Hi Becca! I always liked your stuff in the point, so I subscribed to your Substack, then heard someone else I respected liked your book (and that you had one) so I got it. full disclosure haven’t gotten far bc ~grad school~
But anyways the part you wrote about not knowing if anything is any good reminds me so much of the phenomenal “I don’t understand the play” scene (and maybe only Great part) in asteroid city (just look it up on YouTube it’s a great comfort in periods of doubt) — so much really is just being brave enough to make it on stage and wing it. So whatever that stage is… print (I hope), Substack (I accept), or TikTok (I fear)… your audience will probably find their way there and some will be haters but some will be into it enough to type all this in the comments section while on the subway
"There is something deeply embarrassing about writers like [redacted], who insist that they haven’t achieved mainstream success because publishing is too woke to appreciate their genius when in fact it is obvious that they haven’t achieved mainstream success because their writing is blatantly terrible."
Ok, I've been thinking this, too, but I didn't want to be too hard on all the self-published writers on here. Some of the self-published stuff is good and it's true that it didn't get published because of publishing houses being aesthetically conservative, BUT, and this is a big but, I see a lot of people complaining without ever questioning if they really have the goods. I saw someone say that they'd written something unlike anything else that's ever been written, which is just a ridiculous statement. I mean, I've seen things you wouldn't believe...Not saying I'm any better than these writers, but if I submit something and it doesn't get published, my first response won't be to cry woke, it'll be to consider if the critique has merit and see how I can improve my writing. Sometimes we have to consider that our writing might be bad, and that's okay--that's part of becoming a better writer.
That review of Peterson’s book was a treasure, despite the obviousness of the target (“spiritual dimwit” indeed), not only for the sharpness of the takedown but the generosity behind your examination of his appeal. I hope all the chaos around your employer and the resulting decrease of subscribers hasn’t reduced your audience in any meaningful way, because you deserve to be read (I actually find the Post’s book section more useful for my purposes than a certain other Large Paper of Record)
You and Lillian Fishman are also massive reasons I subscribe to the Point (I thought I paid for the print version, though I haven’t received a single copy, I have to look into that now that your post has reminded me of its value).
I don’t know how you can wade through your Goodreads reviews, that seems like a special kind of masochism. I try very hard (not always successfully) to be generous in my consideration of what people put on the Internet, but Goodreads’ sheer volume of glib reviews/ratings (even of ostensibly “slow” or “difficult” literature) brings out my most misanthropic and elitist tendencies. (have 168,000 people really read Middlemarch thoughtfully enough to provide a good rating? Have 290,000 people read Tess of the D’Ubervilles similarly? OK, I’ll stop)
I mostly align with your thoughts on Substack’s function and value, and the value of institutional writing. One thing all your thoughts on this subject have reinforced to me is how much I miss a certain version of the alternative press when it was thriving pre-Internet (publications like the Village Voice, Chicago/LA Reader, Boston Phoenix, etc). They were less polite and more chaotic than the big papers, but they were still edited (mostly) thoughtfully and rigorously and provided real intellectual and community value in a way Substack occasionally simulates but doesn’t quite provide on a regular basis.
I love this approach. I count myself quite lucky to have discovered your writing, both in review/essay/book form and in blog form, this past year. You’ve just reminded me of this passage from the introductory note to the Against Interpretation collection:
“I could describe the process this way. Before I wrote the essays I did not believe many of the ideas espoused in them; when I wrote them, I believed what I wrote; subsequently, I have come to disbelieve some of these same ideas again
-but from a new perspective, one that incorporates and is nourished by what is true in the argument of the essays. Writing criticism has proved to be an act of intellectual disburdenment as much as of intellectual self-expression.”
Your comment about being annoyed on your deathbed really made me laugh! I always enjoy your writing. I don’t always agree with you but I really appreciate the way you write - even when sloppy and unedited. I am more than happy with what I get here and invariably follow the links to your writing elsewhere. Excited to check out The Point Substack too.
This is true, "But there is a reason that “never read the comments” is an adage. Steeping yourself in an immediate barrage of responses to your writing tends to make you cautious and defensive."
I shut off most of my comments because the rage people had that I *dare* criticize anything about France was more than I could bear. Call me weak, call me not a writer, I don't care.
I prefer to focus on the writing style, tone, and research that goes into each post. I don't want to expend precious mental energy on, "Well what if PinkResistance420 doesn't understand X, Y, Z?"
From 'Sanctimony' to this and everything from between and before- you got a gift. Essential reading in this wasteland of talker podcast dreck. Thank you.
Hi Becca! I always liked your stuff in the point, so I subscribed to your Substack, then heard someone else I respected liked your book (and that you had one) so I got it. full disclosure haven’t gotten far bc ~grad school~
But anyways the part you wrote about not knowing if anything is any good reminds me so much of the phenomenal “I don’t understand the play” scene (and maybe only Great part) in asteroid city (just look it up on YouTube it’s a great comfort in periods of doubt) — so much really is just being brave enough to make it on stage and wing it. So whatever that stage is… print (I hope), Substack (I accept), or TikTok (I fear)… your audience will probably find their way there and some will be haters but some will be into it enough to type all this in the comments section while on the subway
“Sanctimony Literature” was a banger.
