This is such a useful post, thank you for writing it and being honest about your own work. I have been on here for a few months and with no writing experience I am just winging it. Witnessing the seasoned writers with huge followings championing each other reminds me of Instagram and I’m trying to fight the demoralising feeling I was relieved to escape. I have begun to think the only way through is it write more which is debilitating so thank you for your perspective. Substack is such a freeing space so 1000 words or thereabouts it is.
You are most welcome and I can completely see how that is the case - it almost feels like ‘well why bother’ (at least that’s how I sometimes feel when I’m feeling demoralised) however what I would say is that if you are proud of what you write and you work towards continuously improving it, then good writing will always find a home and an audience who appreciates it. A lot of the seasoned writers on here I would venture to say have spent a lot of time in exactly that headspace of thinking they will never break through - so I’d say keep going and don’t give up, and always continue to learn and evolve.
Ps. Not at all criticising the seasoned writers, just that it’s an intimidating space to try and break into when everyone else appears to already be successful.
I would suggest clarifying what successful means to you. If it’s xxx of subscribers… or if it’s engagement. Not everyone can pay to subscribe, doesn’t mean you’re not successful. Unless that’s what you seem successful.
Always refreshing to read honest thoughts from experienced writers on what they make of Substack, so thanks for sharing this Poorna. As you say, it's naive to ignore that things get seen because others share them -which is the same mechanic at play in social media- and it is therefore not a stretch of the mind to understand why content on how to be successful on Substack gets a lot of love. I was a bit dispirited at the beginning by those posts and unsubscribed from a couple of people as soon as their content took a turn into that direction. I'm not here to become famous through my writing, but I do want to be able to log in without being bombarded with all the reasons I'm doing it wrong and I should focus on X,Y,Z metrics. No, sorry, I'm here to be creative and be inspired by other people who also have an equal cluelessness about the way they should be writing or publishing to be seen and simply enjoy sharing things that I would have never read otherwise. May eat my words shortly, but for the time being this is it.
This article is incredibly helpful, Poona. I’ve been here four months, and have been so put off by the How to Succeed on Substack drumbeat that I look for articles like yours. You emphasize the basics of all good writing, while pointing out the importance of recognizing the differences between print and digital media. I’m glad for the “unpublish” function, by which you can retract something that seemed genius at two a.m. but mortifying the next day. Fortunately, I learned that early, when I had 25 subscribers, not 550.
Thanks for pointing out the existence of cliques. They’re not obvious, but they’re here.
Also, the 1K rule, killing your darlings, staying on topic. I’d like to add that visuals are big, but only as they further the story. Breaking up space; long paragraphs are exhausting.
Love the honesty of this. So glad to see the point being made about the cliques still being there, they’re just less visible. As an industry outsider, I’ve noticed this for a while and it can sometimes feel frustrating!
As a young writer, my too short experience as an intern in newsrooms is showing its limits on substack and I often wonder what I am doing wrong. That feedback loop is really missing, thank you for highlighting it!
This post was very useful thank you. I’m enjoying Substack and recently turned on paid posts and the response has been wonderful but I’m not quite as enamored of it as others are. I brought my audience here and have lost a lot of free subscribers since turning on paid posts and I’m not seeing that wild growth other people in Substack cliques are. I’m also really perturbed by all the Substack articles about how to succeed on Substack. If we’re going to compare Instagram to Substack at all it’s the eco system of people running courses on how to nail the platform that’s the biggest similarity.
This piece came to me at a perfect moment: I'm currently struggling on writing something that runs the risk of becoming too long and wordy and confusing. I'm thinking onto the "page", and that can be a issue. I've always had a problem with being synthetic, and that's something I do keep on the back of my mind and try to work on.
One of my intentions with having a Substack is exactly to have more space to write about the things that come to mind and don't have room on an instagram caption. Not as a substitute of Instagram, but as a way to add to it and explore, and to have a place where I focus more on words and ideas, and not as much on images. They both are an important part of what is usually called an "ecosystem" for me, but they play different roles with some overlap.
But having too much space is also a problem: the challenge is still there, because though I write what I want to (it is a space of freedom for me), having constraints can be important too. Here it's me who has to decide on those constraints, which is in itself a challenge. With time being one of those constraints, it can become overwhelming having something you really want to put out (even if only to free up some space on your mind... and on drafts), and being conscious that it takes time. I do know there has to be some method to the madness, and editing, editing, reading and reading again, trying to say in less words what you're saying with too many, can help improve and ultimately give whoever reads our writing a more worthy experience, i.e., something that people can actually understand, take value from or be inspired by, and enjoy reading.
