Recently Ross Barkan wrote a post about a group of critics who make a practice of writing long, obsessive articles about authors or cultural phenomenon.
Thanks for writing this. I am in the position of having both been a very popular blogger (at one point had a regularly viral pseudonym), and also written for legacy publications (currently working on a piece for NYmag). I think a lot about the differences in form.
I think part of what’s happening here is that the differences in style actually cut against each other, which you alluded to when you mentioned that sometimes magazine writers come here and try to do magazine-style writing and don’t succeed and get annoyed. It’s true across social platforms too. If you simply repurpose your instagram posts for Twitter/X without rewriting them, you generally won’t succeed (there are exceptions).
I thought of you when I read Barkan's original, actually! Or Quiara’s critical comment. For that very reason, that you've had a foot (three feet?) on each side of things.
I, too, liked the "different forms" bit, in this essay, on authority and trust. As someone who also participated in the 2010s blogosphere, I was a bit put-off by (what seemed to me) Barkan's general dismissal of that scene. It was certainly not just Scott Alexander's Slate Star Codex—it was an entire ecosystem of psychiatrists, economists, computer scientists, politicos, sinologists, sex-bloggers, California Buddhists, German philosophy-reading grad students, and junior officers overseas. Many of whom migrated to Substack and made it what it is today. (Including Freddie deBoer, who's now joked about as the Rude BoyKing of Substack, and of course Kriss, and of course Scott... If memory serves right, Substack worked very hard to court Scott. I believe footnotes—and several other features—were added to the site's software at his request, as part of that courting.)
But Substack, and Kanakia's scene, certainly has a different feel. Its emphasis on literature, the arts, canons, the 19th C. Rationalist bloggers read more fanfic than litfic. There was also (mostly independently of the econ/psych/strat&ratsphere) a vibrant lit-blogging scene in the late 00s and early 2010s, on sites like HTMLGiant and Big Other, which I most lurked on from afar. A few of those critics & writers (e.g. AD Jameson, Greg Gerke, Blake Butler—I'm missing many) produced work that IMO holds up. But I remember it being more chatty, more discursive than Kanakia's scene. Often deliberately informal, link-sharey, conversational, in part as a response to the economic domination of the mags. Published GChats, horse_ebooks tweets, alt-lit party reports. The Metropolitan Review (its name evoking 19th & 20th C New York, a world past) & adjacencies feel much more past-looking, to me. Not in a bad way! Often interested in repiecing together traditions and lineages. Taking on voluntarily canons that are no longer taught & top-down imposed.
Ramble ramble. "Would've written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time." Nice to see you round here Lydia, and curious where you hung out in the 00s and 10s, what you make of these shifts.
I also think he should’ve respected the blog world more! I am only learning about this rationalism blogging world, but am finding it quite fascinating, especially since it was mostly my generation (people my age) who were driving the process, and they were doing it during the same times I was trying to make it as a writer. This blogging world feels like such a strange parallel universe, here the whole time
This is very interesting as someone who didn't read 2010s blogs. I think the Substack literary scene is older, mid-thirties, not twenties, which probably accounts for a lot of the difference.
Naomi is interesting as someone who has a more millennial sensibility but also deeply appreciates and understands older literature. It's hard to find people who can comfortably exist in both worlds.
Yes the youngsters in the Substack literary world are the girls, who are often very young, in their twenties and have follower counts that dwarf the boys of LitStack :)
I hang out mainly on Twitter/X, instagram, and here I guess… but I find the feed here pretty difficult to handle at times, worse than Twitter on bad days, so I prefer the comments sections, and when I post in the feed it’s mostly restacks.
Quiara’s comment about blog posts enduring is right on the money imho. It’s crazy to me how influential some of that stuff was and yet totally unacknowledged. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I find it fascinating that I don’t have a Wikipedia entry, for instance. But I am mentioned in other entries (for example as my ex-fiancé’s baby mama I apparently merit a mention in his entry that I would prefer not to have lol). So like… I operated a blog that I built from scratch to pagerank 4, I wrote a book that was #1 in both its Amazon categories for a week, my work has been in many international publications and my personal life has been mentioned in same, yet I am not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry.
