I'll weigh in as someone who has written for the most prestigious publications in America and maintains a Substack. The problem with media today is the lack of opportunities for talented or even interesting people, and the time it actually takes to pitch, wait for a reply, and then get published. It's a brutal regime that's gotten worse with the mass shrinkage of the media landscape as well as the homogeny that came with the internet and social media. It is harder and harder to have a voice or personality and write for a mainstream publication. You are often crushed by a house style, and I say this as someone who still very much enjoys writing for the mainstream. Substack isn't growing because it's a tech company. It's growing because the mainstream media and publishing industry created MASSIVE gaps for other writers to fill; Substack is basically correcting a market inefficiency.
The old New York Review of Books was much more interesting than the current NYRB. There is no equivalent of the 20th century Village Voice, where very talented and half-crazy writers could pop off on each other and sometimes make history. And if you write fiction or criticism, there are fewer and fewer publications that will take a risk on you.
I am with Sam's critique 100%. And I went to a state school.
I largely think this is the correct take, but, as someone whose day job has long been in tech, this platform’s growth isn’t being driven by thoughtful writers who are filling gaps left by the dinosaurs in legacy media. Those are the treasured minority, but the most valuable people to Substack are those who are writing the equivalent of pulpy mass market stuff. For every incredibly well thought out essay on a connected piece of cultural ephemera, there are 100 ‘some things I’m reading’ posts. I argue that is simultaneously good for Substack and cheapens the discipline as a whole.
And listen I should have spent more time critiquing the current state of the industry. Even as someone who writes for the usual cast of legacy outlets, it is an endless amount of indignities and frustrations. No wonder people are looking for an alternative! I’m saying that one cannot become a good writer or cultivate their skills solely on Substack. Even places like golden era VV had editors challenging and shaping things.
I don't disagree. There's a lot of discoursing on here, a lot of tendencies I find annoying. But...most of the editors at these legacy media publications ignore me. Like...I could never get published the places where Rothfeld or even you have bylines. And editors say that kind of stuff about how all their queriers are garbage, and I know they're including me in that number too!
At least on Substack I can write, instead of sending out queries that get ignored, or chasing down editors to actually publish the pieces they've purportedly accepted.
What drives the growth of Substack is that mainstream publications lack the credibility that Rothfeld claims for them. They puff up books that don't deserve it. They exclude people who ought to be in them. They constrain the range of allowable opinions. And then they act very superior about the fairly mediocre product that they put out. Like...is the Washington Post's book review section really that great? I have no idea, because...I don't read it. I don't regularly read the book review sections of any paper. I'm not alone in that--surely many of the critics writing for these journals are just like me! We don't read it ourselves, but we desperately want to believe mainstream criticism has value for other people. Maybe it does, but there's at least a chance that it really doesn't.
I really appreciate how thoughtful this reply is and just want to say up top that 1) I am envious of your talent and 2) it’s insane to me that editors would turn you down but also there are a lot of bad and dumb editors out there!
The points about frustration with pitching into the void are well taken. I think 70% of my texts to other writers are being frustrated at editors not replying to good ideas. (Subjective obviously but I’ve been doing this long enough to know a good idea vs. a hail mary.) But your third graf gets to the heart of a much better counterargument than the one Kahn tried to make. These legacy outlets suck in a lot of miserable ways! And I count myself on the outside still: I’ve never been staff, I’m not of any literary or critical in group. It’s an annoyingly cliquish industry, I just don’t know if Substack is really cultivating a desirable alternative.
My basic view is that the competition will make mainstream outlets better. I don't think many of them will survive. But competition from the internet made the New York times a lot better. Similarly the surviving journals are going to be incredible. Like, maybe New York magazine will stop being so long and self-indulgent. Maybe Harper's will learn about the Internet. Maybe the Paris Review and Granta will try to say something interesting once in a while. I don't know exactly who will change. But that's the way to compete--if you're better, then actually be better. Right now I don't know if--aside from The New Yorker and The Cut and The Atlantic, which all have finely honed products that are genuinely superior to their alternatives on Substack--there really is a mainstream journal that can afford to feel superior to Substack.
