I get your general point, and yes the loss of an apprenticeship process in the field of journalism is sad.
However I think the blame is being laid a bit unfairly at the feet of substack. I personally see the substack model and platform as a possible solution to the awfulness of the current online communication channels.
The real culripts to my mind are facebook, twitter, and the contrived political wars that the population have been driven into. That said... I think the real villians here are the larger publications themselves. They joined the race to the bottom with gusto. Ragebait headlines, blatantly partisan political stances, incendiary columnists... They failed to take the high ground of journalistic integrity and here we are...
Having just ditched the ever-more depressing hellscape of facebook, Substack is a breath of fresh air to my craft and my sanity. I find there to be a much greater community spirit here than anything in the 'social' media sphere. I also feel a degree of positive pressure to meet the standards of many of the polished and professional writers here...
Having said all of that I may be a little biased as my own medium is poetry. Like many lovers of that craft I have watched the big name publishers spew the most awful, lazy substandard collections (a single sentence with bizarrely placed linebreaks is NOT a poem). In our own little world it is the 'amateurs' and independent writers who are striving for quality, depth, and meaning in their work while the big guns happily churn out rubbish...
This is pushback I'm getting a lot, and I think it's fair. I don't know that Substack is to "blame" necessarily, but I can't say that I'm fully in love with the kind of reading and writing culture it fosters. But you're correct, in the sense that Substack was obviously filling a void left by failures in traditional media. I do think, considered as a social media platform rather than a blogging platform, Substack seems much healthier than any other I've been on.
My concern is specifically with the cultivation of writing as a craft, and I'm not sure that Substack accomplishes that as effectively as the best forms of "traditional" writing for pitching and publication with editors. Maybe I'm overstating the benefits of that process, or underestimating what can happen on Substack with effort, but I think it's perfectly possible for a mediocre, even bad, writer to develop a following here and not really be working to improve *as a writer.*
Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful criticisms! People are pushing back helpfully, and I really am enjoying seeing the responses.
Swings and roundabouts... I think there are exciting times to come from Substack. I've seen some tight-knit groups forming and a lot of interesting collaborations.
Substack as a platform is at an exciting point in its journey - starting to pick up and gain numbers (and the resources that go with them) but still innovative and reactive.
I'd love to see some college style 'zines pop-up combining the best of both worlds: punk writers following their own muse without heavy editorial moderation or a corporate culture millstone round their necks. But with the accountability and discipline that a team environment creates.
That’s a good point about the need for an editor and how, on Substack you have to become your own. What’s also interesting is that any of your friends or family members who read your stuff on Substack aren’t going to go after it with a red pen.
When I was an undergraduate, I felt very proud of an essay on Borges that I submitted to my professor. When I got it back, there was an X over the entire first page with the word “silly.” at the top of page two he wrote, “Start here.” I needed that and never forgot it.
I teach Literature at college. I once did what you just said in a student's essay (I did not write "silly", but "unnecesary"). They opened a formal proceeding against me for that, because the student complained it was psychological harassment. You cannot do corrections anymore. That model is dead everywhere.
Yikes. The prof. who made that big X became my favorite teacher and was on my dissertation committee years later. What’s ironic (as you know) is that we cross out lines from our own work because they are unnecessary—“kill your darlings,” etc.
My dean gave me his support, but the official conclusion of the case by the university was… "nothing wrong, but maybe don't do those comments". Teaching today looks difficult.
Great reflections on the value of the editorial process. I know you already know about us, but The Enthusiast is trying to keep a little candle lit for that old style. I’m editor, and we have a writing team. Not perfect but we love it!
Seems odd to blame Substack. It’s more of an issue of society at large abandoning publications. No doubt, Substack doesn’t help these individualizing dynamics, but it’s a bit rich that Current is bemoaning their predicament on Twitter, a far worse actor in this space.
Meanwhile the rise of consolidated newsletters, such as the Metropolitan Review makes me think that new institutions are rising to meet the void.
I wouldn’t “blame” Substack at all, just argue that the shift to the Substack model is sub-par for producing good writers. We need to be molded outside of what Substack offers us.
As an architect, I would agree. A profession benefits from good institutions to train up and coming practitioners.
Maybe my read of your article was overly colored by your provocative title. Substack might not be helping the problem but there are way bigger forces at play that’s killing the lit scene.
