand ideas like Judgement Day or the actual possible end of the physical world (or not). Even without being a believer, it seems quite clear to me that the modern myth of progress is a perversion of the Christian salvation story; I'm not sure if the Orthodox church has a different understanding of these questions than the Western churches, perhaps one less amenable to this kind of perversion. (Though the grandest twisting of the salvation story arguably found its home, for a while, in the Soviet Union and its satellites.)
Hey Paul! I watched all three of those conversations! I’ve been laid up with pneumonia so I had an unusually inordinate amount of time on my hands. I especially loved your conversation on Unherd. It was exactly what a conversation should be; relaxed, real, disconcerting, loosey-goosey and honest. I watched McGilchrist on Unherd recently too and heard him express little things that I hadn’t heard publicly before. (I think it was the Scotch:) but I loved it. You can’t compare a conversation with an essay and it shouldn’t be the same thing. I do a lot of conversations and I do them mostly because it gives me the opportunity to articulate my ideas better. I’m a writer(at heart) and am much better at expressing myself with words on a page, but I felt like I owed it to others to learn to communicate those ideas in a conversational form. Like you, I don’t seek any notoriety and like to stay away from the limelight, but these conversations that I have had have really enriched my life. The podcast idea sounds like a great arena in which to do this. Like anything it gets easier as you go along. What got me interested in This Little Corner of the internet was a Calvinist pastor named Paul Vanderklay. He started musing out loud about Jordan Peterson (at first) and then just continued musing. What was really interesting about his channel was that a community started forming in the YouTube comments. People started talking to each other and setting up their own conversations to explore things that interested them. Then Paul Vanderklay began featuring some these “Randos” in conversation with him. Mostly they told their stories. This part of his channel became the highlight. And the community has continued to grow into real life get togethers and so on. I could go on and on here about all the good things. If you ever want to talk about it more I’m more than happy to lend an ear. I wish you all the best in the upcoming endeavours! Just promise me one thing.......you won’t stop writing. God bless.
I had briefly thought of mentioning Paul Vander Klay in my own comment but didn't follow through, so glad to see it here! I'm wondering if you're the same Shari (unique spelling) who just did the video with Jess on the Chino conversation between Pageau and Vervaeke, in relation to the Book of Job? That was one of the most interesting things I've ever seen/heard, and I'm planning to watch it again. I hardly ever watch anything twice.
Yes Dawn that’s me! I’m so glad you enjoyed it! Let me know if you have any burning questions.
Coming to Wisconsin; into the belly of the beast. Madison, still home to many classical liberals I would like to believe, is certainly a bastion of the newer leftwing politics that tend to support many aspects of the machine. Being a mere 40 minutes away, I will not miss this opportunity to see one of the great thinkers of our time. Can't wait.
Growing up in Minnesota, we called it the People's Republic of Madison. I'm going to be back up in those parts in October. Hoping to attend, as well!