small aside but if people keep showcasing Bari Weiss' 'The Free Press' as some sign of the promise of Substack's journalistic merits, then I think they're engaging in a massive self-own lol
i had exactly this thought lmao - surely he could have picked an example that was more universally well-regarded than that, at least just for the purposes of this argument
This is a very good post. Thank you for being so civil. And this actually helps to clarify a lot of the points of disagreement - which just goes to show how great Substack is!
I may respond at more length, but I think those are both very smart points about the differences of influencer/institutional modes and describing Substack as largely 'parasocial' performance - which is a nice way to put it. I do know, for instance, that a short story or a substantive essay I post on Substack is going to do less well than a piece in which I pick a fight with Becca Rothfeld - and that is a kind of unfortunate feature of online discourse. Certain kinds of institutions, like universities and newspapers, have standards that compel them to put out work even if that work isn't going to be popular - and you're right that that's a valuable endeavor. And sorry if I overreacted to jokes in your original piece.
So I guess the point of disagreement is basically just optimism/pessimism about this platform. And I really am very optimistic. I do think that institutions like your employer have real structural problems that are essentially unfixable - and there's a bit of a tendency as legacy institutions struggle to accommodate to the digital era to sort of blame digital space for their woes. (To some extent, at least tonally, your piece participated in that mode of thought.) And then I just think that Substack - or the blogosphere in general - represents a thrilling new thing in the world. There just never, ever, has been the possibility for so many people to express themselves without constraint - and I can't think of any reason why that shouldn't be celebrated. The fact that so much content on social media isn't very good - and that goes for this platform as well - is, I would tend to think, more a matter of failure of imagination that an inherent limitation of the form. If we believe that a form like this is only good for snarky tweet-type posts, then that's what it will be. If we try to bring our best work here, though, than I think we may be pleasantly surprised by the results - and that's been my experience here so far fwiw.
To me, it's like Twitter with more complete thoughts. I don't expect much research to go into what I see posted here. I do expect a strong voice/personality to come through.
As someone who straddles both traditional gatekeepers (column in the Chicago Tribune for almost 13 years) and is into my 4th year on Substack, I just see them as two different mediums with benefits and detriments each. With the Tribune column I have an audience that has almost nothing to do with me. Sure, some people say they look forward to my column every week, but I am not the reason they subscribe to the paper. At Substack, particularly because I use a patronage model with nothing behind a paywall, all readers are essentially here for me, specifically. That's nice. It also can be a drag because I have no backup, no editorial support, and to grow requires an entrepreneurial mindset that I have interest in exercising.
And sadly, the legacy media I publish with has been seriously degraded by the private equity firm that owns the paper. It also doesn't pay all that much. I make more with my small Substack audience than I do writing weekly for a major newspaper as a freelancer. I would love to have my writing bundled under a masthead where get paid a reasonable/sustainable wage, but those gigs are hard to come by with very few additional ones coming online.
So I peddle my wares here. The wares are different than what comes out when I write a book or an edited piece. It's looser, more blog-ish, just shootin' the shit type stuff. I enjoy doing that, so the medium is a good fit, butI don't mistake my Substack for my other writing. They definitely can coexist, but I'm also skeptical that Substack is some kind of revolution. The vast majority of the people here are writers themselves in one way or another - they may primarily write in online comments, but that's still writing - and because of that it feels more like a clubhouse than a public arena. At least that's my experience.
Missed word correction: I have "no" interest in exercising an entrepreneurial mindset. One of the reasons I gravitated towards writing is because I wanted to be left alone with my thoughts and then, once those thoughts are shared, to let other people alone. I don't want to be a business. I just want to work. Substack appears to be a vehicle that allows me to keep working - it'll be helpful for book promotion too - but I would give it all up for a staff job under a publication masthead with an editor, deadlines, and all that jazz.
Well-done, we’ll-written journalism is great on Substack, as are one’s favorite critics (book-lovers, etc.) Substack is a another platform for delivery of context of all kinds and ways. I don’t think it is an either/or but I’m with you on the merits of the journalist approach/expected ethics. You need to know who you’re reading. Most of all, as usual, thanks for getting people to think, openly.
If it were 1968 and there were substack, the anti-war movement would probably be on substack and the pro-war Pentagon point of view would be in the legacy media. Don't you think? And same for issues like gay rights -- the New York Times would treat the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness seriously, while the idea that being gay is totally fine and healthy would be relegated to a minority view, and it would be on substack. In the actual 60s the views that we find ahead of the times were in little zines. Is there any reason to think there aren't areas that are like that today? Where the legacy are blinded by institutional group think and the truth is to be found on substack?
i’m sure there are some things that people on substack are right about that the mainstream media is, in general, wrong about. (although i many types of publications, including small literary magazines that aren’t part of legacy media, still qualify as satisfying the institutional model, on my view.)
I like Substack because it's fast and efficient without popups that slow my PC/mobile device. Beyond that, there could be countless other platforms that deliver similar works. 100% on the quality hierarchy- though I don't really compete for artistic work- I view quality relative to improving two opposites: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem
small aside but if people keep showcasing Bari Weiss' 'The Free Press' as some sign of the promise of Substack's journalistic merits, then I think they're engaging in a massive self-own lol
i had exactly this thought lmao - surely he could have picked an example that was more universally well-regarded than that, at least just for the purposes of this argument
This is a very good post. Thank you for being so civil. And this actually helps to clarify a lot of the points of disagreement - which just goes to show how great Substack is!