Your title may read as blaming, and may be a bit clickbait-y. But I can't (in turn) blame you. In fact, when I saw it, I thought, "Don't click, don't click..Oof! Here I go!" And now I'm very glad I did. You're onto something. I discovered Substack just as I was turning (in my mid fifties) from singing to writing as artistic outlet and possible career. I made four or five submissions (one accepted), but then stopped because I have only so much energy and had already committed to "practicing" here. Only I'm finding the problem you describe--I could use some trusted help. Those who offer are less than trustworthy (and, well, grating). So Philip, I wonder if some of us might put our heads together on this. I'm headed to a conference next month, partly in search of like-minded support. Support--that's the word. A support group perhaps?
As usual--late to the party. And now seeing much of this has been discussed. I'll try to find time to skim through. But if anything jumps out at you, thanks for letting me know. Good luck to you.
I am new to Substack and have not yet written anything with it but I thought I would add my input here. I enjoyed reading this as I am not too well versed or experienced within the writing world but I would like to be. I understand how contemporary literature has seemed to evolve toward individualism and see how that might cause issues for some that are used to past practices. I hope to one day publish something worth reading but I know it will take many failures and mistakes to do so. Once I am consistent and comfortable with my writing style, as I am sure that you are, then I will enlist the help of an editor. Nonetheless, thanks for the read! It gave me an interesting perspective on an emerging new passion of mine.
You just did... IMO this comment is quite in-depth and smart (by comment standards). Fear of the blank canvas and self judgement are ever present obstacles for any writer and I think you have the bare bones of a warm and relatable piece here....
I've just started a weekly "McAllister's Mates" section of my substack where I pick out the inspiring users and articles I've come across. (It was only out this morning and its view count is way above my average).
I'd really love to spotlight your thoughts on feeling ready to write, if you create such an article?
This is a very, very good article. Substack sounds and feels like salvation for me, but that's because I'm only 23 and just out of college. You're absolutely right. We still need elites; we still need professionals with high and objective standards. When everyone and their friend has their own blog or their own podcast, the public square is further democratized, which creates greater equality and (initially) greater freedom, but reduces trust in experts and their carefully constructed standards and edifices.
The walls have fallen. Maybe they needed to fall; I certainly celebrated when they did. But now the walls are gone, and nothing has yet replaced them. So you're right to ask if this will lead to the good consequences that I and so many others assumed in the heady months and years prior.
The blogging and podcasting era may worsen the very same trend of "alternative facts" that destroyed the legacy media. If this happens, the idea of expertise will be sorely missed at the exact time when the experts who remain are publicly mocked and ostracized.
So thanks very much for sounding this cautionary note.
Good piece. Editors are important. As well as the explosion of independent voices who use Substack in a similar way to blogging (a valuable form in its own right), Substack needs to host a new generation of publications/institutions that uphold great editorial standards. The Substack model supports that well and supercharges growth through the network (i.e. it's easier to get subscribers for your new publication than it has ever been in history, in part because of the Substack network, in part because of social media). We're investing more in the tools and infrastructure to help these new institutions—places like The Ankler, The Bulwark, Zeteo, The Free Press, Drop Site—emerge and thrive.
I appreciate you reading despite the bombastic title! It does make me very happy to see full-fledged publications succeeding on the platform. I find it encouraging as an example of the best a platform like this can be, as you said, both providing space for independent voices and tools to help larger outlets with editors and all continue to thrive.
The same thing has/is happening with music and radio stations, not sure if it’s all good or bad, but the shift is certainly a reality. Thanks for your thoughts to the conversation.!
This is great, thank you! As a new writer myself, I strive constantly to improve my writing, but it's hard to know when you're both writer and editor. A year ago when I was writing my thesis, I had the good fortune of having a great thesis advisor who edited the hell out it, which was both humbling and an amazing learning experience all in one. However, now out in the wilderness all by my lonesome, I have to reread the The Elements of Style like it's the Bible, and be as ruthless on myself as possible. If I ever write a book though, I will seeking out an editor that much is sure.
I am currently using Substance to publish stuff I know publications may not take up while attempting to hone in my writing skills and hopefully get access to an editor one day to really take off.
Substack does not eliminate editors. They aren't a requirement to publish here but nothing is stopping you or any other writer from contacting an editor and paying them to edit you. It's simply a reversal of the normal gatekeeping arrangement: the editor has to prove their value to the writer to stay in business. If you think you would benefit from editing, make some calls and make it happen.
This is a fair point, and I appreciate you raising it! It relates to my general critique of online platforms, though. I think it is possible to use social media sites like Twitter, Reddit, or Substack well. Doing so often requires, though, pushing against the trends of the platform itself, or actively resisting things the platform seems to drive you toward. So, if I want to use Reddit productively, I effectively have to avoid all the things that are pushed on the homepage and seek out subreddits that are particularly informative or constructive (I am fond of r/askphilosophy). If I want to use Substack in a way that avoids the pitfalls I think are incentivized by it, I either need to be writing for a broader variety of publications or, as you suggest, be seeking out editors myself.