Re: your question of what I make of these shifts… for a long time I’ve thought there has to be something I could build here. I have a print magazine, and have tried all kinds of stuff. I’m a loose ends with it now though. Seems like there should be a thing for me here, but it also seems like I should be notable enough for Wikipedia, so what do I know? Lmao
edit: sorry I hit post on the comment before it was done. The edits are just a few sentences at the end, and an extra comment in the middle (the one about restacks)
really interesting piece! this isn't a universal data point, just commenting my own experience, but I actually got my start as a writer in magazines -- my first ever piece was in Vice when I was 18, then I freelanced and got a staff job at a small Canadian music magazine, then had a column at i-D. I chose to focus on my own substack and early in my career turned down several offers from mainstream publications to take a job/column there. I generally don't write for magazines now because my output is really limited while writing my book and mags generally just can't pay me as much as I make per-piece on substack (except maybe the Times, which I've written for before but am now boycotting) -- but I have received many many magazine offers essentially since I started publishing here, and still do (and the magazine world has also very kindly covered my work on substack since the very beginning). once the book project is off my plate I hope to write for many more magazines, because it's such a privilege to have a great editor and publish in a mag you love! I'd kill to be in the point, n+1, and ofc NYmag and the New Yorker.
Thanks for this context! I am envious. I wish that I had picked up those pitching skills when I was younger and hungrier. Now it definitely feels like something I could potentially do, but I would have to weather a lot of rejection I am not equipped for yet.
but worth noting re: the themes in the piece is that when I was initially deciding to focus on substack instead of magazines, it was just because I felt like the type of writing I wanted to do -- long unfiltered personal-political pieces around 5k words or more -- didn't feel like what most publications were looking for at the time (I was usually asked to do ~1k words). and I made that prioritization before money was a part of the equation at all. my logic was basically "I'm making no money blogging and next to no money freelancing, so I'd rather blog for free and say what I want to say"
I am not working on a book, and haven't written anything as widely-read & successful as Rayne has, but have had a similar experience. Writing on Substack has led to many, many more offers to write for legacy publications (freelance + staff) than I'd otherwise have — which I am very grateful for.
I do freelance for other publications occasionally, but I find that the kinds of pieces I write for Substack vs. legacy media are quite different. The former are more personal and loose in style; the latter are more newsy and reported. I find it really complementary to have both the security of an audience I "own" with full editorial freedom, as well as the additional editing + platform + impact that big publications offer.
I turn down most small magazines mainly because I can't afford to do it — both Substack and bigger pubs pay more — even if I enjoy reading from them!
Thanks for this context! You are definitely making it work—I believe your account. I think having a popular blog makes you attractive to editors, especially if they know you also have the proven ability to fit your talents to the kinds of writing they need.
This is so motivating to hear! I have let “will I be able to reach anyone else interested in this?” become a trap rather than an inspiring question. Back to letting my passions inspire and remembering that audience only comes when you put it all out there. and yes, that list is gold— and an interesting lens for interpreting her work and its evolution.
This was useful to me as an obscure blogger with triple digit subscribers and all the more so because I only realized I was reading blogging advice once I was already hooked into the piece. Thank you, sincerely.
My god, thanks for this. You've given me muchhhhhhh food for thought. I've been battling the "what is my substack really for" for quite a while now, trying to strike that balance between people who know me for a certain kind of writing (op-eds) and people who may want to know me for my more fun stuff (the latter is certainly more enjoyable and easier for me to write). I love people's effort-posts generally speaking, but for myself, I'd only have the time, and interest, to maybe do 1-2/yr given I'm also doing so much other kinds of writing, and living. Just...great, great, great job on this piece and thank you so much.
Thank you, this was extremely enlightening on these social dynamics. The distinction in voice you describe between magazines and Substacks reminds me of the difference between NPR reporter voice and Ira Glass.
Despite having read many of your pieces over the past year or more, including plenty about your journey to develop the Substack genres you are writing in now, I never knew before how hard the reception of your adult novel was for you personally. I'm sorry to hear that.
Honestly, I've been thrilled with my Substack readership because more people are seeing it than they do my blog or my Dreamwidth, which has the same content. Additionally, I've found that following some commentary on Notes, people go back and read my most recent work.