Would you write something on Faulkner, or have you already? Always nice to find I share an opinion with you, ha (here regarding Nabokov’s assessment)
I haven’t but I definitely would! One of the best stylists who ever lived (of course so is Nabokov!
"There is something deeply embarrassing about writers like [redacted], who insist that they haven’t achieved mainstream success because publishing is too woke to appreciate their genius when in fact it is obvious that they haven’t achieved mainstream success because their writing is blatantly terrible."
Ok, I've been thinking this, too, but I didn't want to be too hard on all the self-published writers on here. Some of the self-published stuff is good and it's true that it didn't get published because of publishing houses being aesthetically conservative, BUT, and this is a big but, I see a lot of people complaining without ever questioning if they really have the goods. I saw someone say that they'd written something unlike anything else that's ever been written, which is just a ridiculous statement. I mean, I've seen things you wouldn't believe...Not saying I'm any better than these writers, but if I submit something and it doesn't get published, my first response won't be to cry woke, it'll be to consider if the critique has merit and see how I can improve my writing. Sometimes we have to consider that our writing might be bad, and that's okay--that's part of becoming a better writer.
That review of Peterson’s book was a treasure, despite the obviousness of the target (“spiritual dimwit” indeed), not only for the sharpness of the takedown but the generosity behind your examination of his appeal. I hope all the chaos around your employer and the resulting decrease of subscribers hasn’t reduced your audience in any meaningful way, because you deserve to be read (I actually find the Post’s book section more useful for my purposes than a certain other Large Paper of Record)
You and Lillian Fishman are also massive reasons I subscribe to the Point (I thought I paid for the print version, though I haven’t received a single copy, I have to look into that now that your post has reminded me of its value).
I don’t know how you can wade through your Goodreads reviews, that seems like a special kind of masochism. I try very hard (not always successfully) to be generous in my consideration of what people put on the Internet, but Goodreads’ sheer volume of glib reviews/ratings (even of ostensibly “slow” or “difficult” literature) brings out my most misanthropic and elitist tendencies. (have 168,000 people really read Middlemarch thoughtfully enough to provide a good rating? Have 290,000 people read Tess of the D’Ubervilles similarly? OK, I’ll stop)
I mostly align with your thoughts on Substack’s function and value, and the value of institutional writing. One thing all your thoughts on this subject have reinforced to me is how much I miss a certain version of the alternative press when it was thriving pre-Internet (publications like the Village Voice, Chicago/LA Reader, Boston Phoenix, etc). They were less polite and more chaotic than the big papers, but they were still edited (mostly) thoughtfully and rigorously and provided real intellectual and community value in a way Substack occasionally simulates but doesn’t quite provide on a regular basis.
last paragraph could not be more true
As someone who loves Sontag, I will have to check out your book!
i’m not as good as sontag. but i am probably just as pretentious!
I love this approach. I count myself quite lucky to have discovered your writing, both in review/essay/book form and in blog form, this past year. You’ve just reminded me of this passage from the introductory note to the Against Interpretation collection:
“I could describe the process this way. Before I wrote the essays I did not believe many of the ideas espoused in them; when I wrote them, I believed what I wrote; subsequently, I have come to disbelieve some of these same ideas again
-but from a new perspective, one that incorporates and is nourished by what is true in the argument of the essays. Writing criticism has proved to be an act of intellectual disburdenment as much as of intellectual self-expression.”
To lots more writing. 🥂
Your comment about being annoyed on your deathbed really made me laugh! I always enjoy your writing. I don’t always agree with you but I really appreciate the way you write - even when sloppy and unedited. I am more than happy with what I get here and invariably follow the links to your writing elsewhere. Excited to check out The Point Substack too.
But I so badly want to read the "Sanctimony Literature" piece though, bc I have noticed this too.
i can send you a PDF!
Read it recently. It holds up.
♥️
omg what’s wrong with the temptation of saint anthony? its on my reading list for lent this year!
This is true, "But there is a reason that “never read the comments” is an adage. Steeping yourself in an immediate barrage of responses to your writing tends to make you cautious and defensive."
I shut off most of my comments because the rage people had that I *dare* criticize anything about France was more than I could bear. Call me weak, call me not a writer, I don't care.
I prefer to focus on the writing style, tone, and research that goes into each post. I don't want to expend precious mental energy on, "Well what if PinkResistance420 doesn't understand X, Y, Z?"
Everybody writes about mansplaining Kermit
https://marlowe1.substack.com/p/a-gun-to-your-head-by-tim-lieder
Excellent! Thank you for putting into words what many of us intuitively understood but could not articulate so brilliantly
From 'Sanctimony' to this and everything from between and before- you got a gift. Essential reading in this wasteland of talker podcast dreck. Thank you.