On the other hand, and thinking about being in a platform where there are so many great and experienced writers, I look at this experience (and experiment) of writing on Substack, as a way to learn and improve, as a playground and classroom at the same time, and that comes with time and with writing stuff that are not good. My hope and plan is to look behind in a few months or even years and see how my writing has improved. And for that I need to write. Keeping these pitfalls you point out to present will definitely be important.
(And as you can see if you've read my entire comment, I wasn't kidding when I first said I have trouble being synthetic. But I do hope I made some sense. :D)
This is an old tip but still valid - read, read, read. As a sub-editor of 15 years plus, I’ve noticed that many journalists/writers now are not well read and don’t have an extensive vocabulary. The only example I can come up with on the spot isn’t from a journalist, but it illustrates my point nonetheless. I recently heard One Day’s Ambika Mod and Leo Woodall being interviewed on a movie review show about the series. The interviewer asked Mod if she’d consider Dexter to be a ‘bit of a wide boy’ aka a bit of a wheeler dealer. I’m not sure it was an accurate description of Dex but Mod was completely bamboozled and had obviously never heard the term before. If we write, we need to read. We need to know language and use it properly - which mostly means keeping it simple and being clear. Sadly, the poor rates now being paid for journalism are causing people to rush things and jumble them together and there’s even a bit of the old cut and paste going on. It’s sad. But understandable.
Completely agree about reading but not entirely sure about the example given with reference to an extensive vocabulary. Unless I’ve got this wrong wide boy is slang - and knowledge of slang will depend on a lot of different things. For instance if a journalist asked someone if they thought so and so was a sket, and the other person didn’t know - I wouldn’t necessarily infer they weren’t well read from that.
Ok, maybe it wasn't an ideal example but while it is classed as slang, it has long been in common usage, especially in the UK and especially in popular culture - Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses would have been considered a wide boy, as would Arthur in Minder, so to my mind it isn't an obscure term. That said, the interviewer should have enlightened Mod and he didn't.
Interesting! I've never heard the term "wide boy" either, but I work mostly in the US (Los Angeles), Guatemala, and Spain, and haven't set foot in the British Isles since 1987. I don't watch much video or cinema so I haven't heard of the shows you mention, but that means nothing. I am only slightly less out of touch with shows in the US.
However, I have read more, more widely, and more deeply, than most people. At least on this side of the pond I am considered "well-read" ...and I agree with you about the shrinking public vocabulary. At least it is shrinking in its scope of time, with shoals of new slang and tech terms emerging every year, while the deep, rich reefs of older vocabulary are forgotten.
"Allusion literacy" is even worse. One of my grad students recently asked me why it was such a big deal for a person to cross the Rubicon river (this was before the release of Ridley Scott & David Scarpa's film last November, but from what I hear, I'm not sure the film would have helped my client understand the significance of a Rubicon). Another client once asked me why a tire company was an allusion for instant success: she was thinking of Midas International LLC, a tire company: "Trust the Midas touch." She had never heard of their slogan's inspiration, King Midas and his curse. (On the other hand, most people don't remember it as a curse, not a superpower.)
So I am glad to learn a new bit of slang now and then, but all of us who are "well-read" have an obligation to explain unfamiliar language when confusion arises.
The interviewer let Ambika Mod down.
(It sounds like he was more a Machiavelli than a Judas in that moment, though)
I realize some people are on Substack as a means to make some money but why is there so much pressure for that? That probably sounds like a naive question but it does frustrate me why everything must be monetized. That no one can write here (like in the blogs of yore) for the sheer joy of writing, sharing one’s thoughts, pondering things in chat… Now nearly everything is on a paywall. Makes things feel somewhat exclusive. I mean, I can’t subscribe to EVERY substack that seems promising. 3 or 5 or 6 bucks a month doesn’t seem like much until you at it all up.
I’m not entirely sure if there is the pressure to monetise it. Some of us monetise it because it’s our trade/side hustle and we couldn’t quite justify the time spent on it if there wasn’t some monetary aspect attached to it. Most writers, myself included have spent the majority of our careers making very little money yet grinding to get ahead - and feel it’s okay for to charge people for that. Some have no interest in monetising it at all - and that’s also good and necessary, because it keeps writing free and less pressured and more creative. Both things exist, and that’s necessary and okay - and it’s up to us as individuals to navigate this space in a way that’s right for us.
This is such a useful post, thank you for writing it and being honest about your own work. I have been on here for a few months and with no writing experience I am just winging it. Witnessing the seasoned writers with huge followings championing each other reminds me of Instagram and I’m trying to fight the demoralising feeling I was relieved to escape. I have begun to think the only way through is it write more which is debilitating so thank you for your perspective. Substack is such a freeing space so 1000 words or thereabouts it is.
