I tend to agree with most of what you write. You give a needed dose of reality to the many people who think they can make money writing overnight and an appropriate slap in the face to the folks who sell people this dream via online courses and such.
However :-)
I do think using somewhat frequent bold and italics is good technique if you do it right. I often use them in place of traditional subheads and such.
While I feel about the same about "here's what c-level executives do so you should do it too" fodder as I do online writing gurus and hacks, I appreciate how they talk about how some CEOs and such read. They skim, pulling out key parts and, if intrigued, maybe they read the whole thing now or later.
Of course, people don't require bread crumbs (bold or italic here and there) to do that, but, like subheads and such, they don't hurt.
Small disagreement (or maybe not), all to say I don't think we can write off this style when done well.
Anyhow, I really do enjoy your stuff. We only need one of you, yet you manage to stand out among thousands. That's a compliment that might not make sense, but you know what I mean!
Rocco, I am laughing. And thank you for the compliment. I do agree there's a place for bold and italic. The middle sentence of every paragraph might not be it though. lol
You made me laugh (not an easy feat this week) and shake my head in recognition/resignation. As for "good" writing — back in the day when I was teaching writing to middle schoolers and guiding them to evaluate & critique each other, I forbad the use of the words "good" and "bad" -- instead they could say "strong" or "weak" -- and then they had to say why they thought so. Maybe I was onto something.
I love that Jan. I ran across a thread in the educator's reddit, and I know reddit (ugh) but it was educators talking. Lamenting kids writing the way they talk on the internet and man, I could write a whole post or three just about the stuff I saw in there.
Appreciate your crusade to get writers to at least aspire to get better. Writing, as in story telling, is an ancient craft deserving respect regardless of what passes for writing online. As readers we need to curate and not give time and likes to junk. I had a new subscriber this past week who is subscribed to over 900 substacks. Basically this person must automatically subscribe to everything they encounter. It’s a sad statement about how things get consumed here but it is still an outlier, at least here on substack where I find quality is still a goal.
Wow, 900 is a lot. I see a lot of 400 and 500+. I've started to notice a strange thing. Started one day when I got a subscriber who follows 2 others. So I went to see what she writes and she doesn't write anything. Made me curious. So every time I get a new subscriber who follows less than 20, I go look. They're almost never writers. The ones who follow or subscribe to hundreds, they're always writing their buns off. Makes me wonder if it's some weird Substack version of follow for follow. Thinking if they follow enough people, some will follow back. I don't know, but there's no way on earth I want 500 newsletters in my inbox. Just no thanks. lol
Hi, Linda -- I like your honest perspectives about writing, and I appreciate your willingness to cut through a lot of BS. I was concerned about the graphic you included in your post, which isn't doing women any favors. Women are far too often seen in graphics as "YTB" -- Young, Thin, and Beautiful. This graphic, showing a woman with a to-die-for figure with lots of skin showing, is just not how most women look! I think a different graphic would have supported your message far more effectively. Once again, thanks for your perspectives.
Interesting stuff, Linda. The thing is, Everything is subjective. Just ask Americans about the subjectivity in politics. (Sorry, I just passed out from recalling the election results. I'm feeling better now.) Good and bad is subjective. Many thought, Howl by Ginsberg was horrific. It wasn't. Many think Bukowski is crude and obnoxious. Yeah, he may be at times, but his poetry is brilliant. Many think pizza with pineapple and ham toppings is awesome - it's NOT! I've read Classics where the first 25 pages were a grind to get through - would that agent reject them? Not sure. This is one aspect of it. The other is that social media and the Internet is dumbing down civilization. As in it rewards extreme brevity. It promotes 10 word lessons. It teaches everyone that a short story is way too long because TikTok can get the same result in 12 seconds with three words, a little music and the sound of a hippopotamus farting. The playing field for writers is vastly different than 30-40 years ago and though EVERY technologist will say for the better - I disagree. It's chaos. Because there are millions acting as writers all at once with every imaginable skill level. It's hard to find the "good" when there's so much "bad" to wade through. Is this the way it should be - just a natural progression in the arts? Not as I see it - not when it creates poor readers and poor social analysts. Again, good article.