But. I don't monetize. I don't feel like I'm competing for views. If people read my blather and like it, great! I've also been reading a bit about publishing history over the years (decades, centuries...) and feel comfortable with my position. More than that, my income focus is on my fiction and since I'm self-published, I don't feel as if I have to prove anything to a publisher. If people like what I write, great! If not, well, sigh. I got so many rejects back in the day that read "love your voice, love your work, can't sell it" in many different forms that I'm somewhat steeled to being obscure.
I want dedicated readers and fans, and if that's only a handful of people whose lives I touch with my work, so be it. I'm a retiree so while it would be nice to make some money from my work, I don't have to beat myself up about it. And, as a mouthy feminist with particular opinions about the validity of genre work to literary merit, I've accepted that I'm always going to be an outsider. Wasn't easy to get to this point--it's taken several decades--but I've accepted that reality.
Thanks for this service-effort hybrid post. It’s true about obsession writing, obsession is genuine and builds trust. I could read a true obsessive on their obsession for miles, too engrossed even to be annoyed by lack of editing.
Very nice, thoughtful piece. The heartbreak of your 'breakout' novel's failure. Ugh.
I kept notes.
"What’s the worst that can happen? Your post gets ignored. So what? We are all used to being ignored."
Yay, Naomi! I think you are on the verge of breaking out. In a couple of years, with luck, you will look back to the moment you got the New Yorker feature, and say, that was IT.
With best wishes, Pete Tillman
--
"The happiest part of a man's life is what he passes lying awake
I'm not American and had never heard of NBA YoungBoy.
Daniel Falatko's essay was obsessive and dazzling. I'm awed by the effort, the research, the delicate fairness, the pitch perfect prose.
I think my comment on the essay was akin to 'nice work'. I was too speechless to know what to say about an essay on a topic and person of no interest to me, yet kept me spellbound, and which, weeks later, I'm still thinking about. What can a reader possibly say that isn't asinine.
Anyway, to anyone who got through this essay, and got to this comment - read the Daniel Falatko essay linked by Naomi, because it's so fooking good. And yes, it's also deeply interesting and disturbing and the melody lingers.
Yeah I've had the same feeling reading The Metropolitan Review and The Republic of Letters. Some writers will find real depth in something I would never even consider. It's very humbling, and a reminder of how bad mainstream media has become. Writing like this used to get you a column in a major newspaper.
This is a fascinating, astute, generous and remarkably intricate assessment of the scene (such as I understand it). Never seen anyone refer to "genres of post" but, soon as you mention it, I realized that's exactly what's going on with this unnamed vibes-based compartmentalizing I've been doing for months, asks I've gotten more familiar with the platform. Gives everyone fair treatment.
Lots to think about here -- thank you! I'm a formerly successful magazine writer and editor who now publishes extremely non-literary posts (I write about branding and advertising ffs!) but I'm always curious about how literary nonfiction happens.
One note: W. David Marx's book -- which I'm reading right now -- is "Blank Space," not "Blank Slate." He writes in his introduction: "Where society once encouraged and provided an abundance of cultural invention, there is now a _blank space_."
This is really interesting. For longer pieces I develop, I always assume their best placement is external. My Substack readership is low, and I've been trained on the conventional wisdom that Substack, as a social media platform, is not where thoughtful, longish pieces find traction. Smaller bites go down easier here. Obviously there are counterexamples (you list many!), but I had internalized that successful longform work on Substack requires audience authority first. For instance, Naomi Kanakia is known to be thoughtful and a good writer, so people are willing to invest their time in a 5,000-word Kanakia piece on Substack. I don't know enough of, say, Begler to know which came first: authority or length. To be honest, I'm still a little skeptical -- hard to drop my old priors. You ask what the cost is of publishing a long piece here. I'd say the cost, for unknowns like myself, is the opportunity: you might land that piece with an external pub that already has built-in readers. This was true for me with criticism I published in Electric Literature, and a long piece on modes of creativity that's being published in The Philosopher. But maybe as an experiment I should reserve a long piece for my Substack.
Let me note, however, that you are wrong in one key respect: link aggregation is actually really, really hard. And draining! Hence why so many prolific roundup writers use the phrase "I CONSUME the BORING/BAD THING so you don't have to" ; the "service" is having your time wasted going through the slush pile. I have a relatively "fun" beat (daily newspaper crosswords), and I still dread writing my roundups; imagine if I had to trawl through the Financial Times for trivia nuggets like Lynn Yu, or (shudder!) rightoid Twitter like Cartoons Hate Her.
