Beautifully put. Especially the last point. There is a spirituality to the writing I enjoy on substack, especially Castalia. As I mentioned once, this is a sanctuary.
Can I ask you to expand on this statement: “Substack is among the very first vehicles in my lifetime to create the opportunity for genuinely public exchange, with an absolute minimum of ‘moderation tools.’”?
Those exact same features are present on any self-hosted blog. I think that thing that makes Substack different is the network of subscribers, authors, and readers who stumble across posts. I believe it has the potential to be even more because of various features that aren’t as well-used as they could be. Things like cross-posting, writing replies to posts made on other newsletters, and even just a healthy comments section. All of those things together could really create a vibrant ecosystem that has kind of died off in the blogosphere.
I didn't get to comment on your last post due to real-world affairs - though I agree with it, especially when it comes to keeping Substack weird - but perhaps it's for the better given the reaction it had. Though if YouTube is any indication, calling out others does generate a lot of clicks. Our human need for drama can go a long way.
I didn't like Sarah Fay's I-know-best tone either, even if she was right about a few things. Okay, you have two words: Lydia Davis. Well I have a few words as well: War & Peace. The Good Soldier Svejk. In Search of Lost Time. Ulysses. The Count of Monte Cristo. Works of literature tremendously more timeless, profound, qualitative and meaningful to more people even today than Davis. Though I know there are plenty of sycophantic academics who will say otherwise. Though versatile, most of us consider Chekhov to be the number one short story master. And some of his best short stories are very long, as they are with his successor Alice Munro, who won the Nobel: some could have been novellas. To summarize: the history of literary greatness and timelessness neither condemns nor condones any single length when it comes to writing. Only quality, however it manifests itself.
I don't think the need for long-form content has been liquidated by digital dominance. There are plenty of podcasts that prove that, most notably Joe Rogan. Of course video and audio is one thing, writing is another. But mainstream publishers will way more often seek out "Great American Novels" than they will the novella, which is highly endangered in mainstream publishing even though some of our greatest classics are novellas.
Can long-form writing be as meaningful to the tweeting populace as long-form video and audio? There's only one way to find out. And Substack has enabled us to find out. Fortunately for me, my fiction is a lot more economical than my essays.
Wonderful points made here, especially about writing as a means for being alone - not only as a time filler but as a way of expressing being, of continuing to create the self. And i’ve always thought that writing taps into religion, that desire to make meaning.
I am glad that Substack is here, because it has such potential to be a community of individuals connecting - it is rare, and at its best, it’s weird.
However, I liked the jeremiad of your earlier post, too, because there is an essential tension in doing personal writing on a public platform, particularly one that has corporate owners. It’s okay to be wary, occasionally skeptical, to call out what you see. And I like good sermons, so keep riding your circuit, please :-)
So well said. Yes, writing is both solitude and reaching out across that solitude. And a religion, so sermons are okay every now and then. This is the kind of writing that makes me like Substack.
For me the opposite of writing is reading. I am an avid reader, appreciate a good discussion and want to experience a wide variety of views, topics and ideas. While I enjoy an occasional game of candy crush to allow my brain to veg 😆 - you won’t see me writing ✍🏼 (not a writer) but I will read everything I can.
Why did you cave? Your pieces are hard and thought-provoking and you owe Sarah Fay nothing. Substack is inevitably going the way you feared. That's not your doing, and your right or ability to earn money on Substack isn't going to change it one way or the other; it's a much bigger force than you. And for the record, I saved your Vichy, France piece to read (as we can do with all longer pieces for God's sake) because it's an interest of mine, as well.
Your sentiments re: hierarchical structures particularly resonate with me. Especially b/c I went to an extremely creative / non-traditional high school and still found the inevitable challenges of hierarchical social conditioning, even in a space that was explicitly against it. Such is the nature of being human, I suspect. Plenty of people have pondered this. And I suspect you are writing a longer work that's pondering it, too.
Beautifully put. Especially the last point. There is a spirituality to the writing I enjoy on substack, especially Castalia. As I mentioned once, this is a sanctuary.
Can I ask you to expand on this statement: “Substack is among the very first vehicles in my lifetime to create the opportunity for genuinely public exchange, with an absolute minimum of ‘moderation tools.’”?
Those exact same features are present on any self-hosted blog. I think that thing that makes Substack different is the network of subscribers, authors, and readers who stumble across posts. I believe it has the potential to be even more because of various features that aren’t as well-used as they could be. Things like cross-posting, writing replies to posts made on other newsletters, and even just a healthy comments section. All of those things together could really create a vibrant ecosystem that has kind of died off in the blogosphere.
Glad you enjoyed the logo.
This is a beautiful and illuminating post. You have my gratitude for invoking such powerful sensations. Words bind.
I restacked but also wanted to say I love that new logo. Love it so much. Yes, keep substack weird!
I didn't get to comment on your last post due to real-world affairs - though I agree with it, especially when it comes to keeping Substack weird - but perhaps it's for the better given the reaction it had. Though if YouTube is any indication, calling out others does generate a lot of clicks. Our human need for drama can go a long way.
I didn't like Sarah Fay's I-know-best tone either, even if she was right about a few things. Okay, you have two words: Lydia Davis. Well I have a few words as well: War & Peace. The Good Soldier Svejk. In Search of Lost Time. Ulysses. The Count of Monte Cristo. Works of literature tremendously more timeless, profound, qualitative and meaningful to more people even today than Davis. Though I know there are plenty of sycophantic academics who will say otherwise. Though versatile, most of us consider Chekhov to be the number one short story master. And some of his best short stories are very long, as they are with his successor Alice Munro, who won the Nobel: some could have been novellas. To summarize: the history of literary greatness and timelessness neither condemns nor condones any single length when it comes to writing. Only quality, however it manifests itself.
I don't think the need for long-form content has been liquidated by digital dominance. There are plenty of podcasts that prove that, most notably Joe Rogan. Of course video and audio is one thing, writing is another. But mainstream publishers will way more often seek out "Great American Novels" than they will the novella, which is highly endangered in mainstream publishing even though some of our greatest classics are novellas.
Can long-form writing be as meaningful to the tweeting populace as long-form video and audio? There's only one way to find out. And Substack has enabled us to find out. Fortunately for me, my fiction is a lot more economical than my essays.
Wonderful points made here, especially about writing as a means for being alone - not only as a time filler but as a way of expressing being, of continuing to create the self. And i’ve always thought that writing taps into religion, that desire to make meaning.
I am glad that Substack is here, because it has such potential to be a community of individuals connecting - it is rare, and at its best, it’s weird.
However, I liked the jeremiad of your earlier post, too, because there is an essential tension in doing personal writing on a public platform, particularly one that has corporate owners. It’s okay to be wary, occasionally skeptical, to call out what you see. And I like good sermons, so keep riding your circuit, please :-)
So well said. Yes, writing is both solitude and reaching out across that solitude. And a religion, so sermons are okay every now and then. This is the kind of writing that makes me like Substack.
For me the opposite of writing is reading. I am an avid reader, appreciate a good discussion and want to experience a wide variety of views, topics and ideas. While I enjoy an occasional game of candy crush to allow my brain to veg 😆 - you won’t see me writing ✍🏼 (not a writer) but I will read everything I can.
Spot on, Sam. Tackling something similar - https://scriptourer.substack.com/p/incompleteness. Interested in how it may resonate.
Why did you cave? Your pieces are hard and thought-provoking and you owe Sarah Fay nothing. Substack is inevitably going the way you feared. That's not your doing, and your right or ability to earn money on Substack isn't going to change it one way or the other; it's a much bigger force than you. And for the record, I saved your Vichy, France piece to read (as we can do with all longer pieces for God's sake) because it's an interest of mine, as well.
Your sentiments re: hierarchical structures particularly resonate with me. Especially b/c I went to an extremely creative / non-traditional high school and still found the inevitable challenges of hierarchical social conditioning, even in a space that was explicitly against it. Such is the nature of being human, I suspect. Plenty of people have pondered this. And I suspect you are writing a longer work that's pondering it, too.