honestly, this essay really just feels like punching down to me. it's easy to critique writing as not up to your standards when you run a popular blog and are apart of the group that sets those standards. substack is a wide ranging platform with intentionally made space for a variety of pieces (articles, essays, poetry, blog entries, etc), and part of having such an open platform is that you are going to have to sift through a lot of content you don't enjoy to get to what resonates with you.
i also firmly believe it's far better for someone to write poorly instead of not writing at all. in this piece, you talked about thinking that not everyone needs to share their opinion and i agree to an extent, but posting on substack is not forcing people to read it. it gives: if you can't express your thoughts in a way that i like, you shouldn't express it at all.
i do understand some of the concerns you've raised and also think it's important to keep literary standards up to date and valued, but that argument should be aimed at the publishing industry that chooses what narratives and styles to churn out and fund as the writing "norm." substack is a free, public platform with space for everyone and there is more than enough room for different types of writing with a variety of styles, perspectives, motivations, and standard.
it's as easy as choosing to not read pieces you don't view as "good writing," but the choice to write this instead feels a bit icky. if i was on the fence about starting a substack and read this, i think it would probably discourage me from doing so. we are always better off with one more writer in the world and inviting more people to dip their toes into the pool will always breed more innovation, attention, and support of the writing industry
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.
Alex, thank you for commenting — you basically wrote out the thoughts swirling in my head. Agree with everything you said. To me this essay is giving “you can’t sit with us.”
I think criticism is part of publishing your work. Poor writers should be thankful for having their faults pointed out. Just like with reading, writing is a skill to develop. Few people today are capable of either to any reasonable standard. By all means, write, write, write! When it comes to improving your writing ability the climb is endless.
If someone can write better than you offers critique I would recommend listening and perhaps upping your game.
I thought she was only objecting to charging $ for amateurish or clickbait writing - not saying that if you're not a pro you shouldn't write at all. That's the way I heard it, anyway. I'm not a seasoned, niche-having Substacker yet and I wouldn't yet think of charging for my posts.
this was my take too. the problem isn't that this type of amateurish writing is bad or different than what emily's doing, it's that it's much easier to write and read and therefore more profitable with less effort. maybe i'm being a slippery sloper, but it may cloud the market up and risk diverting readers' funds/attention to profitable writers rather than talented ones. but i haven't been on substack long enough to make that call.
So let me get this straight…the onus is not on a writer to take in criticism it’s on the publishing house to improve the writing for the writer? Why would a writer even one not doing it professionally not want to improve their own writing? But also, if the onus is on the publishing house, then in the case of SELF-publishing like Substack then the writers themselves are their own publishing house and therefore once again become the people to criticize and be made to improve their own writing. But also in your first sentence you said Sundberg shouldn’t be saying what she said because it’s punching down. If criticism and correction is bad to do when it’s punching down, then wouldn’t expecting publishing houses to have all the responsibility for improving the work be an even worse form of punching down since they are even more powerful than Sundberg. No offense but your comment is very inconsistent and self contradicting.
I'm not trying to argue that the publishing houses are solely responsible for improving writing quality. The issue I took with the essay is that there is no way for us to determine what makes someone's writing better for them. I understand that a lot of people have static definitions of "good writing" that they try to adhere to, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I think there are also a lot of people who don't care to adhere to those standards. I think there is space for a conversation about quality when looking at what type of writing is succeeding/selling/topping the charts, but it's silly to direct that conversations here. The pieces that do the best here are exquisitely written and high quality, so I see no need to critique the people who are not at the top of the game. If anything, the "quality" issues on Substack reflect that the platform is encouraging more people to write, even if they're aren't writers by nature. I think that is an objectively good thing, and until poor quality writing overtakes the top charts on here, I don't think there's any need to have this discussion.
Hi Emily. I want to start by telling you that I am generally a huge fan of all you do. Feed Me is the only Substack I open up every day, without fail. I've linked to you before and regularly share your content -- you somehow manage to curate exactly what I want to read each week. I am probably not your target audience (A soon to be 43 year old aging fashion blogger living in the south after 15 years in NY) and not someone looking for an argument but felt compelled to leave a comment as I wanted to tell you how this made me feel.
As someone who has run a fashion blog + instagram for 15 years, I couldn't help but feel a little bit irritated (and frankly hurt) reading this. Some of your comments, definitely Kyle's (whose book I adored). Maybe I'm just a little bit triggered and/or taking this all too personally but I've always been of the "there's room for everyone" sort of mindset. This takes me back to the days when journalists and traditional media would shit all over influencers: being at fashion week, taking brand deals, etc. (It is a bit funny though, as you flash forward 5-10 years later where we now have many journalists starting their own accounts, running sponsored content, doing the same thing. But you never saw influencers bemoan the journalists who turned their social media accounts into a business. We welcomed them. Again, there is room for everyone).
Substack for me, (an influencer or blogger or creator or whatever cringey term we want to call it), has been such a reprieve from the constant chaos of Instagram. It is a place where I can write, be more open and honest, not worry about constantly feeding the content beast etc. It reminds me a lot of the early days of blogging. And with Substack I don't worry about the algorithm showing our content. I know an email will be sent to my audience and they can decide whether or not they want to read it. I don't refer to myself a writer (really for the very fear of pieces like this, the way that journalists can be so condescending to those of us who don't come from a traditional media background) but I write. A lot. And I'd love to write a book someday. But really, what even makes a writer? You touched on that.
My audience pays for my silly little "lists" and "diary entries" lol because I've spent 15 years building a community -- hard work! They care about my life and my writing and they appreciate my POV. They want to know what book I'm reading, what films I love, what new brands I've discovered. And they keep coming back because I'm honest and forthright.
I think it's a little bit short-sighted to dismiss the influencers on here who are trying to build a platform and grow their community. Many influencers got where they are today because of their writing. And also: building a community, curation (curation is work!), responding to every.single.DM (this can take hours). I get the frustration seeing an influencer paywall their outfits (I personally would never do this) but does it really matter? The influencers who are joining Substack are bringing their followers with them. When I joined Substack last year, I moved my existing newsletter and brought with me 40,000 subscribers. I'm now up to 47,000 with 1,500 paid subs. Those followers are likely paying for other Substacks, maybe even yours and/or the other "serious, skillfull essayists" referenced.
Thank you for reading. Just wanted to offer up another perspective. Ironically, my post today was about wanting to be a better writer.
Hi Grace! Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I’d say about 1/3 of my readers are in their 40s so you’re definitely my target audience.
It sounds like you, like me, have had a really good experience with this platform. It also sounds like what you’re doing is working. I don’t think we’re on different sides here (I can show you the dozens if not hundreds of people I’ve converted into writers on Substack). I’m expressing a personal apprehension of lowering the quality bar of writing.
