Hi Ross—I looked for this piece in your archive after hearing you talk today at the UPOD session with David Hochman, and you’d mentioned this point about the potential expansiveness of Substack and other forums being something to bask in (my interpretation) rather than late back in the Hemingway mode just because that’s some presumed kind of “rule.” I love your fuller comments here in this post — yes, yes, if we can’t flex and bumble as we develop our style in free forums like Substack then what’s the point of them having no gatekeepers? I also happen to be a writer with a sweet spot of 12K word essays, with ~3500 being my attempt at brevity. At any rate - a good friend of mine and I have tried to name a tone/style phenomenon in digital prose trend over last decade — where everything has started to sound a bit too “same-y” and a bit hygenically shorn of personality. And now, in some kind of way, the deflation of that bit of human rub in AI-generated prose echoes this shearing. Sort of like, robots showing us to ourselves, our slip into generic articulation. I wondered if you have a name for that phenomenon? Thank you for the UPOD session today!
Thank you, I'm glad you liked the piece, and happy to stop by UPOD. I don't have a name for the phenomenon, but I probably should. I think some of it is the old-school writing lessons that "work" if you're doing very basic journalism, some technical writing, or trying to make yourself clear to students, and then the pressures that come with the internet. I am glad you write 12,000 word essays! That's what Substack (and the internet) is honestly for. What bugged me about that piece I was responding to was how it missed entirely what helps a writer attract an audience. Yes, if you are a "wonk" type or doing something purely informational - a Matt Yglesias, or writing a how-to maybe - having pared down style makes sense. But if you actually want to attract an audience, find a readership, you've got to dig much deeper, be original, and not sound like 10,000 other people. My worry is, algorithmically or some other way, Substack will force or try to elevate more boring and tedious writing. I hope not.
Thanks for the mention! I'm guessing the anti-adverb stance comes from a good place, like trying to get rid of stuff like this:
"Oh my god, that's so great!" she said happily and with a big smile.
But clearly, adverbs exist for a reason. And trying to stamp uniformity in writing will always end up with dull writing. For instance, a lot of the fiction I read from young writers seem to go into extreme lean mode with short clipped sentences, are usually in present tense, and try to give off this dazed sense. I haven't read enough to confidently say how widespread it is, but I know it when I see it. And whatever power that style might've had, it's lost because I know it's a common-enough trend.
Thank you for this! I generally like Sarah Fay’s advice, but was surprised by her anti-adverb stance.
In general, I have a certain suspicion of didactic writing rules—they can produce writing that is serviceable and functional, but ultimately a bit plain…whereas remarkable writing tends to break the rules with exuberance. I love writing that’s dense with adverbs, adjectives, seemingly unnecessary flourishes that testify to a writer’s style—and in the end readers want style (imo!) and genuinely distinctive writing.
The only good, universal advice might be: read widely and attentively, write regularly, edit in multiple rounds, solicit feedback, and selectively address the flaws that others point out. But that advice ends up being incredibly vague—so I can understand why people want sharp, clean rules. But imo sharp rules only make bad writing passable; I’m not sure if they make passable writing great.
Read widely, absolutely. I say the same thing when people ask for writing advice. Read everything - fiction, nonfiction, various genres. See how a lot of very different people, living and dead, do the craft.
Well said. I looked at your piece, and "sweeping," "bilious," and "dreaded" are perfect there. (That would also be a good name for a law firm.)
Hemingway didn't really write like an AP news writer, though. He tried to convey the feeling of the adverbs and adjectives without actually using them. That's different.
I feel that often you see an adjective and think, "OK, she looked in the thesaurus there."
Like much general advice, it's incumbent on the recipient to figure out whether it applies to them. For a lot of people a lot of the time, leaner writing is better. But I agree that if you want to write beautifully then the adverbs need to come out, among other inefficiencies.
As a writer of fiction, I CHOOSE to write LONG fiction. I choose the language that I use. I write with the freedom of knowing there is no word count looming on the horizon. A story averaging 15--17,000 words is the perfect length for me. I can break it into pieces of 2,000 words, or maybe 3,000 words, and write the next one while I post the first one. I believe in the beauty of language, and search it out. I don't care if I DON'T get published in a magazine; I'm committed to my Substack. I don't feel my writing has come here to die, but rather, to thrive!
I was never a blogger. I'm not what you would call an essayist. I write fiction, and that's it. Some people like what I write, and some don't. It's all subjective. I don't worry about it. I have my Subscribers, and I have Followers, so I know I'm being read by someone. It's a far larger number than I could have imagined. There's nothing depressing about writing what you want; it's freeing.
