On Substack: A Writer's Reflections
In which I contribute to the genre of Substack meta-commentary.
The author of a Substack newsletter that popped into my feed last week posed an interesting question …
… that was followed by an interesting discussion, which I jumped into.
Whatever the answer is, the relevant fact I’d direct subscribers’ attention to is that Substack is a writers’ platform that has a “social media” tool called “Notes.” It’s a stand-alone lane in which we (Substack writers) can share (“restack”) our own writing and/or articles written by others—with or without a comment of our own, as one can do on Twitter and Facebook. Or, we can use it for random brain farts.
There’s no word limit in Notes, but stuff published there tends to be just that: Brief bursts of thinking-out-loud that Substackers fire into the ether that aren’t part of the full-blown “newsletter,” or post, or whatever one calls it. Subscribers are not notified when I post in Notes, so it’s not clear how readers who are not themselves Substack writers would even know they exist, or how to find them.
So I’m sharing some of my notes this week, because I realized a theme is emerging: Ambivalence about this publishing ecosystem, colored by pessimism about the state of writing in general.
Full disclosure: There is irony, or perhaps even hypocrisy, in play here. As you’ll see, one of my complaints about Substack is that way too many people who are writing on Substack write about Substack. And here I am, doing precisely that. I plead guilty. But Substack is relatively new, after all, and many writers here are trying to figure out (as evidenced by the article mentioned above) exactly what the hell this thing/place is and what we’re doing here. Instinctively, I’ve chimed in from time to time.
The notes below are in chronological order, and with a couple of exceptions, they appear exactly as they originally appeared in Notes. I’m also throwing in some remarks I’ve made in response to other writers who are writing about Substack, because there’s no chance you would have seen those.
Notes on Substack (December 2023 launch - present)
DEC. 27 - The way forward for professional writers to even get their work in front of eyeballs, much less make a living, is simply not clear anymore. All that the best platform can do is spray users’ content at an absurdly atomized audience comprising millions of people who have the attention span of a gnat and let the creatives who produced the content hope for the best.
JAN. 18 - A downside of Substack, I now realize, is that one encounters a huge amount of amazing work — and as a writer, one’s instinct is to want to support those who produce it and subscribe — but it is simply unwise and irresponsible (financially) to subscribe to 25+ Substack newsletters, unrealistic to regularly read that many, and unhealthy to even try. So when I find something powerful that resonates deeply, the least I can do is share it with as many people as I can. Because the number of subscribers, engagements, likes, restacks, shares and all that really doesn’t matter … what matters is that a piece of good writing reaches the one person who desperately needs to see it.
JAN. 19 - I gather that it’s completely normal to veer between sunny optimism and existential dread over the prospects for one’s Substack. Like, within the space of a few hours. Several times a day.
JAN. 22 - As a writer myself, I always feel a little horrible when I sign up as a free subscriber to someone’s Substack. But there are so many. You can’t get out the credit card every time you like reading someone’s article. Very conflicted feelings about this. Because at the end of the day, for most of us, this is a race to the bottom.
JAN. 22 - John Warner is the best antidote to Substack triumphalism I’ve found. Not that I needed one, I was immune from the get-go, but it’s nice to know I’m not crazy.
JAN. 24 - At this point, any writers’ platform built to reach an audience of a sufficient size for at least some writers to earn money is going to reflect society at large, which at the moment is wildly disoriented and deeply fucked up. This is not a problem unique to Substack. [Note: This was in response to an article about the proliferation of disinformation on Substack, below:]
JAN. 26 - As someone who left the glass-half-full-or-half-empty paradigm behind because the goddamned glass is broken and we’re standing in the puddle, this was a gale-forced breath of fresh air antidote to Substack triumphalism. Made me laugh out loud. [Note: This was in response to the hilarious satire, below:]
JAN. 26 - A reality that seems lost on platform cheerleaders (any platform) is that it doesn't matter if you write like Eula Biss and David Shields rolled into one and check every "how to master Substack" box daily ... there are still too many variables that you have no control over or even awareness of that may sink your ship, the most obvious one of which is: We are all going after readers in a media environment in which everyone's attention span has been so blown apart by the Internet that the average person spends 45 SECONDS on a screen before clicking to another screen.