Service-posting only works as a path to popularity on this site if you can stick with it, and you are not going to want to stick with it unless you are a sicko wonk. Effort-posting is much, much more enjoyable, and only slightly less lucrative.
Side note: I've never made a nickel in decades of writing reviews. We used to get paper copies (and still do, occasionally). That was nice. I've had a few magazine/journal 'sales', that paid in prestige and author copies. The only cash I can recall earning was $150 from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, for a spite piece about a former employer. I made my living as a mining geologist. Long-retired.
Naomi, I love how you've articulated the power of the 'effort-post.' There's something truly magnetic about a piece born from genuine obsession, whether it's a critical essay or a deeply imagined narrative. It reminds me that some stories demand that kind of immersive, unglamorous dedication, especially when depicting visceral, painful worlds where technology feels less like an upgrade and more like a scar. That commitment to depth is what separates a fleeting read from something that truly resonates and builds a lasting connection with readers.
Thanks for writing this. I am in the position of having both been a very popular blogger (at one point had a regularly viral pseudonym), and also written for legacy publications (currently working on a piece for NYmag). I think a lot about the differences in form.
I think part of what’s happening here is that the differences in style actually cut against each other, which you alluded to when you mentioned that sometimes magazine writers come here and try to do magazine-style writing and don’t succeed and get annoyed. It’s true across social platforms too. If you simply repurpose your instagram posts for Twitter/X without rewriting them, you generally won’t succeed (there are exceptions).
I thought of you when I read Barkan's original, actually! Or Quiara’s critical comment. For that very reason, that you've had a foot (three feet?) on each side of things.
I, too, liked the "different forms" bit, in this essay, on authority and trust. As someone who also participated in the 2010s blogosphere, I was a bit put-off by (what seemed to me) Barkan's general dismissal of that scene. It was certainly not just Scott Alexander's Slate Star Codex—it was an entire ecosystem of psychiatrists, economists, computer scientists, politicos, sinologists, sex-bloggers, California Buddhists, German philosophy-reading grad students, and junior officers overseas. Many of whom migrated to Substack and made it what it is today. (Including Freddie deBoer, who's now joked about as the Rude BoyKing of Substack, and of course Kriss, and of course Scott... If memory serves right, Substack worked very hard to court Scott. I believe footnotes—and several other features—were added to the site's software at his request, as part of that courting.)
But Substack, and Kanakia's scene, certainly has a different feel. Its emphasis on literature, the arts, canons, the 19th C. Rationalist bloggers read more fanfic than litfic. There was also (mostly independently of the econ/psych/strat&ratsphere) a vibrant lit-blogging scene in the late 00s and early 2010s, on sites like HTMLGiant and Big Other, which I most lurked on from afar. A few of those critics & writers (e.g. AD Jameson, Greg Gerke, Blake Butler—I'm missing many) produced work that IMO holds up. But I remember it being more chatty, more discursive than Kanakia's scene. Often deliberately informal, link-sharey, conversational, in part as a response to the economic domination of the mags. Published GChats, horse_ebooks tweets, alt-lit party reports. The Metropolitan Review (its name evoking 19th & 20th C New York, a world past) & adjacencies feel much more past-looking, to me. Not in a bad way! Often interested in repiecing together traditions and lineages. Taking on voluntarily canons that are no longer taught & top-down imposed.
Ramble ramble. "Would've written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time." Nice to see you round here Lydia, and curious where you hung out in the 00s and 10s, what you make of these shifts.
I also think he should’ve respected the blog world more! I am only learning about this rationalism blogging world, but am finding it quite fascinating, especially since it was mostly my generation (people my age) who were driving the process, and they were doing it during the same times I was trying to make it as a writer. This blogging world feels like such a strange parallel universe, here the whole time
This is very interesting as someone who didn't read 2010s blogs. I think the Substack literary scene is older, mid-thirties, not twenties, which probably accounts for a lot of the difference.
Naomi is interesting as someone who has a more millennial sensibility but also deeply appreciates and understands older literature. It's hard to find people who can comfortably exist in both worlds.
Yes the youngsters in the Substack literary world are the girls, who are often very young, in their twenties and have follower counts that dwarf the boys of LitStack :)
Yeah I think 20s was pretty typical. Young people with free time and no platform and often looking for friendship.