Most of the writing done on Substack are non-fiction essays. Where SUBSTACK shines is with its fiction. There is a large selection of fiction writers who choose to be creatives. There are writers out there writing long, Dickensian, pieces. Sure, some are adherents to the write simply, minimalist style, but that's truly not for everyone.
I don't see myself starting a magazine. I thought of doing it 20 years ago, but now I'm retired and can't be bothered. Let someone else with a younger spirit do that. I could self-publish and sell my books on-line like everyone else, but I choose not to--and it is a choice. I sit at my desk, in the comfort of my little, crowded study, and lovingly craft my stories. And it is crafting, isn't it?
Agree about the writing. I'm still a heavy Substack skeptic though. Seems like a place where good writing goes to die, 5 dollars at a time. Also, I've noticed that much of the writing tends to be "me focused" as opposed to outwardly focused non-fiction and reporting, work that takes more time. So in other words, very much in the blog tradition. A generation of Andy Rooney's. The whole thing feels depressing! I would encourage people to start websites like Jacobin, and when possible, print publications. If Bhaskar Sunkara, can start Jacobin, and Nathan J. Robinson can start Current Affairs, surely others can produce similar ventures.
I agree completely! (See what I did there?) In fact, I wrote a post on the topic, which your readers might enjoy: “Strunk and White Are Not the Boss of Us: In Which I (Hopefully Convincingly) Advocate for Adverbs.”
Agreed. I like the long form writing. It's what brought me to Substack in the first place. I can read blandly written, terse, mainstream opinion whenever I want.
Give me robustly cooked meat and potatoes, not flimsily whipped frosting.
I’ve been rooting for minimalism’s demise (or at least, its stranglehold on publishing) for decades. Do you see a market ever forming again where a maximalist or modernist style (like Faulkner’s, Woolf’s) can be published and fairly widely read?
there's a fair amount of literary fiction published today that's not minimalist and popular stuff that certainly isn't, but writing instructors still love minimalism and it's a big part of a lot of online nonfiction writing. I do think that's changing.
Hi Ross—I looked for this piece in your archive after hearing you talk today at the UPOD session with David Hochman, and you’d mentioned this point about the potential expansiveness of Substack and other forums being something to bask in (my interpretation) rather than late back in the Hemingway mode just because that’s some presumed kind of “rule.” I love your fuller comments here in this post — yes, yes, if we can’t flex and bumble as we develop our style in free forums like Substack then what’s the point of them having no gatekeepers? I also happen to be a writer with a sweet spot of 12K word essays, with ~3500 being my attempt at brevity. At any rate - a good friend of mine and I have tried to name a tone/style phenomenon in digital prose trend over last decade — where everything has started to sound a bit too “same-y” and a bit hygenically shorn of personality. And now, in some kind of way, the deflation of that bit of human rub in AI-generated prose echoes this shearing. Sort of like, robots showing us to ourselves, our slip into generic articulation. I wondered if you have a name for that phenomenon? Thank you for the UPOD session today!
Thank you, I'm glad you liked the piece, and happy to stop by UPOD. I don't have a name for the phenomenon, but I probably should. I think some of it is the old-school writing lessons that "work" if you're doing very basic journalism, some technical writing, or trying to make yourself clear to students, and then the pressures that come with the internet. I am glad you write 12,000 word essays! That's what Substack (and the internet) is honestly for. What bugged me about that piece I was responding to was how it missed entirely what helps a writer attract an audience. Yes, if you are a "wonk" type or doing something purely informational - a Matt Yglesias, or writing a how-to maybe - having pared down style makes sense. But if you actually want to attract an audience, find a readership, you've got to dig much deeper, be original, and not sound like 10,000 other people. My worry is, algorithmically or some other way, Substack will force or try to elevate more boring and tedious writing. I hope not.
Thanks for this Ross. This makes me feel better about my 3,000 word posts.
Thanks for the mention! I'm guessing the anti-adverb stance comes from a good place, like trying to get rid of stuff like this:
"Oh my god, that's so great!" she said happily and with a big smile.
But clearly, adverbs exist for a reason. And trying to stamp uniformity in writing will always end up with dull writing. For instance, a lot of the fiction I read from young writers seem to go into extreme lean mode with short clipped sentences, are usually in present tense, and try to give off this dazed sense. I haven't read enough to confidently say how widespread it is, but I know it when I see it. And whatever power that style might've had, it's lost because I know it's a common-enough trend.
Thank you for this! I generally like Sarah Fay’s advice, but was surprised by her anti-adverb stance.