FEB. 2 - The “branding” of writing on Substack as “newsletters” is ridiculous. I also think “branding” itself is ridiculous, but that’s a rant for another day. At least “blog” had the virtue of being a new word. Writing and journalism is in crisis, period.
FEB. 7 - Epiphany: The feeling that accompanies the morning routine of clicking one’s way through various apps to check for electronic engagements — the “likes,” “loves,” “retweets,” “restacks,” replies, even email — is a weird mix of hope and degradation. Not healthy.
FEB. 25 - The “Continue without paying” button feels judgmental to me.
FEB. 29 - Just looked at my stats. The Sunday night “extra” of my weekly reading/viewing is the most popular feature, more so than the main piece that appears Wednesday morning, the one I spend the most time on. The takeaway: I shouldn’t look at my stats. That way madness lies.
MARCH 12 - Very frustrating to see offers for “authors” limited to those with books. Just started filling out an application to be interviewed as an author, only to halt when I hit the part asking the title of my book. I recall getting the same vibe when shopping a (since discarded) book idea around about ten years ago. It doesn’t matter if you’ve spent your entire life getting published (somewhere other than the New York Times or Washington Post, of course). If you don’t have an actual book, you’re seen as untested, a nobody. You’re not a “real” author. It’s one reason I’m on Substack; I’m not interested in playing those games anymore.
MARCH 17 - Substack comes with a steep cost: Time that might be spent doing the work of writing must be instead spent on marketing and promotion—thinking about it, worrying about it, researching it, planning it and then, finally, doing it. For the vast majority of writers, this will yield nominal results. There isn’t a day that goes by that I’m not furious and/or depressed by that reality. It’s not Substack’s fault, or anyone’s fault. It’s just the way it is.
MARCH 18 - Substack has the best AI chatbot I’ve ever seen, I’ve probably asked it at least 100 questions, and only a couple times have I had to ask for clarification when an answer was not clear. Not even Apple’s customer service bot is that good.
MARCH 20 - It would be interesting to know what percentage of all content posted on Substack each day relates in some way to Substack, to writing on Substack, or just writing and/or self-help guides for makers and creators. I have to think it would be in double-digits.
MARCH 21 - I could do without the parade of self-congratulatory subscriber milestone updates from other writers every time I log in. Not useful, not inspiring. How about a button to turn those off?
MARCH 21 - I realized this morning that one problem (for those of us who have been writing all our lives) is that we’re basically being forced to rethink what we do and how we do it at the same time we confront a conveyor belt of existential crises. I have only so much headspace for rethinking stuff, particularly when the topic I’m writing about itself requires a lot of thinking.
MARCH 22 - Imagine picking up a newspaper and the stories that leap off the front page are stories about the newspaper itself — reflections by reporters about writing for the paper, critiques of the newspaper and the newspaper industry, stories about why that newspaper is better (or worse) than other newspapers, refutations/rebuttals to stories that previously appeared in the newspaper, etc.
That’s what logging into Substack is like.
MARCH 23 - I’m intrigued by how writing on Substack came to be called “newsletters.” Probably a branding move, but perhaps one that emerged organically from outside observers. My sense is that there are very few true “news” letters being produced here, nor do I see many original, boots-on-the-ground, deeply-sourced (or even any-sourced) reporting of the type that produces what used to be called “news.” A lot of smart, thoughtful and articulate people, to be sure, and some good commentary by true experts in their respective fields, but bottom line, this is a blogging platform. Lots of memoir, essays “creative non-fiction,” personal reflections, etc. Nothing wrong with it, I just find the “branding” interesting.
[Note: One Substack writer responded to this with an informed answer, below.]
MARCH 25 - The most current and reliable numbers I’ve seen suggest that Substack has more than 17,000 writers publishing here and 2 million paid subscriptions out of 35 million active subscriptions. One Substack partisan describes the current growth as a “gold rush,” and that within a couple years or so there will be 1 million or more writers here, which may well be true. I’d be a fool to offer my own statistical forecast, but my prediction is this: Within five or six years, probably sooner, we’ll be seeing headlines like, “What was Substack?,” “What happened to Substack?,” “Does Substack matter anymore?,” etc.