massively agree with all of this. I mean by that rationale, literally nobody here needs to express their opinion. I'm sure everyone will encounter people who will feel their writing is boring, unnecessary, too lightweight, too verbose, pointless, whatever. So we should.... close up shop? Go back to the old way where only the elite few go…
massively agree with all of this. I mean by that rationale, literally nobody here needs to express their opinion. I'm sure everyone will encounter people who will feel their writing is boring, unnecessary, too lightweight, too verbose, pointless, whatever. So we should.... close up shop? Go back to the old way where only the elite few got to take part in any of the creative fields? The opening of the floodgates does bring with it a lot of quality variation, and yes there will for sure also be people who are, like, ChatGPT-ing listicles in the hope of making it big with no effort. But that's the price of giving everyone a chance.
I always remember that amazing quote - As Stephen Jay Gould wrote in The Panda's Thumb: "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops".
Same thing here. I'm less concerned with the refined writing of professional writers than I am with the idea that someone who might have something raw and beautiful to share might never get to do it because of feeling they don't belong.
Also anyone that's getting a ton of terrible recommendations might want to check their interaction with the algo - I have honestly been getting pretty amazing recommendations, from personal stories to political analysis to different odds and ends, and while it's not all to my taste, there wasn't much I would want to banish from the platform for being unworthy.
thanks for sharing your thoughts. i agree wholeheartedly. the publishing industry is already filled with restrictive and rigid standards and expectations, so i struggle to see the motivation for bringing those onto substack. there’s something so much more appealing to me about cultivating a space where writers of all kinds can thrive and experiment without expectation. substack turning into a smaller scale publishing house should not be the goal, even if its the goal of the people at the top. the writers should strive for better because we CAN do better.
Absolutely. Professional writers have professional venues. The issue of quality should be addressed in different ways perhaps - like I wouldn’t protest against the exclusion of AI-generated texts, for example. Or against the idea of revamping the algorithm somehow so that it doesn’t always predictably promote the things that are already getting traction. But these are very different concerns from saying ‘people who don’t write well by my arbitrary standard shouldn’t in fact be allowed to write at all’.
Who is asking for “restrictive and rigid standards and expectations” for writing on Substack? That sounds like a very extreme take on the original article? All I saw was someone saying maybe there is too much of a single type of writing proliferating on Twitter and examining why that is and what the negative implications of that might be. I don’t get why all these people are acting like there is some kind of gatekeeping or censorship or desire to throw people in the gulag here? Your language is a little dramatic for what the article actually says.
massively agree with all of this. I mean by that rationale, literally nobody here needs to express their opinion. I'm sure everyone will encounter people who will feel their writing is boring, unnecessary, too lightweight, too verbose, pointless, whatever. So we should.... close up shop? Go back to the old way where only the elite few got to take part in any of the creative fields? The opening of the floodgates does bring with it a lot of quality variation, and yes there will for sure also be people who are, like, ChatGPT-ing listicles in the hope of making it big with no effort. But that's the price of giving everyone a chance.
I always remember that amazing quote - As Stephen Jay Gould wrote in The Panda's Thumb: "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops".
Same thing here. I'm less concerned with the refined writing of professional writers than I am with the idea that someone who might have something raw and beautiful to share might never get to do it because of feeling they don't belong.
Also anyone that's getting a ton of terrible recommendations might want to check their interaction with the algo - I have honestly been getting pretty amazing recommendations, from personal stories to political analysis to different odds and ends, and while it's not all to my taste, there wasn't much I would want to banish from the platform for being unworthy.
thanks for sharing your thoughts. i agree wholeheartedly. the publishing industry is already filled with restrictive and rigid standards and expectations, so i struggle to see the motivation for bringing those onto substack. there’s something so much more appealing to me about cultivating a space where writers of all kinds can thrive and experiment without expectation. substack turning into a smaller scale publishing house should not be the goal, even if its the goal of the people at the top. the writers should strive for better because we CAN do better.
Absolutely. Professional writers have professional venues. The issue of quality should be addressed in different ways perhaps - like I wouldn’t protest against the exclusion of AI-generated texts, for example. Or against the idea of revamping the algorithm somehow so that it doesn’t always predictably promote the things that are already getting traction. But these are very different concerns from saying ‘people who don’t write well by my arbitrary standard shouldn’t in fact be allowed to write at all’.
Who is asking for “restrictive and rigid standards and expectations” for writing on Substack? That sounds like a very extreme take on the original article? All I saw was someone saying maybe there is too much of a single type of writing proliferating on Twitter and examining why that is and what the negative implications of that might be. I don’t get why all these people are acting like there is some kind of gatekeeping or censorship or desire to throw people in the gulag here? Your language is a little dramatic for what the article actually says.
That quote. I’ve never heard it. Thank you.
Right? Really stays with you.