Altho the stronger writers and thinkers in many of the scenes were often older, and themselves vererans of past scenes.
Thanks for the positive feedback :)
I hang out mainly on Twitter/X, instagram, and here I guess… but I find the feed here pretty difficult to handle at times, worse than Twitter on bad days, so I prefer the comments sections, and when I post in the feed it’s mostly restacks.
Quiara’s comment about blog posts enduring is right on the money imho. It’s crazy to me how influential some of that stuff was and yet totally unacknowledged. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I find it fascinating that I don’t have a Wikipedia entry, for instance. But I am mentioned in other entries (for example as my ex-fiancé’s baby mama I apparently merit a mention in his entry that I would prefer not to have lol). So like… I operated a blog that I built from scratch to pagerank 4, I wrote a book that was #1 in both its Amazon categories for a week, my work has been in many international publications and my personal life has been mentioned in same, yet I am not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry.
Re: your question of what I make of these shifts… for a long time I’ve thought there has to be something I could build here. I have a print magazine, and have tried all kinds of stuff. I’m a loose ends with it now though. Seems like there should be a thing for me here, but it also seems like I should be notable enough for Wikipedia, so what do I know? Lmao
edit: sorry I hit post on the comment before it was done. The edits are just a few sentences at the end, and an extra comment in the middle (the one about restacks)
I loved Clarisse Thorn! The pickup artist chaser book (which I reviewed on my old blog) was ahead of its time. Congrats on NYmag!
You reviewed it? Cool! Did I see the review at the time? Were you writing under a different name?
Yep you emailed me. The review was on my Wordpress blog, and now it’s in my archives https://www.woman-of-letters.com/p/confessions-of-a-pick-up-artist-chaser-by-clarisse-thorn
I remember this now!! Thank you again in retrospect :)
really interesting piece! this isn't a universal data point, just commenting my own experience, but I actually got my start as a writer in magazines -- my first ever piece was in Vice when I was 18, then I freelanced and got a staff job at a small Canadian music magazine, then had a column at i-D. I chose to focus on my own substack and early in my career turned down several offers from mainstream publications to take a job/column there. I generally don't write for magazines now because my output is really limited while writing my book and mags generally just can't pay me as much as I make per-piece on substack (except maybe the Times, which I've written for before but am now boycotting) -- but I have received many many magazine offers essentially since I started publishing here, and still do (and the magazine world has also very kindly covered my work on substack since the very beginning). once the book project is off my plate I hope to write for many more magazines, because it's such a privilege to have a great editor and publish in a mag you love! I'd kill to be in the point, n+1, and ofc NYmag and the New Yorker.
Thanks for this context! I am envious. I wish that I had picked up those pitching skills when I was younger and hungrier. Now it definitely feels like something I could potentially do, but I would have to weather a lot of rejection I am not equipped for yet.
Excited for you in n+1 someday
but worth noting re: the themes in the piece is that when I was initially deciding to focus on substack instead of magazines, it was just because I felt like the type of writing I wanted to do -- long unfiltered personal-political pieces around 5k words or more -- didn't feel like what most publications were looking for at the time (I was usually asked to do ~1k words). and I made that prioritization before money was a part of the equation at all. my logic was basically "I'm making no money blogging and next to no money freelancing, so I'd rather blog for free and say what I want to say"
I am not working on a book, and haven't written anything as widely-read & successful as Rayne has, but have had a similar experience. Writing on Substack has led to many, many more offers to write for legacy publications (freelance + staff) than I'd otherwise have — which I am very grateful for.
I do freelance for other publications occasionally, but I find that the kinds of pieces I write for Substack vs. legacy media are quite different. The former are more personal and loose in style; the latter are more newsy and reported. I find it really complementary to have both the security of an audience I "own" with full editorial freedom, as well as the additional editing + platform + impact that big publications offer.
I turn down most small magazines mainly because I can't afford to do it — both Substack and bigger pubs pay more — even if I enjoy reading from them!
Thanks for this context! You are definitely making it work—I believe your account. I think having a popular blog makes you attractive to editors, especially if they know you also have the proven ability to fit your talents to the kinds of writing they need.
Nice service piece with a discourse hook. So I guess I do have to finish my effortful exploration of Joy Williams’ work and reputation…
I think there could be an audience for this! I know nothing about her, would love to learn.
omg Abra…I am the target audience for this post! I'd be very very interested—and I think often about Williams's list, '8 essential ettributes of the short story (and one way it differs from a novel)' that she included at the end of this interview https://www.vice.com/en/article/joy-williams-ninety-nine-stories-of-god-how-to-write-a-short-story/
the list is so good and precise—I'd be so curious how it relates to her short fiction approach
This is so motivating to hear! I have let “will I be able to reach anyone else interested in this?” become a trap rather than an inspiring question. Back to letting my passions inspire and remembering that audience only comes when you put it all out there. and yes, that list is gold— and an interesting lens for interpreting her work and its evolution.
This was useful to me as an obscure blogger with triple digit subscribers and all the more so because I only realized I was reading blogging advice once I was already hooked into the piece. Thank you, sincerely.
My god, thanks for this. You've given me muchhhhhhh food for thought. I've been battling the "what is my substack really for" for quite a while now, trying to strike that balance between people who know me for a certain kind of writing (op-eds) and people who may want to know me for my more fun stuff (the latter is certainly more enjoyable and easier for me to write). I love people's effort-posts generally speaking, but for myself, I'd only have the time, and interest, to maybe do 1-2/yr given I'm also doing so much other kinds of writing, and living. Just...great, great, great job on this piece and thank you so much.
Thanks! You’re really the kind of audience I intended for this
Thank you, this was extremely enlightening on these social dynamics. The distinction in voice you describe between magazines and Substacks reminds me of the difference between NPR reporter voice and Ira Glass.
Despite having read many of your pieces over the past year or more, including plenty about your journey to develop the Substack genres you are writing in now, I never knew before how hard the reception of your adult novel was for you personally. I'm sorry to hear that.
That’s good :) I try not to dwell on it, and I feel like I’ve moved past it now—as a result I think it’s easier to talk about
Honestly, I've been thrilled with my Substack readership because more people are seeing it than they do my blog or my Dreamwidth, which has the same content. Additionally, I've found that following some commentary on Notes, people go back and read my most recent work.
But. I don't monetize. I don't feel like I'm competing for views. If people read my blather and like it, great! I've also been reading a bit about publishing history over the years (decades, centuries...) and feel comfortable with my position. More than that, my income focus is on my fiction and since I'm self-published, I don't feel as if I have to prove anything to a publisher. If people like what I write, great! If not, well, sigh. I got so many rejects back in the day that read "love your voice, love your work, can't sell it" in many different forms that I'm somewhat steeled to being obscure.
I want dedicated readers and fans, and if that's only a handful of people whose lives I touch with my work, so be it. I'm a retiree so while it would be nice to make some money from my work, I don't have to beat myself up about it. And, as a mouthy feminist with particular opinions about the validity of genre work to literary merit, I've accepted that I'm always going to be an outsider. Wasn't easy to get to this point--it's taken several decades--but I've accepted that reality.
Thanks for this service-effort hybrid post. It’s true about obsession writing, obsession is genuine and builds trust. I could read a true obsessive on their obsession for miles, too engrossed even to be annoyed by lack of editing.
Very nice, thoughtful piece. The heartbreak of your 'breakout' novel's failure. Ugh.
I kept notes.
"What’s the worst that can happen? Your post gets ignored. So what? We are all used to being ignored."
Yay, Naomi! I think you are on the verge of breaking out. In a couple of years, with luck, you will look back to the moment you got the New Yorker feature, and say, that was IT.
With best wishes, Pete Tillman
--
"The happiest part of a man's life is what he passes lying awake
in bed in the morning." -- Dr. Johnson
I'm not American and had never heard of NBA YoungBoy.
Daniel Falatko's essay was obsessive and dazzling. I'm awed by the effort, the research, the delicate fairness, the pitch perfect prose.
I think my comment on the essay was akin to 'nice work'. I was too speechless to know what to say about an essay on a topic and person of no interest to me, yet kept me spellbound, and which, weeks later, I'm still thinking about. What can a reader possibly say that isn't asinine.
Anyway, to anyone who got through this essay, and got to this comment - read the Daniel Falatko essay linked by Naomi, because it's so fooking good. And yes, it's also deeply interesting and disturbing and the melody lingers.