Totally agreed re: competition, and I do think a lot of incredible writing is happening on the platform because good writers without good access can exhibit their talents here in a way that can be materially rewarding.
Thank you for writing this! I really enjoyed it and it feels so spicy to say that there are bad writers. I have found that writers take writing very seriously and are often reluctant to admit that some people are skilled and others are not. But people cling to subjectivity, so people in general dont seem willing to say that some people have bad taste. Everything is simply different, "to each their own" or "let people enjoy things".
I also have begun to feel that Substack is like junk food. I read a lot on here, and scroll Notes a lot. But outside of maybe Lee Fang, even most of the nonfiction stuff feels cultish? Ideological?
Like I've noticed that the conservatives here have a strong hivemind; they all follow the same people, have roughly the same opinions and immediately adopt any viewpoint that accentuates their already strongly held beliefs. I realized these people lived in a bubble/echochamber because they complain constantly about Twitter logic coming to Substack when it's already here.
I imagine other subgroups here are similar. Everyone follows each other, writes/reads the same content, holds the same opinions.
Substack is like an echochamber you voluntarily subscribe to. Big 5/4 publishing is like this too. All these books look and sound the same because people are reading each other, and are further incentivized by large advances and adaptation possibilities. And of course editors want certain books because those sell, so it is hard to find interesting books. (I dont typically read new releases for this reason).
So I can imagine that Substack writing is more likely to be stilted for both ideological and skill reasons. Reading widely on Substack wont make you a better writer - you just encounter a new subgroup. Reading lots of different books across time and space most likely will though.
But all of Substack is social media because you are encouraged to spend all of your time here reading. But when you are just kind of radicalizing yourself, or reading mostly junk newsletters, how is that a good thing? (There are some gems here but they are in the minority).
I'll weigh in as someone who has written for the most prestigious publications in America and maintains a Substack. The problem with media today is the lack of opportunities for talented or even interesting people, and the time it actually takes to pitch, wait for a reply, and then get published. It's a brutal regime that's gotten worse with the mass shrinkage of the media landscape as well as the homogeny that came with the internet and social media. It is harder and harder to have a voice or personality and write for a mainstream publication. You are often crushed by a house style, and I say this as someone who still very much enjoys writing for the mainstream. Substack isn't growing because it's a tech company. It's growing because the mainstream media and publishing industry created MASSIVE gaps for other writers to fill; Substack is basically correcting a market inefficiency.
The old New York Review of Books was much more interesting than the current NYRB. There is no equivalent of the 20th century Village Voice, where very talented and half-crazy writers could pop off on each other and sometimes make history. And if you write fiction or criticism, there are fewer and fewer publications that will take a risk on you.
I am with Sam's critique 100%. And I went to a state school.
I largely think this is the correct take, but, as someone whose day job has long been in tech, this platform’s growth isn’t being driven by thoughtful writers who are filling gaps left by the dinosaurs in legacy media. Those are the treasured minority, but the most valuable people to Substack are those who are writing the equivalent of pulpy mass market stuff. For every incredibly well thought out essay on a connected piece of cultural ephemera, there are 100 ‘some things I’m reading’ posts. I argue that is simultaneously good for Substack and cheapens the discipline as a whole.
And listen I should have spent more time critiquing the current state of the industry. Even as someone who writes for the usual cast of legacy outlets, it is an endless amount of indignities and frustrations. No wonder people are looking for an alternative! I’m saying that one cannot become a good writer or cultivate their skills solely on Substack. Even places like golden era VV had editors challenging and shaping things.
I don't disagree. There's a lot of discoursing on here, a lot of tendencies I find annoying. But...most of the editors at these legacy media publications ignore me. Like...I could never get published the places where Rothfeld or even you have bylines. And editors say that kind of stuff about how all their queriers are garbage, and I know they're including me in that number too!