Grace, I'm not your target audience style-wise but I discovered your platform through your BoP days and I will +1 what you're saying here about your work and authenticity, and I think it comes across that way! I also don't think you should be self-conscious of your writing, I personally love your diary-type of entries.
I also agree with Emily's message and you may have been collateral damage in the broad-brushed message w/r/t "lazy" writing, as referred to in Emily's essay. Yes, people can unfollow or try to manipulate their feed to avoid the "bad" or "lazy" writers, but I get the sense that there is a protectiveness over the general ecosystem of Substack, given its relative nascency in the digital media landscape.
Even if I may not follow listicle heavy Substackers, the writers I follow might (or are suggested to follow through Substack's algo), and then they may consciously or not begin to pivot their writing into candy-coated form, and so on and so forth. It's the same way how fashion trends, memes, colloquial language, and overall culture are flattening (as Kyle Chayka's book talks about). And I think the reason why Emily's essay resonates is because human nature reverts to the mean, hence why there's a bitterness towards the Substackers who are unabashedly catering to the lowest common denominator and subsequently, dragging down the average.
Anyway, my two nosy cents. Xoxo, from someone who is definitely not a writer and does not come from a creative background :)
I find this take pretty fascinating, though not really in a good way. Like at the face of it yes, as you provide more access to an activity more people will do it. As more people engage in an activity, their skill, dedication, and capacity will vary. Thus generally quality will dip. It has happened to fiction writing, to journalism, to illustration.
However, from my personal perspective, sitting around with a bunch of friends commenting on what losers all these newbies are and not so awesome and cool and sophisticated as us cool sophisticated people is a horrible vibe.
You yourself are pointing out that a lot of this uninspired drivel you don’t appreciate is - gasp - successful!! It’s actually finding a large audience! How dare it, right? Only cool and sophisticated stuff should be finding an audience. This is basically the Twilight criticism tidal wave all over again. How dare it be BAD and SUCCESSFUL???
The thing is, there is a bell curve to people’s taste. Mediocre stuff will hit the spot for a lot of people. It just will. Kafka was never gonna be more popular than JK Rowling. Proust was never gonna outsell 50 Shades.
I personally love to see more people creating. I want to see all the bad art and the bad writing and the bad dances and make up tutorials and anything at all out there. Sure it’s not for me personally. But I love it that people are creating. I love that they’re finding an audience.
I’m an illustrator and I would like to think I am a good one. I can promise you hundreds of technically less accomplished illustrators are outselling me. I will never begrudge them for it.
You know, I find myself thinking about this with the rise of AI. Part of me is glad anyone is attempting to write in good faith in any way at all. But then again, maybe half of these folks are using ChatGPT if it's "just" listicles and sponcon! Who's to say! What a confusing internet and art moment we are in!
Things that are BAD and SUCCESSFUL are most definitely bad for culture lol. Defending mediocrity is an interesting stance to take after reading this article.
Cultural critics, like Sundberg in this case, upholding a standard of art is a good thing. Otherwise we will be stuck to mediocre slop.
You think? You think we can criticize the mediocrity away?
The way I see it, first off I am not really 'defending' mediocrity so much as pointing out that a) it is there by necessity, there is no field where everyone can just immediately be excellent, mediocre things always have and always will be successful because most people's taste is by necessity also mediocre, because that's how bell curves work, and b) we are all part of it. Are we going to argue that you, or I, or Sundberg, are, like, paragons of literary virtue and outstanding writerly quality? Don't you think there is a group of people out there who could look at our own writing and laugh at that notion?
'Mediocre slop' can have many causes, and not all are worth 'upholding a standard against'. A writer will be mediocre on their way to getting better. Where and how do you propose they do that? In the depths of their dark closets, with no feedback?
A writer might be starting from an unprivileged position, where they have had no access to the same type of education and cosmopolitan exposure that 'cultural critics' might have been privileged to. They might still have thoughts worth expressing. They might be very young. Their writing might be 'mediocre slop' to you but really meaningful to someone else.
Someone very smartly pointed out that the algo really molds itself around your own personal choices, so anyone surrounded by 'mediocre slop' may be in a prison of their own making? My feed is not full of garbage, is yours?
Finally, 'standard of art' is a tall order on a platform that is open to everyone, while also being brave fighting words from a blog that writes listicles.... about...... shopping? Glass houses, throwing stones, all that.
So yeah, while 'standards in art' can sound like a good thing, 'snooty elitism' sounds like less of a good thing, and there are lots of ways to slice this particular cake. They just require some analytical consideration.
I may be an idealist, but I do think in some way we can criticize mediocrity away. Even if it is impossible as you say, I think it is a worthy endeavour nonetheless.
Of course people do not start off making great work. Yet, how is the work supposed to improve without criticism? Maybe not a great example of a morally ‘good’ character, but this scene from Whiplash is still applicable here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6vTI5g198E I am all for new writers entering the fold (as I am a new writer haha), but if you start putting out the same shit everyone else is and trying to charge for it, that's lame as hell and deserves to be critiqued. Maybe I am being a bit idealistic about the writing landscape, but how else can things improve?
In regards to being ‘paragons of literary virtue and outstanding writerly quality’ since when do critics also need to be great creators? Is mine, or yours, or Sundbergs, critiques invalid because we have not hit some major writing milestone? The film critic Roger Ebert comes to mind. Was he a great filmmaker? No! Nonetheless, he was a hell of a critic and widely lauded in the film world.
Also, we all know Sundberg was not criticizing the writing of ‘underprivileged writers’ as you put it. It is the lazy, unoriginal, almost algorithmic writing that is pervasive on this platform. She is not criticising the 15 year old writer testing out new things.
If somehow your algorithm is truly devoid of listicles, I envy you. Mine is most definitely not haha.
Hell, if having a strong opinion on someone elses work and upholding a standard of what I think is good writing is viewed as ‘snooty elitism’, than so be it. What is the alternative?
The alternative is uplifting the stuff you find worthy, and letting the rest live.
Sundberg was criticizing 'lots of samey articles'. That can include any number of people writing that way for any number of reasons. You can not intend to criticize marginalized groups but criticize them anyway because privilege is a hell of a blindfold.
Don't get me wrong, she obviously has the right to criticize, I mean the 'free country' thing counts for everyone. And as you can see it's gone spectacularly for her, this thing got wayyyyy more reach than her usual posts. So yeah, I guess hot takes will always be algo friendly because people love to chime in on moral quandaries. I really doubt it will improve anyone's writing tho.