I may respond at more length, but I think those are both very smart points about the differences of influencer/institutional modes and describing Substack as largely 'parasocial' performance - which is a nice way to put it. I do know, for instance, that a short story or a substantive essay I post on Substack is going to do less well than a piece in which I pick a fight with Becca Rothfeld - and that is a kind of unfortunate feature of online discourse. Certain kinds of institutions, like universities and newspapers, have standards that compel them to put out work even if that work isn't going to be popular - and you're right that that's a valuable endeavor. And sorry if I overreacted to jokes in your original piece.
So I guess the point of disagreement is basically just optimism/pessimism about this platform. And I really am very optimistic. I do think that institutions like your employer have real structural problems that are essentially unfixable - and there's a bit of a tendency as legacy institutions struggle to accommodate to the digital era to sort of blame digital space for their woes. (To some extent, at least tonally, your piece participated in that mode of thought.) And then I just think that Substack - or the blogosphere in general - represents a thrilling new thing in the world. There just never, ever, has been the possibility for so many people to express themselves without constraint - and I can't think of any reason why that shouldn't be celebrated. The fact that so much content on social media isn't very good - and that goes for this platform as well - is, I would tend to think, more a matter of failure of imagination that an inherent limitation of the form. If we believe that a form like this is only good for snarky tweet-type posts, then that's what it will be. If we try to bring our best work here, though, than I think we may be pleasantly surprised by the results - and that's been my experience here so far fwiw.
Cheers,
Sam
DMed you! <3
To me, it's like Twitter with more complete thoughts. I don't expect much research to go into what I see posted here. I do expect a strong voice/personality to come through.
As someone who straddles both traditional gatekeepers (column in the Chicago Tribune for almost 13 years) and is into my 4th year on Substack, I just see them as two different mediums with benefits and detriments each. With the Tribune column I have an audience that has almost nothing to do with me. Sure, some people say they look forward to my column every week, but I am not the reason they subscribe to the paper. At Substack, particularly because I use a patronage model with nothing behind a paywall, all readers are essentially here for me, specifically. That's nice. It also can be a drag because I have no backup, no editorial support, and to grow requires an entrepreneurial mindset that I have interest in exercising.
And sadly, the legacy media I publish with has been seriously degraded by the private equity firm that owns the paper. It also doesn't pay all that much. I make more with my small Substack audience than I do writing weekly for a major newspaper as a freelancer. I would love to have my writing bundled under a masthead where get paid a reasonable/sustainable wage, but those gigs are hard to come by with very few additional ones coming online.
So I peddle my wares here. The wares are different than what comes out when I write a book or an edited piece. It's looser, more blog-ish, just shootin' the shit type stuff. I enjoy doing that, so the medium is a good fit, butI don't mistake my Substack for my other writing. They definitely can coexist, but I'm also skeptical that Substack is some kind of revolution. The vast majority of the people here are writers themselves in one way or another - they may primarily write in online comments, but that's still writing - and because of that it feels more like a clubhouse than a public arena. At least that's my experience.
Missed word correction: I have "no" interest in exercising an entrepreneurial mindset. One of the reasons I gravitated towards writing is because I wanted to be left alone with my thoughts and then, once those thoughts are shared, to let other people alone. I don't want to be a business. I just want to work. Substack appears to be a vehicle that allows me to keep working - it'll be helpful for book promotion too - but I would give it all up for a staff job under a publication masthead with an editor, deadlines, and all that jazz.
To restate my point from yesterday:
Is the literary criticism I’m reading any good?
Mostly in established journals the answer is no.
Mostly in Substack the answer is yes.
Well-done, we’ll-written journalism is great on Substack, as are one’s favorite critics (book-lovers, etc.) Substack is a another platform for delivery of context of all kinds and ways. I don’t think it is an either/or but I’m with you on the merits of the journalist approach/expected ethics. You need to know who you’re reading. Most of all, as usual, thanks for getting people to think, openly.
If it were 1968 and there were substack, the anti-war movement would probably be on substack and the pro-war Pentagon point of view would be in the legacy media. Don't you think? And same for issues like gay rights -- the New York Times would treat the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness seriously, while the idea that being gay is totally fine and healthy would be relegated to a minority view, and it would be on substack. In the actual 60s the views that we find ahead of the times were in little zines. Is there any reason to think there aren't areas that are like that today? Where the legacy are blinded by institutional group think and the truth is to be found on substack?
i’m sure there are some things that people on substack are right about that the mainstream media is, in general, wrong about. (although i many types of publications, including small literary magazines that aren’t part of legacy media, still qualify as satisfying the institutional model, on my view.)
I like Substack because it's fast and efficient without popups that slow my PC/mobile device. Beyond that, there could be countless other platforms that deliver similar works. 100% on the quality hierarchy- though I don't really compete for artistic work- I view quality relative to improving two opposites: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem