This is really wonderful. I also started my career in "serious" newsrooms with mostly male, mostly tough, mostly heavy-drinking counterparts and bosses. I thought it was stodgey and self-serious at the time, but it made me unsentimental and ruthless as a writer, and completely unwilling to be self-indulgent for fear of being cut, mocked or relegated to fluff pieces. I think the endless process pieces and whinging about asking for paid subscribers relegates us freelancers to the "unserious" section, to our detriment. We either believe in our work or we don't, and if we believe in it we should let it stand on its own... and yes, we should believe in being paid for it without apology.
How many more ways can I say amen and thank you for taking the time to write this!
Thank you Dani. I don’t really believe in “unserious” writing— humour is an art — and I also think there is zero shame in writers wanting to be paid. I just think sincerity and passion always win. Readers can tell when they’re reading a fax.
My head is in actual danger of falling off with all the nodding I'm doing in agreement with every word... Over the last couple of months I've seen new writers go from zero to thousands by talking exclusively about how they've gone from zero to thousands... Yawn! Tell me about your soul, not about your numbers on Substack! I'm only following people who get into the grit, and keeping the sausages for eating. Thanks for these timely reflections.
I’m so glad you (and so many others) seem to agree! One of the tricky things about new media is that it makes writing even more isolating which I think explains why so many SS writers will suddenly occupy the space. But it’s no good for the reader.
I loved reading your pieces in The Globe and Mail, back in the day when Sunday mornings were reserved for copious cups of Moka pot coffee and real live newspapers (the smell!! the feeling of the newsprint and ink beneath my fingers!!) Thanks, Leah, for sharing your experiences ‘from the other side’.
This was fascinating. I have a couple of writers I follow here. I find it hard to keep up with the posts.
I’m old now but still relish reading a good article, essay, confession, whatever grabs my attention.
Like most now, my attention span is teensy. I miss reading you in the Globe, magazines, lying on the couch with a book in my hand or unfolded sections of newspapers. And the bloody crossword. I didn’t see this coming.
I left the Examiner in 1992 and have such great memories of all the steps in getting even the pansy pieces down the line to people’s doorsteps.
I never let the phone take over my bedtime book reading. I have had a stack of books on my bedside table since I was eight and that habit will continue.
Ahhh the Examiner! Where they had a lady who worked outside the storage closet who you had to hand in your pencil nubs to in order to get a new one. (The Thomson’s KNEW, even in the 80s, the writing was on the wall—they were counting the beans.)
I haven't been on Substack for long but I tend to glaze over the Substack pieces talking about Substack, and I like the angle here that it's a whole lot of writers doing Substack's marketing, which is really bizarre and a bit stupid. Well done for an excellent essay calling it out!
Oh that's really nice to hear Leah. I am very interested in your memoir too and .. have just ordered it! It looks like there are crossover themes in the narcissistic parent realm! We will probably have much to talk about.
OMG, WTF, LMAO and many other webby abbreviations‚ that was one heck of great piece, Ms. McLaren, and I just wanted to say thank you, Mind you, it was a bit long, but I can talk (and talk) — my pieces on this platform are not as prescient, not as funny and often even longer. Keep typing!
Process-schmossess. Those posts heavy on process, even those written by people who have enough subscribers to shout about, can be easily batted away. Ditto those articles written to exhort writers to do what you exhort them - and yourself - to do: which is focus on non-process stuff (although I did read all of your post including the "grafs" you might have excised if only you had an editor.)
Substack is to article writers as Amazon is to self-publishing novelists (like I was, but decided not to be). I have refrained from setting myself up on this platform because I do not trust either it or myself to do what I would like it to do, which is to be remunerative to a degree that the effort would be worth it.
If data about the financial success of writers on Substack could be represented as the map of the world, there would be a few who would be full citizens of Kuwait, the UAE or Qatar where oil money flows to every pocket. The rest would be scattered hither, thither and yon with high concentrations of the miserably underpaid squawking in a notional Sud Africa, Guatemala, or Haiti. Yeah Haiti!