Being a movie critic is a profession, even if you don't make movies you have to investigate them intimately to be in a position to critique. Doubt any of us make that cut.
If people charge for something you don't find worthwhile, don't pay them for it. If no one finds it worthwhile, no one will pay them for it, that will be their feedback. If people DO end up paying them for it, I guess you were wrong about it not having any value. Value is not universal.
There are genuinely no listicles on my feed. It's you guys :) I have actually been stunned by the depth and breadth of creativity I have encountered here so far.
I wasn't aiming at you with the phrase 'snooty elitism', I don't know you, I'm just pointing out that the same thing can be interpreted from different directions. But yeah, of course you can have any opinion you want on whatever you want, I have strong opinions on many published authors, I think Joyce is a worthless waste of time that everyone only pretends to like to appear cultured. But I wouldn't bandy those opinions about in a space full of creators, some of whom may already be feeling insecure or vulnerable about sharing what they write.
Not "will be stuck" but " are stuck" to lowest common
denominator slop. That happened to all the blogs and the various social media . It's just happening faster with Substack .
At least here, It is up to the readers to determine what "slop" they will pay for. Otherwise it's up to the advertisers to decide what gets published (or seen).
mediocre means average. average work will always exist. it's what allows other work to set itself apart. i think the ecosystem of any platform needs that.
in the case of cultural critics, for better or worse, they are stirring the pot! again, an ecosystem need both.
I'm going to be honest, this post felt outrageous to me. I’m a career writer in food and wine and have been on Substack for years. Never ONCE have I deluded myself to think that I get to decide what is or isn't good writing, what is or isn't culture. Nor do I pretend that I get to speak on behalf of a whole platform and its "intentions" just because I'm a user of it. Creatives--especially women--have endured a long history of struggling to monetize their work so it is entirely backwards of you to now be putting us down for trying. I actually find this platform extremely refreshing. It is a place for discourse, experimentation, and community. Historically, social media has made it impossible for micro-creators to earn money for their work and Substack is the first to democratize this. What a treat it is decide when we want to opt into paid content rather than be at the mercy of advertisers who profit off of us without our explicit consent. I personally hope we can all one day be able to travel or take long breaks from work all while being supported by our readers, like you now have the privilege of. But that requires us to give more people access to this pool of success rather than try to close the door behind us.
It sounds like you’re taking what you’re doing seriously (writing about food for a living). We need more of that. I want people to make money and go on vacation. I also want people to make good work if they’re charging for it.
I had several reactions which have been covered eloquently and succinctly in the other comments so let’s go deeper into one aspect that I do find self-defeating in the approach some take with Substack, pay walls on everything.
I give people the choice to subscribe but never only provide content to a paid subset. That’s a personal choice and mostly driven by being slightly embarrassed to be charging for what I write in the first place. It annoys me when a lot of content is either completely pay-walled or paywalled with enough of a preview that I am interested in reading the rest. However if my choice is sign up for life or don’t read it I am not reading it. Otherwise it is feeling like I am being charged $5 to read a tweet or ‘take’ and I am sure as shit not going to do that for a listicle I was only obliquely interested in finding out more about. It’s great to build income for all the right reasons, but please at least do the work of building my interest, getting me to like your work, build a relationship before charging me for the dubious privilege. Otherwise it’s lazy or greedy or delusional or all three. It’s ironic how mainstream publishing cannot make money because no one will pay for physical subscriptions yet if I add up what I am already paying online for all the Substack’s paid, the podcast subs, the Economist, New Yorker, NYT’s cooking and games, the Guardian and several football content apps/ groups it’s a $1000 a year.
We all choose to support what we consider good or useful writing and Substack like any marketplace will sort out the quality issue. If people are only engaged in making money and attracting followers then Substack is not the platform. It’s one saving grace so far is people are choosing where to spend their money not the platform choosing for you, directly or indirectly through the ads shown.
This is major. The past month I’ve been doing the exact same routine when i open up the substack app: open a post that i think would interest me, read the first paragraph, realize all the words are blending together with every other culture essay i’ve ever read. Close the app.
It makes me really appreciate well-edited essays from real publications. There is just so much fat to be trimmed from the essays, to the point where I think 90% of them could be a kind of long tweet instead.
The glut of link roundups and listicles never bothered me, until i realized: wait people are charging for access to *their* roundup of *someone else’s* better writing?? I think your newsletter is one of the only examples I can think of that provides a huge amount of context, to the point where the links are secondary.
I’m a local journalist (ex-TV now writing for a free local newsletter) covering city council meetings, community events, (allegedly) mismanaged municipal funds. I think of myself as a writer, I write 5-7 stories a week sometimes. I thought a felt a kinship with other writers on here, but now I’m not so sure.
Thank you for the kind words! It’s called “The Palm Springs Post” and it covers just the city of Palm Springs, CA. My boss, himself a former newspaper editor, actually started the newsletter on Substack before demand grew way beyond the platform.
He started it on his own after noticing our desert town was on its way to becoming a news desert and misinformation was spreading on Facebook/NextDoor.
(News is slow right now because the whole town shuts down in August. But we did just publish a 5-part investigative series!)
Wow! So many people are triggered by this article. Once again, the internet and social media are exposing our wounds and unresolved issues. I read this and think the conversation isn’t really about calling yourself a writer or not—tags and titles are just about social approval. What caught my interest and resonated with me is the noticeable rise in the same type of content (blogs, titles, notes, images) around here. So, Emily has a point in calling out the copy-paste, clone situation we constantly see on social media, where everyone ends up looking and doing the same thing, mistakenly thinking that's what authenticity is about. My feed is full of the same “girly” trends. This app is meant to make you think and pull you out of the superficiality and nonsense garbage of other platforms. Call yourself a writer or content creator—who cares? You can be whoever you want! I think this is about reflecting on whether what we are doing here is bringing value to our society or just adding more noise, virality, and trends to the internet.
Are you saying Sundberg’s ego is out of control and that’s why people replied the way they did? Because if that’s what you’re saying that seems extremely passive aggressive and unnecessarily personal shot? Do you have any actually substantive criticism because otherwise it seems more like the problematic ego is yours and that it’s really fragile and easily bruised. Most angry responses I’ve seen to Sundberg have seemed like hit dogs hollering imo.
