Indie Auto functions as an informal debating club about American automotive history. Thus, my writing gets a fair amount of criticism in comments as well as private messages. I’m good with this because debate is essential for advancing automotive history.
That said, Indie Auto has thus far not generated enough revenue to provide compensation for my work, so it can be motivating to know when readers find it useful. Recently GS sent the following message:
“Stumbled on your site. Great coverage of the independent automakers’ trials and travails. Surprised that those issues still are being talked about plus the takes on, for example, if Sherwood Egbert had been able to continue his plan.”
I receive ongoing complaints from people who feel that Indie Auto “runs down” their favorite car brands (go here for examples). Thus, I find it hopeful to see a self-described “die-hard fan of everything Studebaker and AMC” who doesn’t approach automotive history with what Jack Baruth (2013) has described as a “sucks-and-rocks” attitude.
A “sucks-and-rocks” reader refuses to permit a “review to have a nuanced meaning. . . . Nothing short of a full-throttle, unequivocal endorsement of their personal beliefs will satisfy” (Baruth, 2013).
As discussed further here, my overarching goal is to advance automotive history by raising questions about the ways our perceptions can be distorted by groupthink. If you value this kind of a blog, please consider making a donation here.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Baruth, Jack; 2013. “Avoidable Contact: Torture, forgiveness, meaning.” The Truth About Cars. Posted March 29.
Be the first to comment