Substack, like Amazon, has the benefit of earning good money off a few big hitters, but the nickels, dimes and dollars it makes off a market flooded by wannabes (some of whom, actually, are pretty damned good) add-up. The writer does all the work essentially: the material, the publishing, the marketing, the latter activity which makes anyone who does it feel like your one time high school friend must when he or she comes 'round one day and wonders if you'd like to buy insurance.
Wonderful possibilities: erotica to smut. I think I'd be good at it. Smut-brained man that I am.
As far as Substack and Amazon (and Spotify for music) are concerned, I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what kind of platform or system might be better. "Better" meaning a) enabling readers to find the best material; and b) enabling the better writers to find readers. No idea. And the fact that there have to be a few thousand others pondering the same question, with nothing yet emerging out of the intelligence of this collective generates a sense that there may be no workable solution.
The population of the world is around 8 billion now: well beyond a critical mass in every field of endeavour, but not beyond a critical mess.
But, how about this: a platform where writers recommend other writers to subscribers? Starting with say 2 writers (preferably established). Each of them reviews another writer's book (500 word limit), and each of them recommends another writer to join the circle, perhaps even the writer whose book they have reviewed. All writers continue to review and recommend as time goes by but they cannot do more than one review or one recommendation every month. Perhaps, any given writer can only recommend up to 1 new writer every year. Books reviewed would be listed, categorized and key-worded so users could search for titles. All reviews would could be used by authors who have been reviewed to "blurb" their stuff. Maybe behind the scenes, writers could post messages to other writers asking, say, for others to read a draft of a new work and such other writer to writer correspondence.
Now all you have to do is ask yourself, if you were the first writer, who would you invite as the second?
Yes, I miss editors too. I used to be one — at boring trade magazines, on music news publications, and wit5h a music organization's "house" magazine). But I find editing my own stuff, which ought to be second nature, really difficult. And that's compounded by the fact that I am a really shitty hunt-and-peck typist...
This is really wonderful. I also started my career in "serious" newsrooms with mostly male, mostly tough, mostly heavy-drinking counterparts and bosses. I thought it was stodgey and self-serious at the time, but it made me unsentimental and ruthless as a writer, and completely unwilling to be self-indulgent for fear of being cut, mocked or relegated to fluff pieces. I think the endless process pieces and whinging about asking for paid subscribers relegates us freelancers to the "unserious" section, to our detriment. We either believe in our work or we don't, and if we believe in it we should let it stand on its own... and yes, we should believe in being paid for it without apology.
How many more ways can I say amen and thank you for taking the time to write this!
Thank you Dani. I don’t really believe in “unserious” writing— humour is an art — and I also think there is zero shame in writers wanting to be paid. I just think sincerity and passion always win. Readers can tell when they’re reading a fax.
My head is in actual danger of falling off with all the nodding I'm doing in agreement with every word... Over the last couple of months I've seen new writers go from zero to thousands by talking exclusively about how they've gone from zero to thousands... Yawn! Tell me about your soul, not about your numbers on Substack! I'm only following people who get into the grit, and keeping the sausages for eating. Thanks for these timely reflections.
I’m so glad you (and so many others) seem to agree! One of the tricky things about new media is that it makes writing even more isolating which I think explains why so many SS writers will suddenly occupy the space. But it’s no good for the reader.
Ps. My soul is yours
I loved reading your pieces in The Globe and Mail, back in the day when Sunday mornings were reserved for copious cups of Moka pot coffee and real live newspapers (the smell!! the feeling of the newsprint and ink beneath my fingers!!) Thanks, Leah, for sharing your experiences ‘from the other side’.
You are definitely not a water treader, Leah.
This was fascinating. I have a couple of writers I follow here. I find it hard to keep up with the posts.
I’m old now but still relish reading a good article, essay, confession, whatever grabs my attention.
Like most now, my attention span is teensy. I miss reading you in the Globe, magazines, lying on the couch with a book in my hand or unfolded sections of newspapers. And the bloody crossword. I didn’t see this coming.
I left the Examiner in 1992 and have such great memories of all the steps in getting even the pansy pieces down the line to people’s doorsteps.
I never let the phone take over my bedtime book reading. I have had a stack of books on my bedside table since I was eight and that habit will continue.
Ahhh the Examiner! Where they had a lady who worked outside the storage closet who you had to hand in your pencil nubs to in order to get a new one. (The Thomson’s KNEW, even in the 80s, the writing was on the wall—they were counting the beans.)
I haven't been on Substack for long but I tend to glaze over the Substack pieces talking about Substack, and I like the angle here that it's a whole lot of writers doing Substack's marketing, which is really bizarre and a bit stupid. Well done for an excellent essay calling it out!
Thanks Lily, you’re writing is so completely from the heart. I just ordered your book!
Oh that's really nice to hear Leah. I am very interested in your memoir too and .. have just ordered it! It looks like there are crossover themes in the narcissistic parent realm! We will probably have much to talk about.
OMG, WTF, LMAO and many other webby abbreviations‚ that was one heck of great piece, Ms. McLaren, and I just wanted to say thank you, Mind you, it was a bit long, but I can talk (and talk) — my pieces on this platform are not as prescient, not as funny and often even longer. Keep typing!
Haha, thanks. And yes you're right, I could cut a few grafs. God I miss editors!
Process-schmossess. Those posts heavy on process, even those written by people who have enough subscribers to shout about, can be easily batted away. Ditto those articles written to exhort writers to do what you exhort them - and yourself - to do: which is focus on non-process stuff (although I did read all of your post including the "grafs" you might have excised if only you had an editor.)
Substack is to article writers as Amazon is to self-publishing novelists (like I was, but decided not to be). I have refrained from setting myself up on this platform because I do not trust either it or myself to do what I would like it to do, which is to be remunerative to a degree that the effort would be worth it.
If data about the financial success of writers on Substack could be represented as the map of the world, there would be a few who would be full citizens of Kuwait, the UAE or Qatar where oil money flows to every pocket. The rest would be scattered hither, thither and yon with high concentrations of the miserably underpaid squawking in a notional Sud Africa, Guatemala, or Haiti. Yeah Haiti!
Substack, like Amazon, has the benefit of earning good money off a few big hitters, but the nickels, dimes and dollars it makes off a market flooded by wannabes (some of whom, actually, are pretty damned good) add-up. The writer does all the work essentially: the material, the publishing, the marketing, the latter activity which makes anyone who does it feel like your one time high school friend must when he or she comes 'round one day and wonders if you'd like to buy insurance.
Now about that erotic material you promised....
Thank you Vian. I’d never thought about the economics in this way and while it’s chilling in someways, I suppose anything is better than nothing?
The smut is on its way!
Wonderful possibilities: erotica to smut. I think I'd be good at it. Smut-brained man that I am.
As far as Substack and Amazon (and Spotify for music) are concerned, I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what kind of platform or system might be better. "Better" meaning a) enabling readers to find the best material; and b) enabling the better writers to find readers. No idea. And the fact that there have to be a few thousand others pondering the same question, with nothing yet emerging out of the intelligence of this collective generates a sense that there may be no workable solution.
The population of the world is around 8 billion now: well beyond a critical mass in every field of endeavour, but not beyond a critical mess.
But, how about this: a platform where writers recommend other writers to subscribers? Starting with say 2 writers (preferably established). Each of them reviews another writer's book (500 word limit), and each of them recommends another writer to join the circle, perhaps even the writer whose book they have reviewed. All writers continue to review and recommend as time goes by but they cannot do more than one review or one recommendation every month. Perhaps, any given writer can only recommend up to 1 new writer every year. Books reviewed would be listed, categorized and key-worded so users could search for titles. All reviews would could be used by authors who have been reviewed to "blurb" their stuff. Maybe behind the scenes, writers could post messages to other writers asking, say, for others to read a draft of a new work and such other writer to writer correspondence.
Now all you have to do is ask yourself, if you were the first writer, who would you invite as the second?
Yes, I miss editors too. I used to be one — at boring trade magazines, on music news publications, and wit5h a music organization's "house" magazine). But I find editing my own stuff, which ought to be second nature, really difficult. And that's compounded by the fact that I am a really shitty hunt-and-peck typist...