In general, I have a certain suspicion of didactic writing rules—they can produce writing that is serviceable and functional, but ultimately a bit plain…whereas remarkable writing tends to break the rules with exuberance. I love writing that’s dense with adverbs, adjectives, seemingly unnecessary flourishes that testify to a writer’s style—and in the end readers want style (imo!) and genuinely distinctive writing.
The only good, universal advice might be: read widely and attentively, write regularly, edit in multiple rounds, solicit feedback, and selectively address the flaws that others point out. But that advice ends up being incredibly vague—so I can understand why people want sharp, clean rules. But imo sharp rules only make bad writing passable; I’m not sure if they make passable writing great.
Read widely, absolutely. I say the same thing when people ask for writing advice. Read everything - fiction, nonfiction, various genres. See how a lot of very different people, living and dead, do the craft.
Such a wonderful concatenation of adverbs in your last paragraph!
Well said. I looked at your piece, and "sweeping," "bilious," and "dreaded" are perfect there. (That would also be a good name for a law firm.)
Hemingway didn't really write like an AP news writer, though. He tried to convey the feeling of the adverbs and adjectives without actually using them. That's different.
I feel that often you see an adjective and think, "OK, she looked in the thesaurus there."
Like much general advice, it's incumbent on the recipient to figure out whether it applies to them. For a lot of people a lot of the time, leaner writing is better. But I agree that if you want to write beautifully then the adverbs need to come out, among other inefficiencies.
As a writer of fiction, I CHOOSE to write LONG fiction. I choose the language that I use. I write with the freedom of knowing there is no word count looming on the horizon. A story averaging 15--17,000 words is the perfect length for me. I can break it into pieces of 2,000 words, or maybe 3,000 words, and write the next one while I post the first one. I believe in the beauty of language, and search it out. I don't care if I DON'T get published in a magazine; I'm committed to my Substack. I don't feel my writing has come here to die, but rather, to thrive!
I was never a blogger. I'm not what you would call an essayist. I write fiction, and that's it. Some people like what I write, and some don't. It's all subjective. I don't worry about it. I have my Subscribers, and I have Followers, so I know I'm being read by someone. It's a far larger number than I could have imagined. There's nothing depressing about writing what you want; it's freeing.
Most of the writing done on Substack are non-fiction essays. Where SUBSTACK shines is with its fiction. There is a large selection of fiction writers who choose to be creatives. There are writers out there writing long, Dickensian, pieces. Sure, some are adherents to the write simply, minimalist style, but that's truly not for everyone.
I don't see myself starting a magazine. I thought of doing it 20 years ago, but now I'm retired and can't be bothered. Let someone else with a younger spirit do that. I could self-publish and sell my books on-line like everyone else, but I choose not to--and it is a choice. I sit at my desk, in the comfort of my little, crowded study, and lovingly craft my stories. And it is crafting, isn't it?
Agree about the writing. I'm still a heavy Substack skeptic though. Seems like a place where good writing goes to die, 5 dollars at a time. Also, I've noticed that much of the writing tends to be "me focused" as opposed to outwardly focused non-fiction and reporting, work that takes more time. So in other words, very much in the blog tradition. A generation of Andy Rooney's. The whole thing feels depressing! I would encourage people to start websites like Jacobin, and when possible, print publications. If Bhaskar Sunkara, can start Jacobin, and Nathan J. Robinson can start Current Affairs, surely others can produce similar ventures.
I agree completely! (See what I did there?) In fact, I wrote a post on the topic, which your readers might enjoy: “Strunk and White Are Not the Boss of Us: In Which I (Hopefully Convincingly) Advocate for Adverbs.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/marischindele/p/strunk-and-white-are-not-the-boss?r=7fpv6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Agreed. I like the long form writing. It's what brought me to Substack in the first place. I can read blandly written, terse, mainstream opinion whenever I want.
Give me robustly cooked meat and potatoes, not flimsily whipped frosting.
Nicely stated! If we aren't using our uniqueness and the way we experience words to communicate with readers, then why bother writing at all?
I’ve been rooting for minimalism’s demise (or at least, its stranglehold on publishing) for decades. Do you see a market ever forming again where a maximalist or modernist style (like Faulkner’s, Woolf’s) can be published and fairly widely read?
there's a fair amount of literary fiction published today that's not minimalist and popular stuff that certainly isn't, but writing instructors still love minimalism and it's a big part of a lot of online nonfiction writing. I do think that's changing.
"A matter of ear, a matter of reading the books that sharpen the ear." Strunk & White.
No LY? See what Tom Lehrer has to say https://youtu.be/dB2Ff8H7oVo?si=PxtUhged3kl6lhzk