Drew I really like your comment and your emphasis on contributing assessment/analysis rather than a summary... it reminds me of advice that high school English teachers give, but also of feedback I have received in professional writing settings. It feels like the reason for this might be (1) It simply takes more time to provide your own analysis, but also (2) It feels like there's a (reasonable) fear about putting out original content/your own opinions on the internet
I feel like what’s happening to Substack now is what happened to podcasts over the last few years - they used to center around specific topics or formats and now it feels like everyone with an audio recording device is essentially publishing voice notes they sent to their friends. Although this feels more egregious to me with writing for some reason
loved this, emily. greece is doing wonders on you.
lately, when i log into substack, it feels like i’m stepping into the feed cage. the sheer volume of content is overwhelming, with everyone racing to be the main character.
maybe it’s because substack sells that old story that “anyone can do it—just work hard, and you’ll have an easy, happy life?” everyone’s hoping for their shot but the truth is “success” isn’t accessible to 99% of people here. what part of substacks biz is selling newsletters and what part of it is selling a dream? being a well-respected, skilled writer who gets paid is anything but easy? i know you work incredibly hard and that thinking, writing, reaching out to people and editing this wasn't easy work.
i tried explaining notes and substack’s ecosystem to a boomer the other day, and he asked, “so, is this just like that old Amway MLM-- but for writers?” it made me laugh because it feels a bit true. im not sure that substack is still for "writers". it feels more like an unclaimed plot of land—a blank space on the internet that people still trust because it hasn't been overrun by advertising...yet. perfect for opportunists. so instead of cultivating something meaningful, the space gets filled with listicles and low-quality content. soon enough, we’re in an overcrowded marketplace, with vendors shouting for attention, all fighting for scraps in the rush to get their moment/bag/love they never got from their daddy. american dream BB!
This was a thoughtful read, Emily. I’ve been a personal stylist for 11 years and I moved to substack so I could share the knowledge and expertise I’ve gathered and continue to gather through my work.
Someone asked me the other day if I consider myself a writer or content creator, and I’ve always said, no. I consider myself a stylist first who uses this platform to communicate what I know with a focus on the practical side of getting dressed.
Even though I don’t consider myself a “writer”, I believe it is valuable to the readers who choose to subscribe (free or paid) and just as valid reason to be on this platform.
There are also many other writers who come at fashion from different angles who I enjoying reading, whether they are consider themselves writers or not. They could be historians, journalists, or just regular people with a keen interest in what they’re writing about!
I really like how you put this. It sounds like you’re an expert at styling, and what you’re offering is service journalism. I’m excited to catch up on your letters.
I look forward to having you as a reader! Funny you say that because, again, I can’t get myself to call myself a “journalist” either. Theoretically one can be a writer if you write and a journalist if you research and report, but I consider both to need at least some requisite time in honing your craft and - although I’m hesitant to gatekeep and say you need to go to school for it - gaining experience and maybe studying the work of those who came before you 🤷🏻♀️. Or maybe I’m just selling myself short lol.
Emily, this essay really hit. I've always thought writing was something that couldn't be commoditized in the same way that one's face, body, and lifestyle can (like on Instagram), because there's a minimum standard of quality and work that's required. Anyone can point a camera or take a selfie, but not everyone can write. Penning an essay takes thought and time. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the commodification engine is just that insatiable. I joked with my husband the other day that Substack feels increasingly like OnlyFans For The Mind, which kind of sucks. Something that gives me hope is that even in a sea of similar or poorly-written work, strong voices will continue to rise to the top and have an even bigger audience to speak to.
Appreciate your work on here and seconding the other commenters asking for more long form writing from you! x
this was REALLY great- i am dreading the day when kendall jenner and dua lipa start their own substacks. regarding listicle content… totally agree and i suppose i am apart of the problem haha- my list of things i hate was originally meant as an exercise for just myself in my journal but i ended up finding more meaning in what i wrote than unexpected and decided to publish it, i definitely don’t write for engagement or numbers and i hope it doesn’t come off that way, but overall i loved how you framed this shift within substack
Really enjoyed this read (and was flattered by the shoutout!). Substack and Internet discourse circles in general are such echo chambers that it can be challenging to even think “original” thoughts, let alone put those thoughts on paper. I’m glad that this platform is emboldening people to write, but as it shifts more social media-y, I worry about the oversaturation of Content/conformity in opinions, like any algorithm-driven platform. It being easier to become a “writer” is net positive in my eyes, but not without its challenges!
As it shifts more social media-y, yes exactly - and it's making a lot of us read far less. As the amount of content overwhelms the number of readers in a rather sinister ratio.
I really liked this take but I also think that the fact that writers can now make money directly from patrons is a good thing. Having to be accredited by an institution eg a byline in an American or British publication in order to be a writer has always lead to people being ignored or under represented. Okay some of the content on susbstack is shit but some of it is amazing and never would have been published in a ‘real’ magazine! Having power over income is something artists have not enjoyed since pre neoliberalism.
ugh I have so many thoughts. I heard someone day that it shouldn't matter that someone else is talking/blogging about the subject you want to talk/blog about already bc everyone can have their own take. But tbh lately I've been feeling a little bored by a lot of content I read on here and I am so terrified that someone looks at my writing and thinks the same thing. Forever trying to strike a balance between writing what I am interested in, what I think other people are interested in, what's clickable. But I definitely see how tempting it is to slip into the clickbait territory
Even as the number of Substacks have increased, I've cut down on the Substacks I read, because I'm not interested in diaries and lists (FWIW, Noah Smith's "Five Things" is an exception; he writes substantial mini-essays, mainly on economic matters).
I think there will be a winnowing process. Initial impulse subscribers (that's me!) will have a subscription hangover and start circumscribing their feed.
honestly, this essay really just feels like punching down to me. it's easy to critique writing as not up to your standards when you run a popular blog and are apart of the group that sets those standards. substack is a wide ranging platform with intentionally made space for a variety of pieces (articles, essays, poetry, blog entries, etc), and part of having such an open platform is that you are going to have to sift through a lot of content you don't enjoy to get to what resonates with you.
i also firmly believe it's far better for someone to write poorly instead of not writing at all. in this piece, you talked about thinking that not everyone needs to share their opinion and i agree to an extent, but posting on substack is not forcing people to read it. it gives: if you can't express your thoughts in a way that i like, you shouldn't express it at all.
i do understand some of the concerns you've raised and also think it's important to keep literary standards up to date and valued, but that argument should be aimed at the publishing industry that chooses what narratives and styles to churn out and fund as the writing "norm." substack is a free, public platform with space for everyone and there is more than enough room for different types of writing with a variety of styles, perspectives, motivations, and standard.
it's as easy as choosing to not read pieces you don't view as "good writing," but the choice to write this instead feels a bit icky. if i was on the fence about starting a substack and read this, i think it would probably discourage me from doing so. we are always better off with one more writer in the world and inviting more people to dip their toes into the pool will always breed more innovation, attention, and support of the writing industry
EDIT: i expanded on my thoughts about all of this in a new post if you're interested! maybe i'm "triggered," but i think healthy and civil discourse about tthe culture we're curating on substack is important. https://open.substack.com/pub/shrewdiaries/p/whos-even-a-writer-anyway?r=2ppzzg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
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.
Alex, thank you for commenting — you basically wrote out the thoughts swirling in my head. Agree with everything you said. To me this essay is giving “you can’t sit with us.”
I think criticism is part of publishing your work. Poor writers should be thankful for having their faults pointed out. Just like with reading, writing is a skill to develop. Few people today are capable of either to any reasonable standard. By all means, write, write, write! When it comes to improving your writing ability the climb is endless.
If someone can write better than you offers critique I would recommend listening and perhaps upping your game.
I thought she was only objecting to charging $ for amateurish or clickbait writing - not saying that if you're not a pro you shouldn't write at all. That's the way I heard it, anyway. I'm not a seasoned, niche-having Substacker yet and I wouldn't yet think of charging for my posts.
this was my take too. the problem isn't that this type of amateurish writing is bad or different than what emily's doing, it's that it's much easier to write and read and therefore more profitable with less effort. maybe i'm being a slippery sloper, but it may cloud the market up and risk diverting readers' funds/attention to profitable writers rather than talented ones. but i haven't been on substack long enough to make that call.
So let me get this straight…the onus is not on a writer to take in criticism it’s on the publishing house to improve the writing for the writer? Why would a writer even one not doing it professionally not want to improve their own writing? But also, if the onus is on the publishing house, then in the case of SELF-publishing like Substack then the writers themselves are their own publishing house and therefore once again become the people to criticize and be made to improve their own writing. But also in your first sentence you said Sundberg shouldn’t be saying what she said because it’s punching down. If criticism and correction is bad to do when it’s punching down, then wouldn’t expecting publishing houses to have all the responsibility for improving the work be an even worse form of punching down since they are even more powerful than Sundberg. No offense but your comment is very inconsistent and self contradicting.
I'm not trying to argue that the publishing houses are solely responsible for improving writing quality. The issue I took with the essay is that there is no way for us to determine what makes someone's writing better for them. I understand that a lot of people have static definitions of "good writing" that they try to adhere to, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but I think there are also a lot of people who don't care to adhere to those standards. I think there is space for a conversation about quality when looking at what type of writing is succeeding/selling/topping the charts, but it's silly to direct that conversations here. The pieces that do the best here are exquisitely written and high quality, so I see no need to critique the people who are not at the top of the game. If anything, the "quality" issues on Substack reflect that the platform is encouraging more people to write, even if they're aren't writers by nature. I think that is an objectively good thing, and until poor quality writing overtakes the top charts on here, I don't think there's any need to have this discussion.
Hi Emily. I want to start by telling you that I am generally a huge fan of all you do. Feed Me is the only Substack I open up every day, without fail. I've linked to you before and regularly share your content -- you somehow manage to curate exactly what I want to read each week. I am probably not your target audience (A soon to be 43 year old aging fashion blogger living in the south after 15 years in NY) and not someone looking for an argument but felt compelled to leave a comment as I wanted to tell you how this made me feel.
As someone who has run a fashion blog + instagram for 15 years, I couldn't help but feel a little bit irritated (and frankly hurt) reading this. Some of your comments, definitely Kyle's (whose book I adored). Maybe I'm just a little bit triggered and/or taking this all too personally but I've always been of the "there's room for everyone" sort of mindset. This takes me back to the days when journalists and traditional media would shit all over influencers: being at fashion week, taking brand deals, etc. (It is a bit funny though, as you flash forward 5-10 years later where we now have many journalists starting their own accounts, running sponsored content, doing the same thing. But you never saw influencers bemoan the journalists who turned their social media accounts into a business. We welcomed them. Again, there is room for everyone).
Substack for me, (an influencer or blogger or creator or whatever cringey term we want to call it), has been such a reprieve from the constant chaos of Instagram. It is a place where I can write, be more open and honest, not worry about constantly feeding the content beast etc. It reminds me a lot of the early days of blogging. And with Substack I don't worry about the algorithm showing our content. I know an email will be sent to my audience and they can decide whether or not they want to read it. I don't refer to myself a writer (really for the very fear of pieces like this, the way that journalists can be so condescending to those of us who don't come from a traditional media background) but I write. A lot. And I'd love to write a book someday. But really, what even makes a writer? You touched on that.
My audience pays for my silly little "lists" and "diary entries" lol because I've spent 15 years building a community -- hard work! They care about my life and my writing and they appreciate my POV. They want to know what book I'm reading, what films I love, what new brands I've discovered. And they keep coming back because I'm honest and forthright.
I think it's a little bit short-sighted to dismiss the influencers on here who are trying to build a platform and grow their community. Many influencers got where they are today because of their writing. And also: building a community, curation (curation is work!), responding to every.single.DM (this can take hours). I get the frustration seeing an influencer paywall their outfits (I personally would never do this) but does it really matter? The influencers who are joining Substack are bringing their followers with them. When I joined Substack last year, I moved my existing newsletter and brought with me 40,000 subscribers. I'm now up to 47,000 with 1,500 paid subs. Those followers are likely paying for other Substacks, maybe even yours and/or the other "serious, skillfull essayists" referenced.
Thank you for reading. Just wanted to offer up another perspective. Ironically, my post today was about wanting to be a better writer.
Hi Grace! Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I’d say about 1/3 of my readers are in their 40s so you’re definitely my target audience.
It sounds like you, like me, have had a really good experience with this platform. It also sounds like what you’re doing is working. I don’t think we’re on different sides here (I can show you the dozens if not hundreds of people I’ve converted into writers on Substack). I’m expressing a personal apprehension of lowering the quality bar of writing.
I agree with a lot of the things you wrote here.
Grace, I'm not your target audience style-wise but I discovered your platform through your BoP days and I will +1 what you're saying here about your work and authenticity, and I think it comes across that way! I also don't think you should be self-conscious of your writing, I personally love your diary-type of entries.
I also agree with Emily's message and you may have been collateral damage in the broad-brushed message w/r/t "lazy" writing, as referred to in Emily's essay. Yes, people can unfollow or try to manipulate their feed to avoid the "bad" or "lazy" writers, but I get the sense that there is a protectiveness over the general ecosystem of Substack, given its relative nascency in the digital media landscape.
Even if I may not follow listicle heavy Substackers, the writers I follow might (or are suggested to follow through Substack's algo), and then they may consciously or not begin to pivot their writing into candy-coated form, and so on and so forth. It's the same way how fashion trends, memes, colloquial language, and overall culture are flattening (as Kyle Chayka's book talks about). And I think the reason why Emily's essay resonates is because human nature reverts to the mean, hence why there's a bitterness towards the Substackers who are unabashedly catering to the lowest common denominator and subsequently, dragging down the average.
Anyway, my two nosy cents. Xoxo, from someone who is definitely not a writer and does not come from a creative background :)
I find this take pretty fascinating, though not really in a good way. Like at the face of it yes, as you provide more access to an activity more people will do it. As more people engage in an activity, their skill, dedication, and capacity will vary. Thus generally quality will dip. It has happened to fiction writing, to journalism, to illustration.
However, from my personal perspective, sitting around with a bunch of friends commenting on what losers all these newbies are and not so awesome and cool and sophisticated as us cool sophisticated people is a horrible vibe.
You yourself are pointing out that a lot of this uninspired drivel you don’t appreciate is - gasp - successful!! It’s actually finding a large audience! How dare it, right? Only cool and sophisticated stuff should be finding an audience. This is basically the Twilight criticism tidal wave all over again. How dare it be BAD and SUCCESSFUL???
The thing is, there is a bell curve to people’s taste. Mediocre stuff will hit the spot for a lot of people. It just will. Kafka was never gonna be more popular than JK Rowling. Proust was never gonna outsell 50 Shades.
I personally love to see more people creating. I want to see all the bad art and the bad writing and the bad dances and make up tutorials and anything at all out there. Sure it’s not for me personally. But I love it that people are creating. I love that they’re finding an audience.
I’m an illustrator and I would like to think I am a good one. I can promise you hundreds of technically less accomplished illustrators are outselling me. I will never begrudge them for it.
You know, I find myself thinking about this with the rise of AI. Part of me is glad anyone is attempting to write in good faith in any way at all. But then again, maybe half of these folks are using ChatGPT if it's "just" listicles and sponcon! Who's to say! What a confusing internet and art moment we are in!
For sure, it’s a weird cultural moment.
Things that are BAD and SUCCESSFUL are most definitely bad for culture lol. Defending mediocrity is an interesting stance to take after reading this article.
Cultural critics, like Sundberg in this case, upholding a standard of art is a good thing. Otherwise we will be stuck to mediocre slop.
You think? You think we can criticize the mediocrity away?
The way I see it, first off I am not really 'defending' mediocrity so much as pointing out that a) it is there by necessity, there is no field where everyone can just immediately be excellent, mediocre things always have and always will be successful because most people's taste is by necessity also mediocre, because that's how bell curves work, and b) we are all part of it. Are we going to argue that you, or I, or Sundberg, are, like, paragons of literary virtue and outstanding writerly quality? Don't you think there is a group of people out there who could look at our own writing and laugh at that notion?
'Mediocre slop' can have many causes, and not all are worth 'upholding a standard against'. A writer will be mediocre on their way to getting better. Where and how do you propose they do that? In the depths of their dark closets, with no feedback?
A writer might be starting from an unprivileged position, where they have had no access to the same type of education and cosmopolitan exposure that 'cultural critics' might have been privileged to. They might still have thoughts worth expressing. They might be very young. Their writing might be 'mediocre slop' to you but really meaningful to someone else.
Someone very smartly pointed out that the algo really molds itself around your own personal choices, so anyone surrounded by 'mediocre slop' may be in a prison of their own making? My feed is not full of garbage, is yours?
Finally, 'standard of art' is a tall order on a platform that is open to everyone, while also being brave fighting words from a blog that writes listicles.... about...... shopping? Glass houses, throwing stones, all that.
So yeah, while 'standards in art' can sound like a good thing, 'snooty elitism' sounds like less of a good thing, and there are lots of ways to slice this particular cake. They just require some analytical consideration.
I may be an idealist, but I do think in some way we can criticize mediocrity away. Even if it is impossible as you say, I think it is a worthy endeavour nonetheless.
Of course people do not start off making great work. Yet, how is the work supposed to improve without criticism? Maybe not a great example of a morally ‘good’ character, but this scene from Whiplash is still applicable here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6vTI5g198E I am all for new writers entering the fold (as I am a new writer haha), but if you start putting out the same shit everyone else is and trying to charge for it, that's lame as hell and deserves to be critiqued. Maybe I am being a bit idealistic about the writing landscape, but how else can things improve?
In regards to being ‘paragons of literary virtue and outstanding writerly quality’ since when do critics also need to be great creators? Is mine, or yours, or Sundbergs, critiques invalid because we have not hit some major writing milestone? The film critic Roger Ebert comes to mind. Was he a great filmmaker? No! Nonetheless, he was a hell of a critic and widely lauded in the film world.
Also, we all know Sundberg was not criticizing the writing of ‘underprivileged writers’ as you put it. It is the lazy, unoriginal, almost algorithmic writing that is pervasive on this platform. She is not criticising the 15 year old writer testing out new things.
If somehow your algorithm is truly devoid of listicles, I envy you. Mine is most definitely not haha.
At the end of the day, critics are critical to art itself. This NYT article comes to mind. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/sunday-review/everybodys-a-critic-and-thats-how-it-should-be.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ck4.A_PW.btGIdGrv-ujY&smid=url-share
Hell, if having a strong opinion on someone elses work and upholding a standard of what I think is good writing is viewed as ‘snooty elitism’, than so be it. What is the alternative?
The alternative is uplifting the stuff you find worthy, and letting the rest live.
Sundberg was criticizing 'lots of samey articles'. That can include any number of people writing that way for any number of reasons. You can not intend to criticize marginalized groups but criticize them anyway because privilege is a hell of a blindfold.
Don't get me wrong, she obviously has the right to criticize, I mean the 'free country' thing counts for everyone. And as you can see it's gone spectacularly for her, this thing got wayyyyy more reach than her usual posts. So yeah, I guess hot takes will always be algo friendly because people love to chime in on moral quandaries. I really doubt it will improve anyone's writing tho.
Being a movie critic is a profession, even if you don't make movies you have to investigate them intimately to be in a position to critique. Doubt any of us make that cut.
If people charge for something you don't find worthwhile, don't pay them for it. If no one finds it worthwhile, no one will pay them for it, that will be their feedback. If people DO end up paying them for it, I guess you were wrong about it not having any value. Value is not universal.
There are genuinely no listicles on my feed. It's you guys :) I have actually been stunned by the depth and breadth of creativity I have encountered here so far.
I wasn't aiming at you with the phrase 'snooty elitism', I don't know you, I'm just pointing out that the same thing can be interpreted from different directions. But yeah, of course you can have any opinion you want on whatever you want, I have strong opinions on many published authors, I think Joyce is a worthless waste of time that everyone only pretends to like to appear cultured. But I wouldn't bandy those opinions about in a space full of creators, some of whom may already be feeling insecure or vulnerable about sharing what they write.
Not "will be stuck" but " are stuck" to lowest common
denominator slop. That happened to all the blogs and the various social media . It's just happening faster with Substack .
At least here, It is up to the readers to determine what "slop" they will pay for. Otherwise it's up to the advertisers to decide what gets published (or seen).
mediocre means average. average work will always exist. it's what allows other work to set itself apart. i think the ecosystem of any platform needs that.
in the case of cultural critics, for better or worse, they are stirring the pot! again, an ecosystem need both.
I'm going to be honest, this post felt outrageous to me. I’m a career writer in food and wine and have been on Substack for years. Never ONCE have I deluded myself to think that I get to decide what is or isn't good writing, what is or isn't culture. Nor do I pretend that I get to speak on behalf of a whole platform and its "intentions" just because I'm a user of it. Creatives--especially women--have endured a long history of struggling to monetize their work so it is entirely backwards of you to now be putting us down for trying. I actually find this platform extremely refreshing. It is a place for discourse, experimentation, and community. Historically, social media has made it impossible for micro-creators to earn money for their work and Substack is the first to democratize this. What a treat it is decide when we want to opt into paid content rather than be at the mercy of advertisers who profit off of us without our explicit consent. I personally hope we can all one day be able to travel or take long breaks from work all while being supported by our readers, like you now have the privilege of. But that requires us to give more people access to this pool of success rather than try to close the door behind us.
It sounds like you’re taking what you’re doing seriously (writing about food for a living). We need more of that. I want people to make money and go on vacation. I also want people to make good work if they’re charging for it.
I had several reactions which have been covered eloquently and succinctly in the other comments so let’s go deeper into one aspect that I do find self-defeating in the approach some take with Substack, pay walls on everything.
I give people the choice to subscribe but never only provide content to a paid subset. That’s a personal choice and mostly driven by being slightly embarrassed to be charging for what I write in the first place. It annoys me when a lot of content is either completely pay-walled or paywalled with enough of a preview that I am interested in reading the rest. However if my choice is sign up for life or don’t read it I am not reading it. Otherwise it is feeling like I am being charged $5 to read a tweet or ‘take’ and I am sure as shit not going to do that for a listicle I was only obliquely interested in finding out more about. It’s great to build income for all the right reasons, but please at least do the work of building my interest, getting me to like your work, build a relationship before charging me for the dubious privilege. Otherwise it’s lazy or greedy or delusional or all three. It’s ironic how mainstream publishing cannot make money because no one will pay for physical subscriptions yet if I add up what I am already paying online for all the Substack’s paid, the podcast subs, the Economist, New Yorker, NYT’s cooking and games, the Guardian and several football content apps/ groups it’s a $1000 a year.
We all choose to support what we consider good or useful writing and Substack like any marketplace will sort out the quality issue. If people are only engaged in making money and attracting followers then Substack is not the platform. It’s one saving grace so far is people are choosing where to spend their money not the platform choosing for you, directly or indirectly through the ads shown.
This is major. The past month I’ve been doing the exact same routine when i open up the substack app: open a post that i think would interest me, read the first paragraph, realize all the words are blending together with every other culture essay i’ve ever read. Close the app.
It makes me really appreciate well-edited essays from real publications. There is just so much fat to be trimmed from the essays, to the point where I think 90% of them could be a kind of long tweet instead.
The glut of link roundups and listicles never bothered me, until i realized: wait people are charging for access to *their* roundup of *someone else’s* better writing?? I think your newsletter is one of the only examples I can think of that provides a huge amount of context, to the point where the links are secondary.
I’m a local journalist (ex-TV now writing for a free local newsletter) covering city council meetings, community events, (allegedly) mismanaged municipal funds. I think of myself as a writer, I write 5-7 stories a week sometimes. I thought a felt a kinship with other writers on here, but now I’m not so sure.
People who cover local government are the prime example of providing value. You’re doing important work. Can you share the letter you write for?
Thank you for the kind words! It’s called “The Palm Springs Post” and it covers just the city of Palm Springs, CA. My boss, himself a former newspaper editor, actually started the newsletter on Substack before demand grew way beyond the platform.
He started it on his own after noticing our desert town was on its way to becoming a news desert and misinformation was spreading on Facebook/NextDoor.
(News is slow right now because the whole town shuts down in August. But we did just publish a 5-part investigative series!)
Ok I’m fascinated by Palm Springs so I’ll gladly read
This line is brilliant: wait people are charging for access to *their* roundup of *someone else’s* better writing??
Wow! So many people are triggered by this article. Once again, the internet and social media are exposing our wounds and unresolved issues. I read this and think the conversation isn’t really about calling yourself a writer or not—tags and titles are just about social approval. What caught my interest and resonated with me is the noticeable rise in the same type of content (blogs, titles, notes, images) around here. So, Emily has a point in calling out the copy-paste, clone situation we constantly see on social media, where everyone ends up looking and doing the same thing, mistakenly thinking that's what authenticity is about. My feed is full of the same “girly” trends. This app is meant to make you think and pull you out of the superficiality and nonsense garbage of other platforms. Call yourself a writer or content creator—who cares? You can be whoever you want! I think this is about reflecting on whether what we are doing here is bringing value to our society or just adding more noise, virality, and trends to the internet.
Thank you. The reactions are… something!
Perhaps it would be useful to reconsider your ego. That’s why people have reacted. :)
What does this even mean?
Are you saying Sundberg’s ego is out of control and that’s why people replied the way they did? Because if that’s what you’re saying that seems extremely passive aggressive and unnecessarily personal shot? Do you have any actually substantive criticism because otherwise it seems more like the problematic ego is yours and that it’s really fragile and easily bruised. Most angry responses I’ve seen to Sundberg have seemed like hit dogs hollering imo.
It feels like we’ve mixed up *curation* for ~analysis~.
It’s why I value my custom Twitter list of ppl with real takes that took me years to make and the few Substacks I read.
I want someone’s wacky hypothesis for *why* Brat walked so Kamala’s social team could run… not a summary. That’s what google search is for!
Drew I really like your comment and your emphasis on contributing assessment/analysis rather than a summary... it reminds me of advice that high school English teachers give, but also of feedback I have received in professional writing settings. It feels like the reason for this might be (1) It simply takes more time to provide your own analysis, but also (2) It feels like there's a (reasonable) fear about putting out original content/your own opinions on the internet
I feel like what’s happening to Substack now is what happened to podcasts over the last few years - they used to center around specific topics or formats and now it feels like everyone with an audio recording device is essentially publishing voice notes they sent to their friends. Although this feels more egregious to me with writing for some reason
I totally agree with you !!!