You are most welcome and I can completely see how that is the case - it almost feels like ‘well why bother’ (at least that’s how I sometimes feel when I’m feeling demoralised) however what I would say is that if you are proud of what you write and you work towards continuously improving it, then good writing will always find a home and an audience who appreciates it. A lot of the seasoned writers on here I would venture to say have spent a lot of time in exactly that headspace of thinking they will never break through - so I’d say keep going and don’t give up, and always continue to learn and evolve.
Great advice, thank you.
YES that's exactly how it feels!
Ps. Not at all criticising the seasoned writers, just that it’s an intimidating space to try and break into when everyone else appears to already be successful.
I would suggest clarifying what successful means to you. If it’s xxx of subscribers… or if it’s engagement. Not everyone can pay to subscribe, doesn’t mean you’re not successful. Unless that’s what you seem successful.
*deem
Always refreshing to read honest thoughts from experienced writers on what they make of Substack, so thanks for sharing this Poorna. As you say, it's naive to ignore that things get seen because others share them -which is the same mechanic at play in social media- and it is therefore not a stretch of the mind to understand why content on how to be successful on Substack gets a lot of love. I was a bit dispirited at the beginning by those posts and unsubscribed from a couple of people as soon as their content took a turn into that direction. I'm not here to become famous through my writing, but I do want to be able to log in without being bombarded with all the reasons I'm doing it wrong and I should focus on X,Y,Z metrics. No, sorry, I'm here to be creative and be inspired by other people who also have an equal cluelessness about the way they should be writing or publishing to be seen and simply enjoy sharing things that I would have never read otherwise. May eat my words shortly, but for the time being this is it.
This article is incredibly helpful, Poona. I’ve been here four months, and have been so put off by the How to Succeed on Substack drumbeat that I look for articles like yours. You emphasize the basics of all good writing, while pointing out the importance of recognizing the differences between print and digital media. I’m glad for the “unpublish” function, by which you can retract something that seemed genius at two a.m. but mortifying the next day. Fortunately, I learned that early, when I had 25 subscribers, not 550.
Thanks for pointing out the existence of cliques. They’re not obvious, but they’re here.
Also, the 1K rule, killing your darlings, staying on topic. I’d like to add that visuals are big, but only as they further the story. Breaking up space; long paragraphs are exhausting.
Thanks again for sharing your hard-earned wisdom.
Love the honesty of this. So glad to see the point being made about the cliques still being there, they’re just less visible. As an industry outsider, I’ve noticed this for a while and it can sometimes feel frustrating!
As a young writer, my too short experience as an intern in newsrooms is showing its limits on substack and I often wonder what I am doing wrong. That feedback loop is really missing, thank you for highlighting it!
Great post!! I’m definitely guilty of too many words 🥴
Really appreciated this read Poorna, thank you. Taking away the encouragement to be a better editor for myself!
❤️❤️😍
This is terrific! I definitely struggled in the beginning (it was like a whoa where am
I moment!) but it always comes back to just…doing what you fucking love. Writing about what moves you and remembering why you started!
Thank you!
Always interesting to continue the debate which is, as ever, raging!
This post was very useful thank you. I’m enjoying Substack and recently turned on paid posts and the response has been wonderful but I’m not quite as enamored of it as others are. I brought my audience here and have lost a lot of free subscribers since turning on paid posts and I’m not seeing that wild growth other people in Substack cliques are. I’m also really perturbed by all the Substack articles about how to succeed on Substack. If we’re going to compare Instagram to Substack at all it’s the eco system of people running courses on how to nail the platform that’s the biggest similarity.
This piece came to me at a perfect moment: I'm currently struggling on writing something that runs the risk of becoming too long and wordy and confusing. I'm thinking onto the "page", and that can be a issue. I've always had a problem with being synthetic, and that's something I do keep on the back of my mind and try to work on.
One of my intentions with having a Substack is exactly to have more space to write about the things that come to mind and don't have room on an instagram caption. Not as a substitute of Instagram, but as a way to add to it and explore, and to have a place where I focus more on words and ideas, and not as much on images. They both are an important part of what is usually called an "ecosystem" for me, but they play different roles with some overlap.
But having too much space is also a problem: the challenge is still there, because though I write what I want to (it is a space of freedom for me), having constraints can be important too. Here it's me who has to decide on those constraints, which is in itself a challenge. With time being one of those constraints, it can become overwhelming having something you really want to put out (even if only to free up some space on your mind... and on drafts), and being conscious that it takes time. I do know there has to be some method to the madness, and editing, editing, reading and reading again, trying to say in less words what you're saying with too many, can help improve and ultimately give whoever reads our writing a more worthy experience, i.e., something that people can actually understand, take value from or be inspired by, and enjoy reading.