At least on Substack I can write, instead of sending out queries that get ignored, or chasing down editors to actually publish the pieces they've purportedly accepted.
What drives the growth of Substack is that mainstream publications lack the credibility that Rothfeld claims for them. They puff up books that don't deserve it. They exclude people who ought to be in them. They constrain the range of allowable opinions. And then they act very superior about the fairly mediocre product that they put out. Like...is the Washington Post's book review section really that great? I have no idea, because...I don't read it. I don't regularly read the book review sections of any paper. I'm not alone in that--surely many of the critics writing for these journals are just like me! We don't read it ourselves, but we desperately want to believe mainstream criticism has value for other people. Maybe it does, but there's at least a chance that it really doesn't.
I really appreciate how thoughtful this reply is and just want to say up top that 1) I am envious of your talent and 2) it’s insane to me that editors would turn you down but also there are a lot of bad and dumb editors out there!
The points about frustration with pitching into the void are well taken. I think 70% of my texts to other writers are being frustrated at editors not replying to good ideas. (Subjective obviously but I’ve been doing this long enough to know a good idea vs. a hail mary.) But your third graf gets to the heart of a much better counterargument than the one Kahn tried to make. These legacy outlets suck in a lot of miserable ways! And I count myself on the outside still: I’ve never been staff, I’m not of any literary or critical in group. It’s an annoyingly cliquish industry, I just don’t know if Substack is really cultivating a desirable alternative.
My basic view is that the competition will make mainstream outlets better. I don't think many of them will survive. But competition from the internet made the New York times a lot better. Similarly the surviving journals are going to be incredible. Like, maybe New York magazine will stop being so long and self-indulgent. Maybe Harper's will learn about the Internet. Maybe the Paris Review and Granta will try to say something interesting once in a while. I don't know exactly who will change. But that's the way to compete--if you're better, then actually be better. Right now I don't know if--aside from The New Yorker and The Cut and The Atlantic, which all have finely honed products that are genuinely superior to their alternatives on Substack--there really is a mainstream journal that can afford to feel superior to Substack.
Totally agreed re: competition, and I do think a lot of incredible writing is happening on the platform because good writers without good access can exhibit their talents here in a way that can be materially rewarding.
Thank you for writing this! I really enjoyed it and it feels so spicy to say that there are bad writers. I have found that writers take writing very seriously and are often reluctant to admit that some people are skilled and others are not. But people cling to subjectivity, so people in general dont seem willing to say that some people have bad taste. Everything is simply different, "to each their own" or "let people enjoy things".
I also have begun to feel that Substack is like junk food. I read a lot on here, and scroll Notes a lot. But outside of maybe Lee Fang, even most of the nonfiction stuff feels cultish? Ideological?
Like I've noticed that the conservatives here have a strong hivemind; they all follow the same people, have roughly the same opinions and immediately adopt any viewpoint that accentuates their already strongly held beliefs. I realized these people lived in a bubble/echochamber because they complain constantly about Twitter logic coming to Substack when it's already here.
I imagine other subgroups here are similar. Everyone follows each other, writes/reads the same content, holds the same opinions.
Substack is like an echochamber you voluntarily subscribe to. Big 5/4 publishing is like this too. All these books look and sound the same because people are reading each other, and are further incentivized by large advances and adaptation possibilities. And of course editors want certain books because those sell, so it is hard to find interesting books. (I dont typically read new releases for this reason).
So I can imagine that Substack writing is more likely to be stilted for both ideological and skill reasons. Reading widely on Substack wont make you a better writer - you just encounter a new subgroup. Reading lots of different books across time and space most likely will though.
But all of Substack is social media because you are encouraged to spend all of your time here reading. But when you are just kind of radicalizing yourself, or reading mostly junk newsletters, how is that a good thing? (There are some gems here but they are in the minority).
Thanks for the piece!!
Thanks for reading and for this thoughtful reply!
Teddy, thanks for the piece, but you're looking at trees and, on the whole, it's a lot more interesting to look at forests.
Haha. Touché!
I think it’s important to look at both!