No notes. No lies told.
🙏🏾
loved this, emily. greece is doing wonders on you.
lately, when i log into substack, it feels like i’m stepping into the feed cage. the sheer volume of content is overwhelming, with everyone racing to be the main character.
maybe it’s because substack sells that old story that “anyone can do it—just work hard, and you’ll have an easy, happy life?” everyone’s hoping for their shot but the truth is “success” isn’t accessible to 99% of people here. what part of substacks biz is selling newsletters and what part of it is selling a dream? being a well-respected, skilled writer who gets paid is anything but easy? i know you work incredibly hard and that thinking, writing, reaching out to people and editing this wasn't easy work.
i tried explaining notes and substack’s ecosystem to a boomer the other day, and he asked, “so, is this just like that old Amway MLM-- but for writers?” it made me laugh because it feels a bit true. im not sure that substack is still for "writers". it feels more like an unclaimed plot of land—a blank space on the internet that people still trust because it hasn't been overrun by advertising...yet. perfect for opportunists. so instead of cultivating something meaningful, the space gets filled with listicles and low-quality content. soon enough, we’re in an overcrowded marketplace, with vendors shouting for attention, all fighting for scraps in the rush to get their moment/bag/love they never got from their daddy. american dream BB!
Omg I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels that substack gets realllllllly MLM-y!
This was a thoughtful read, Emily. I’ve been a personal stylist for 11 years and I moved to substack so I could share the knowledge and expertise I’ve gathered and continue to gather through my work.
Someone asked me the other day if I consider myself a writer or content creator, and I’ve always said, no. I consider myself a stylist first who uses this platform to communicate what I know with a focus on the practical side of getting dressed.
Even though I don’t consider myself a “writer”, I believe it is valuable to the readers who choose to subscribe (free or paid) and just as valid reason to be on this platform.
There are also many other writers who come at fashion from different angles who I enjoying reading, whether they are consider themselves writers or not. They could be historians, journalists, or just regular people with a keen interest in what they’re writing about!
I really like how you put this. It sounds like you’re an expert at styling, and what you’re offering is service journalism. I’m excited to catch up on your letters.
I look forward to having you as a reader! Funny you say that because, again, I can’t get myself to call myself a “journalist” either. Theoretically one can be a writer if you write and a journalist if you research and report, but I consider both to need at least some requisite time in honing your craft and - although I’m hesitant to gatekeep and say you need to go to school for it - gaining experience and maybe studying the work of those who came before you 🤷🏻♀️. Or maybe I’m just selling myself short lol.
Hey! Cool to see you here, Irene. I’ve been subscribed to your feed for a few months now and really enjoy it 👋🏿
Aww, thanks for reading and for saying hello!! ❤️
Emily, this essay really hit. I've always thought writing was something that couldn't be commoditized in the same way that one's face, body, and lifestyle can (like on Instagram), because there's a minimum standard of quality and work that's required. Anyone can point a camera or take a selfie, but not everyone can write. Penning an essay takes thought and time. But maybe I was wrong. Maybe the commodification engine is just that insatiable. I joked with my husband the other day that Substack feels increasingly like OnlyFans For The Mind, which kind of sucks. Something that gives me hope is that even in a sea of similar or poorly-written work, strong voices will continue to rise to the top and have an even bigger audience to speak to.
Appreciate your work on here and seconding the other commenters asking for more long form writing from you! x
I’m sorry but also not everybody can point a camera either. The people need to know.
“OnlyFans for the Mind” sent me to the moon.
this was REALLY great- i am dreading the day when kendall jenner and dua lipa start their own substacks. regarding listicle content… totally agree and i suppose i am apart of the problem haha- my list of things i hate was originally meant as an exercise for just myself in my journal but i ended up finding more meaning in what i wrote than unexpected and decided to publish it, i definitely don’t write for engagement or numbers and i hope it doesn’t come off that way, but overall i loved how you framed this shift within substack
FWIW: the “things I hate” was one of my faves you’ve published, Emily — big fan of your writing! there’s value in honesty and relatability!
thank you!!!!!
I adore your content- especially your lists! 🤎
Dua actually has a great newsletter and is genuinely interested in her podcast interview subjects tbh
oh im a loyal service 95 subscriber 🫡 it’s more than it would just signal a shift if she moved over to SS - no hate to my queen
Really enjoyed this read (and was flattered by the shoutout!). Substack and Internet discourse circles in general are such echo chambers that it can be challenging to even think “original” thoughts, let alone put those thoughts on paper. I’m glad that this platform is emboldening people to write, but as it shifts more social media-y, I worry about the oversaturation of Content/conformity in opinions, like any algorithm-driven platform. It being easier to become a “writer” is net positive in my eyes, but not without its challenges!
I’m glad I saw some quote your essay on my newsfeed, it helped with my structure quite a bit.
The same amount of good writers will always exist, and hopefully more writers leads to finding more good writers!!!
As it shifts more social media-y, yes exactly - and it's making a lot of us read far less. As the amount of content overwhelms the number of readers in a rather sinister ratio.
I want to find all the people who are just like me, and then find out if I can stop being like them.
Not going well so far. 😔
I really liked this take but I also think that the fact that writers can now make money directly from patrons is a good thing. Having to be accredited by an institution eg a byline in an American or British publication in order to be a writer has always lead to people being ignored or under represented. Okay some of the content on susbstack is shit but some of it is amazing and never would have been published in a ‘real’ magazine! Having power over income is something artists have not enjoyed since pre neoliberalism.
ugh I have so many thoughts. I heard someone day that it shouldn't matter that someone else is talking/blogging about the subject you want to talk/blog about already bc everyone can have their own take. But tbh lately I've been feeling a little bored by a lot of content I read on here and I am so terrified that someone looks at my writing and thinks the same thing. Forever trying to strike a balance between writing what I am interested in, what I think other people are interested in, what's clickable. But I definitely see how tempting it is to slip into the clickbait territory
Hi Emily!
Even as the number of Substacks have increased, I've cut down on the Substacks I read, because I'm not interested in diaries and lists (FWIW, Noah Smith's "Five Things" is an exception; he writes substantial mini-essays, mainly on economic matters).
I think there will be a winnowing process. Initial impulse subscribers (that's me!) will have a subscription hangover and start circumscribing their feed.
Happy travels.
Noah is great. I included him because I wanted to show that all types of writers are leaning into lists as a headline trope.
I feel very lucky to have you in my comment section, and I’m always curious about your thoughts on Substack (and everything).
Good point.
New title for Anna Karenina:
Five Mistakes 19th century Russian Women Need To Avoid When Leaving Their Husband
The Anna Karenina as a Substack title made me laugh out loud.