This is a thoughtful piece, and I applaud you for sharing what I'm sure you anticipated would be a controversial take, but I've got to disagree. The first thing I wondered while reading was, "Did guys like Henry David Thoreau or Plato (etc) have an editor?" I'm sure many, if not most, writers have undergone editorial education, but I'm not so sure the great writing we all want to see needs (or, in certain ways, is possible with the extra input of) an editor in order to come to fruition. Of course, most, if not all, writers would benefit from editorial input--perhaps this could be an added feature on Substack (editors for hire to Substackers, idk). But I don't think good writing needs anything more than a writer, a pen, and a piece of paper. Moreover, the idea that Substackers are lone wolves who develop audiences all on their own is a shortsighted understanding of this platform . . . Though it may be the case for some who have migrated their audiences from elsewhere, Substack seems to have brought writers together in ways magazines never had before (take a look at "How to think about the substack network" by M. E. Rothwell). I wish we could all talk about this for hours on end, cus I find what's going on in this industry super fascinating and important, but I'd end up writing an essay here. Well written post, I just don't agree completely!
You can start with this sentence. Was it intentional?
“But I don’t believe I ever would have published the variety of pieces I have in the variety of outlets I have if I had first or primarily pursued writing as primarily a journey of self-publishing.”
I wish I could say it was intentional, but no, this was a sentence where my own attempt to self-edit awkward phrasing left in an unintentional repetition, and additional eyes before publication would likely have caught it 😂 I did notice it after publishing and decided to leave it in, hoping someone would call me on it, though, so in that respect it’s intentional!
Everything in life has tradeoffs. Substack is great on one hand because we get to see and hear voices which trad publishing would never let in. Voices that are more interesting and less ideologically captured, etc. On the flip side, everyone and their 85-year-old grandmother thinks they're "a writer." And so, necessarily, you have to wade through a lot of crap to find the gems. I don't see any real way around this conundrum.
I get your general point, and yes the loss of an apprenticeship process in the field of journalism is sad.
However I think the blame is being laid a bit unfairly at the feet of substack. I personally see the substack model and platform as a possible solution to the awfulness of the current online communication channels.
The real culripts to my mind are facebook, twitter, and the contrived political wars that the population have been driven into. That said... I think the real villians here are the larger publications themselves. They joined the race to the bottom with gusto. Ragebait headlines, blatantly partisan political stances, incendiary columnists... They failed to take the high ground of journalistic integrity and here we are...
Having just ditched the ever-more depressing hellscape of facebook, Substack is a breath of fresh air to my craft and my sanity. I find there to be a much greater community spirit here than anything in the 'social' media sphere. I also feel a degree of positive pressure to meet the standards of many of the polished and professional writers here...
Having said all of that I may be a little biased as my own medium is poetry. Like many lovers of that craft I have watched the big name publishers spew the most awful, lazy substandard collections (a single sentence with bizarrely placed linebreaks is NOT a poem). In our own little world it is the 'amateurs' and independent writers who are striving for quality, depth, and meaning in their work while the big guns happily churn out rubbish...
This is pushback I'm getting a lot, and I think it's fair. I don't know that Substack is to "blame" necessarily, but I can't say that I'm fully in love with the kind of reading and writing culture it fosters. But you're correct, in the sense that Substack was obviously filling a void left by failures in traditional media. I do think, considered as a social media platform rather than a blogging platform, Substack seems much healthier than any other I've been on.
My concern is specifically with the cultivation of writing as a craft, and I'm not sure that Substack accomplishes that as effectively as the best forms of "traditional" writing for pitching and publication with editors. Maybe I'm overstating the benefits of that process, or underestimating what can happen on Substack with effort, but I think it's perfectly possible for a mediocre, even bad, writer to develop a following here and not really be working to improve *as a writer.*
Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful criticisms! People are pushing back helpfully, and I really am enjoying seeing the responses.
Swings and roundabouts... I think there are exciting times to come from Substack. I've seen some tight-knit groups forming and a lot of interesting collaborations.
Substack as a platform is at an exciting point in its journey - starting to pick up and gain numbers (and the resources that go with them) but still innovative and reactive.
I'd love to see some college style 'zines pop-up combining the best of both worlds: punk writers following their own muse without heavy editorial moderation or a corporate culture millstone round their necks. But with the accountability and discipline that a team environment creates.
That’s a good point about the need for an editor and how, on Substack you have to become your own. What’s also interesting is that any of your friends or family members who read your stuff on Substack aren’t going to go after it with a red pen.
When I was an undergraduate, I felt very proud of an essay on Borges that I submitted to my professor. When I got it back, there was an X over the entire first page with the word “silly.” at the top of page two he wrote, “Start here.” I needed that and never forgot it.
I teach Literature at college. I once did what you just said in a student's essay (I did not write "silly", but "unnecesary"). They opened a formal proceeding against me for that, because the student complained it was psychological harassment. You cannot do corrections anymore. That model is dead everywhere.
Yikes. The prof. who made that big X became my favorite teacher and was on my dissertation committee years later. What’s ironic (as you know) is that we cross out lines from our own work because they are unnecessary—“kill your darlings,” etc.
I hope your school stood up for you!
My dean gave me his support, but the official conclusion of the case by the university was… "nothing wrong, but maybe don't do those comments". Teaching today looks difficult.
Great reflections on the value of the editorial process. I know you already know about us, but The Enthusiast is trying to keep a little candle lit for that old style. I’m editor, and we have a writing team. Not perfect but we love it!
https://theenthusiast2024.substack.com/
Seems odd to blame Substack. It’s more of an issue of society at large abandoning publications. No doubt, Substack doesn’t help these individualizing dynamics, but it’s a bit rich that Current is bemoaning their predicament on Twitter, a far worse actor in this space.
Meanwhile the rise of consolidated newsletters, such as the Metropolitan Review makes me think that new institutions are rising to meet the void.
I wouldn’t “blame” Substack at all, just argue that the shift to the Substack model is sub-par for producing good writers. We need to be molded outside of what Substack offers us.
As an architect, I would agree. A profession benefits from good institutions to train up and coming practitioners.
Maybe my read of your article was overly colored by your provocative title. Substack might not be helping the problem but there are way bigger forces at play that’s killing the lit scene.
Your title may read as blaming, and may be a bit clickbait-y. But I can't (in turn) blame you. In fact, when I saw it, I thought, "Don't click, don't click..Oof! Here I go!" And now I'm very glad I did. You're onto something. I discovered Substack just as I was turning (in my mid fifties) from singing to writing as artistic outlet and possible career. I made four or five submissions (one accepted), but then stopped because I have only so much energy and had already committed to "practicing" here. Only I'm finding the problem you describe--I could use some trusted help. Those who offer are less than trustworthy (and, well, grating). So Philip, I wonder if some of us might put our heads together on this. I'm headed to a conference next month, partly in search of like-minded support. Support--that's the word. A support group perhaps?
As usual--late to the party. And now seeing much of this has been discussed. I'll try to find time to skim through. But if anything jumps out at you, thanks for letting me know. Good luck to you.
I am new to Substack and have not yet written anything with it but I thought I would add my input here. I enjoyed reading this as I am not too well versed or experienced within the writing world but I would like to be. I understand how contemporary literature has seemed to evolve toward individualism and see how that might cause issues for some that are used to past practices. I hope to one day publish something worth reading but I know it will take many failures and mistakes to do so. Once I am consistent and comfortable with my writing style, as I am sure that you are, then I will enlist the help of an editor. Nonetheless, thanks for the read! It gave me an interesting perspective on an emerging new passion of mine.
You just did... IMO this comment is quite in-depth and smart (by comment standards). Fear of the blank canvas and self judgement are ever present obstacles for any writer and I think you have the bare bones of a warm and relatable piece here....
I've just started a weekly "McAllister's Mates" section of my substack where I pick out the inspiring users and articles I've come across. (It was only out this morning and its view count is way above my average).
I'd really love to spotlight your thoughts on feeling ready to write, if you create such an article?
Consistency is enough, you will likely never be comfortable. So start and try not to stop. Ever.
This is a very, very good article. Substack sounds and feels like salvation for me, but that's because I'm only 23 and just out of college. You're absolutely right. We still need elites; we still need professionals with high and objective standards. When everyone and their friend has their own blog or their own podcast, the public square is further democratized, which creates greater equality and (initially) greater freedom, but reduces trust in experts and their carefully constructed standards and edifices.
The walls have fallen. Maybe they needed to fall; I certainly celebrated when they did. But now the walls are gone, and nothing has yet replaced them. So you're right to ask if this will lead to the good consequences that I and so many others assumed in the heady months and years prior.
The blogging and podcasting era may worsen the very same trend of "alternative facts" that destroyed the legacy media. If this happens, the idea of expertise will be sorely missed at the exact time when the experts who remain are publicly mocked and ostracized.
So thanks very much for sounding this cautionary note.
