Firstly, thank you for your feedback.
Secondly, while this column remains the only non-monetized thing in the digital nomad world (there is no entry fee, no “per view” fee, no ad revenue, no affiliates here, absolutely nothing of that sort) it will remain mine to decide the direction of things.
If you believe the world would be better with an interview with Steve, YOU are free to write that interview. I don’t think there’s a thing that Steve could say that would make existing (not living, existing) on $300 a month in Chiang Mai less pathetic. But you are welcome to go and prove me wrong. The same goes for anything else that you would like to generate including say in depth research into a specific area.
You see, not only do I see no real value in either activity, both of those activities would cost more time and money than I have to dedicate to this. If YOU would like to invest YOUR time and money in creating this kind of work, you are always free to do so. You are then free to engage with an audience on any basis that you like too.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they are entitled to demand of others things they would never pull their fingers out to deliver themselves. Do you write to musicians and demand they sing about topics that you feel are relevant to your life? To painters to demand that their withering critiques of society are modified to fit your vision?
I doubt it. It’s only writers that get this kind of “laundry list” from readers and usually only when somebody feels that a friend has been slighted or a sacred cow violated.
You have confused the relationship between writer and reader. I write. You are free to read or not to read. You are free to disagree with me (and indeed to argue your point — I chose Medium, in part, because of its lack of censorship on commentary) or to agree with me. What you are not entitled to do is to decide what I should be doing with my time.
The $300 a month stereotype in Chiang Mai is so prevalent that there is a constant stream of blog pieces and videos on it. This needs no more than cursory investigation — because people document these experiences endlessly. They open a window into their pathetic lives and invite us to climb in to observe.
Given that no guru advertises a list of victims that they’ve sold their garbage to — determining a useful “percentage failure rate” would be next to impossible. However, these people (who have failed) do exist and they do exist in growing numbers — real life conversations with real life people and even the occasional blog and video, enable this understanding. They’re not being invented (there’s a link to a failed couple in the piece).
This means that there is more than enough evidence to offer an opinion on. I’m a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek writer offering a counter-cultural voice, I am not writing a thesis on digital failures in Chiang Mai. There is an excess of sufficient evidence for me to do what I do, if you would like more evidence — it is up to YOU to get that evidence.
Again, thanks for taking the time to leave your feedback — I am sure that (just like the original piece) this still isn’t what you wanted to hear.