I was very impressed, especially with the hook! He really made the case that I needed to be reading this piece right now, today
Yeah I've had the same feeling reading The Metropolitan Review and The Republic of Letters. Some writers will find real depth in something I would never even consider. It's very humbling, and a reminder of how bad mainstream media has become. Writing like this used to get you a column in a major newspaper.
YES!
This is a fascinating, astute, generous and remarkably intricate assessment of the scene (such as I understand it). Never seen anyone refer to "genres of post" but, soon as you mention it, I realized that's exactly what's going on with this unnamed vibes-based compartmentalizing I've been doing for months, asks I've gotten more familiar with the platform. Gives everyone fair treatment.
Well but you also have your lyric essays, which are a Regular Blog Post that is actually a huge driver of your growth. It’s quite unique really!
Lots to think about here -- thank you! I'm a formerly successful magazine writer and editor who now publishes extremely non-literary posts (I write about branding and advertising ffs!) but I'm always curious about how literary nonfiction happens.
One note: W. David Marx's book -- which I'm reading right now -- is "Blank Space," not "Blank Slate." He writes in his introduction: "Where society once encouraged and provided an abundance of cultural invention, there is now a _blank space_."
Whoops, thanks!
This is really interesting. For longer pieces I develop, I always assume their best placement is external. My Substack readership is low, and I've been trained on the conventional wisdom that Substack, as a social media platform, is not where thoughtful, longish pieces find traction. Smaller bites go down easier here. Obviously there are counterexamples (you list many!), but I had internalized that successful longform work on Substack requires audience authority first. For instance, Naomi Kanakia is known to be thoughtful and a good writer, so people are willing to invest their time in a 5,000-word Kanakia piece on Substack. I don't know enough of, say, Begler to know which came first: authority or length. To be honest, I'm still a little skeptical -- hard to drop my old priors. You ask what the cost is of publishing a long piece here. I'd say the cost, for unknowns like myself, is the opportunity: you might land that piece with an external pub that already has built-in readers. This was true for me with criticism I published in Electric Literature, and a long piece on modes of creativity that's being published in The Philosopher. But maybe as an experiment I should reserve a long piece for my Substack.
If you have the connections with other publications that’ll publish a long piece then it can make sense to go with them too of course :)
Thank you for the shout-out :'D
Let me note, however, that you are wrong in one key respect: link aggregation is actually really, really hard. And draining! Hence why so many prolific roundup writers use the phrase "I CONSUME the BORING/BAD THING so you don't have to" ; the "service" is having your time wasted going through the slush pile. I have a relatively "fun" beat (daily newspaper crosswords), and I still dread writing my roundups; imagine if I had to trawl through the Financial Times for trivia nuggets like Lynn Yu, or (shudder!) rightoid Twitter like Cartoons Hate Her.
Service-posting only works as a path to popularity on this site if you can stick with it, and you are not going to want to stick with it unless you are a sicko wonk. Effort-posting is much, much more enjoyable, and only slightly less lucrative.
But we are saying the same thing no? Service posting sucks (for the writer)
We're both saying service-posting sucks (for the writer), but I think it sucks on axes beyond "boring" and "doesn't funnel to your non-service work."
Huh. My public writing these days is almost all book reviews and related stuff at Goodreads. I'm pretty good at it (kof, kof): http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/8101737-peter-tillman
My service-posting there is usually giving back-story to well-known books, like this one on Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf":
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1459277096
I enjoyed doing that one (and others).
Side note: I've never made a nickel in decades of writing reviews. We used to get paper copies (and still do, occasionally). That was nice. I've had a few magazine/journal 'sales', that paid in prestige and author copies. The only cash I can recall earning was $150 from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, for a spite piece about a former employer. I made my living as a mining geologist. Long-retired.
Fascinating stuff—couldn’t stop reading. Convinced me to publish my novella on Substack.
Naomi, I love how you've articulated the power of the 'effort-post.' There's something truly magnetic about a piece born from genuine obsession, whether it's a critical essay or a deeply imagined narrative. It reminds me that some stories demand that kind of immersive, unglamorous dedication, especially when depicting visceral, painful worlds where technology feels less like an upgrade and more like a scar. That commitment to depth is what separates a fleeting read from something that truly resonates and builds a lasting connection with readers.