Lincoln
Good piece. Editors are important. As well as the explosion of independent voices who use Substack in a similar way to blogging (a valuable form in its own right), Substack needs to host a new generation of publications/institutions that uphold great editorial standards. The Substack model supports that well and supercharges growth through the network (i.e. it's easier to get subscribers for your new publication than it has ever been in history, in part because of the Substack network, in part because of social media). We're investing more in the tools and infrastructure to help these new institutions—places like The Ankler, The Bulwark, Zeteo, The Free Press, Drop Site—emerge and thrive.
I appreciate you reading despite the bombastic title! It does make me very happy to see full-fledged publications succeeding on the platform. I find it encouraging as an example of the best a platform like this can be, as you said, both providing space for independent voices and tools to help larger outlets with editors and all continue to thrive.
It was an effective headline!
The same thing has/is happening with music and radio stations, not sure if it’s all good or bad, but the shift is certainly a reality. Thanks for your thoughts to the conversation.!
This is great, thank you! As a new writer myself, I strive constantly to improve my writing, but it's hard to know when you're both writer and editor. A year ago when I was writing my thesis, I had the good fortune of having a great thesis advisor who edited the hell out it, which was both humbling and an amazing learning experience all in one. However, now out in the wilderness all by my lonesome, I have to reread the The Elements of Style like it's the Bible, and be as ruthless on myself as possible. If I ever write a book though, I will seeking out an editor that much is sure.
Very helpful. This conversation, happening all over Substack, about what Substack is and what it isn't is healthy. Glad to hear your point.
I wish I had access to an editing apprenticeship. It seems the only way to do that these days is to get in with a magazine or go to graduate school.
I am currently using Substance to publish stuff I know publications may not take up while attempting to hone in my writing skills and hopefully get access to an editor one day to really take off.
Substack does not eliminate editors. They aren't a requirement to publish here but nothing is stopping you or any other writer from contacting an editor and paying them to edit you. It's simply a reversal of the normal gatekeeping arrangement: the editor has to prove their value to the writer to stay in business. If you think you would benefit from editing, make some calls and make it happen.
This is a fair point, and I appreciate you raising it! It relates to my general critique of online platforms, though. I think it is possible to use social media sites like Twitter, Reddit, or Substack well. Doing so often requires, though, pushing against the trends of the platform itself, or actively resisting things the platform seems to drive you toward. So, if I want to use Reddit productively, I effectively have to avoid all the things that are pushed on the homepage and seek out subreddits that are particularly informative or constructive (I am fond of r/askphilosophy). If I want to use Substack in a way that avoids the pitfalls I think are incentivized by it, I either need to be writing for a broader variety of publications or, as you suggest, be seeking out editors myself.
This is a thoughtful piece, and I applaud you for sharing what I'm sure you anticipated would be a controversial take, but I've got to disagree. The first thing I wondered while reading was, "Did guys like Henry David Thoreau or Plato (etc) have an editor?" I'm sure many, if not most, writers have undergone editorial education, but I'm not so sure the great writing we all want to see needs (or, in certain ways, is possible with the extra input of) an editor in order to come to fruition. Of course, most, if not all, writers would benefit from editorial input--perhaps this could be an added feature on Substack (editors for hire to Substackers, idk). But I don't think good writing needs anything more than a writer, a pen, and a piece of paper. Moreover, the idea that Substackers are lone wolves who develop audiences all on their own is a shortsighted understanding of this platform . . . Though it may be the case for some who have migrated their audiences from elsewhere, Substack seems to have brought writers together in ways magazines never had before (take a look at "How to think about the substack network" by M. E. Rothwell). I wish we could all talk about this for hours on end, cus I find what's going on in this industry super fascinating and important, but I'd end up writing an essay here. Well written post, I just don't agree completely!
You can start with this sentence. Was it intentional?
“But I don’t believe I ever would have published the variety of pieces I have in the variety of outlets I have if I had first or primarily pursued writing as primarily a journey of self-publishing.”
I wish I could say it was intentional, but no, this was a sentence where my own attempt to self-edit awkward phrasing left in an unintentional repetition, and additional eyes before publication would likely have caught it 😂 I did notice it after publishing and decided to leave it in, hoping someone would call me on it, though, so in that respect it’s intentional!
Ha ha! Excellent test of your readers…
Everything in life has tradeoffs. Substack is great on one hand because we get to see and hear voices which trad publishing would never let in. Voices that are more interesting and less ideologically captured, etc. On the flip side, everyone and their 85-year-old grandmother thinks they're "a writer." And so, necessarily, you have to wade through a lot of crap to find the gems. I don't see any real way around this conundrum.