On the other hand, and thinking about being in a platform where there are so many great and experienced writers, I look at this experience (and experiment) of writing on Substack, as a way to learn and improve, as a playground and classroom at the same time, and that comes with time and with writing stuff that are not good. My hope and plan is to look behind in a few months or even years and see how my writing has improved. And for that I need to write. Keeping these pitfalls you point out to present will definitely be important.
(And as you can see if you've read my entire comment, I wasn't kidding when I first said I have trouble being synthetic. But I do hope I made some sense. :D)
This is an old tip but still valid - read, read, read. As a sub-editor of 15 years plus, I’ve noticed that many journalists/writers now are not well read and don’t have an extensive vocabulary. The only example I can come up with on the spot isn’t from a journalist, but it illustrates my point nonetheless. I recently heard One Day’s Ambika Mod and Leo Woodall being interviewed on a movie review show about the series. The interviewer asked Mod if she’d consider Dexter to be a ‘bit of a wide boy’ aka a bit of a wheeler dealer. I’m not sure it was an accurate description of Dex but Mod was completely bamboozled and had obviously never heard the term before. If we write, we need to read. We need to know language and use it properly - which mostly means keeping it simple and being clear. Sadly, the poor rates now being paid for journalism are causing people to rush things and jumble them together and there’s even a bit of the old cut and paste going on. It’s sad. But understandable.
Completely agree about reading but not entirely sure about the example given with reference to an extensive vocabulary. Unless I’ve got this wrong wide boy is slang - and knowledge of slang will depend on a lot of different things. For instance if a journalist asked someone if they thought so and so was a sket, and the other person didn’t know - I wouldn’t necessarily infer they weren’t well read from that.
Ok, maybe it wasn't an ideal example but while it is classed as slang, it has long been in common usage, especially in the UK and especially in popular culture - Del Boy in Only Fools and Horses would have been considered a wide boy, as would Arthur in Minder, so to my mind it isn't an obscure term. That said, the interviewer should have enlightened Mod and he didn't.
Interesting! I've never heard the term "wide boy" either, but I work mostly in the US (Los Angeles), Guatemala, and Spain, and haven't set foot in the British Isles since 1987. I don't watch much video or cinema so I haven't heard of the shows you mention, but that means nothing. I am only slightly less out of touch with shows in the US.
However, I have read more, more widely, and more deeply, than most people. At least on this side of the pond I am considered "well-read" ...and I agree with you about the shrinking public vocabulary. At least it is shrinking in its scope of time, with shoals of new slang and tech terms emerging every year, while the deep, rich reefs of older vocabulary are forgotten.
"Allusion literacy" is even worse. One of my grad students recently asked me why it was such a big deal for a person to cross the Rubicon river (this was before the release of Ridley Scott & David Scarpa's film last November, but from what I hear, I'm not sure the film would have helped my client understand the significance of a Rubicon). Another client once asked me why a tire company was an allusion for instant success: she was thinking of Midas International LLC, a tire company: "Trust the Midas touch." She had never heard of their slogan's inspiration, King Midas and his curse. (On the other hand, most people don't remember it as a curse, not a superpower.)
So I am glad to learn a new bit of slang now and then, but all of us who are "well-read" have an obligation to explain unfamiliar language when confusion arises.
The interviewer let Ambika Mod down.
(It sounds like he was more a Machiavelli than a Judas in that moment, though)
I realize some people are on Substack as a means to make some money but why is there so much pressure for that? That probably sounds like a naive question but it does frustrate me why everything must be monetized. That no one can write here (like in the blogs of yore) for the sheer joy of writing, sharing one’s thoughts, pondering things in chat… Now nearly everything is on a paywall. Makes things feel somewhat exclusive. I mean, I can’t subscribe to EVERY substack that seems promising. 3 or 5 or 6 bucks a month doesn’t seem like much until you at it all up.
I’m not entirely sure if there is the pressure to monetise it. Some of us monetise it because it’s our trade/side hustle and we couldn’t quite justify the time spent on it if there wasn’t some monetary aspect attached to it. Most writers, myself included have spent the majority of our careers making very little money yet grinding to get ahead - and feel it’s okay for to charge people for that. Some have no interest in monetising it at all - and that’s also good and necessary, because it keeps writing free and less pressured and more creative. Both things exist, and that’s necessary and okay - and it’s up to us as individuals to navigate this space in a way that’s right for us.