Very nice and interesting writing topic I really enjoy it.
But I was shocked to know this as I am still shaking.
(America is proud of having a high literacy rate because 79% of Americans “can” read, but the USA ranks 36th in the world for adult literacy. More than half of Americans have a reading comprehension rate lower than sixth grade which means their comprehension is basically a Harry Potter novel.)
My God
The USA is the best country in the world in nearly everything, that is the impression most people have.
Hard truths but TRUTHS. This sentence made me LOL and sigh at the same time. "But maybe it helps explain 3000 claps for an article that uses boldface like chocolate sauce on a sundae. But hey, it’s about sex."
In the past, I've had the privilege of serving on arts-funding juries. They've all been an education.
Going into the process of assessing other people's passions is daunting. My initial impulse has always been to award every artist the funding they request. Well, that has never happened in my experience.
I often notice a pattern after assessing a seemingly endless number of applications. Many good artists champion good ideas, causes and approaches but lack a thirst for excellence.
The exceptional artists always stand out amongst the crowd. Great artists put in the time to make their applications great. But, of course, jury members have different definitions of excellence. I have felt profound sadness when I've been unable to champion an extraordinary proposal successfully.
Sometimes, juries must agree upon funding one exceptional artist amongst many outstanding artists. Sometimes, the collective tastes of the jury align with one lucky applicant. Like my mother-in-law used to say, "You can't beat luck." That's carved on her gravestone. She died at 93.
In the process of not awarding funds to exceptional projects, I do offer kind and encouraging notes. On occasion, I've been on the receiving end of those notes. Kindness and encouragement remove some of the sting.
Creating distinguished funding applications (or great writing) takes more time and effort than good sense and reason. The best applications always feel like the artist is processed, outlandish and crazed. That's when they get lucky.
😆 so sassy! I personally like bolded sentences in newsletters because I have ADHD and tend to skim and reread, but that's just me. I also spell terribly, but that's what spell check is for. 🤷♀️ Anyway, thanks for the tips. 👍
The writers who are doing the funny font and word spelling stuff are the ones who failed English in high school, no doubt.
lol
Cliterature sells!
I wish you knew how hard that made me laugh. Touché. You win the comments. So far. See what else shows up. lmao
;-)
I like my odds, not too many are in a humorous mood as of late
OMG this is genius!
Right?! You better trademark it before I do ;-)
I tend to agree with most of what you write. You give a needed dose of reality to the many people who think they can make money writing overnight and an appropriate slap in the face to the folks who sell people this dream via online courses and such.
However :-)
I do think using somewhat frequent bold and italics is good technique if you do it right. I often use them in place of traditional subheads and such.
While I feel about the same about "here's what c-level executives do so you should do it too" fodder as I do online writing gurus and hacks, I appreciate how they talk about how some CEOs and such read. They skim, pulling out key parts and, if intrigued, maybe they read the whole thing now or later.
Of course, people don't require bread crumbs (bold or italic here and there) to do that, but, like subheads and such, they don't hurt.
Small disagreement (or maybe not), all to say I don't think we can write off this style when done well.
Anyhow, I really do enjoy your stuff. We only need one of you, yet you manage to stand out among thousands. That's a compliment that might not make sense, but you know what I mean!
Rocco, I am laughing. And thank you for the compliment. I do agree there's a place for bold and italic. The middle sentence of every paragraph might not be it though. lol
Exactly.
You made me laugh (not an easy feat this week) and shake my head in recognition/resignation. As for "good" writing — back in the day when I was teaching writing to middle schoolers and guiding them to evaluate & critique each other, I forbad the use of the words "good" and "bad" -- instead they could say "strong" or "weak" -- and then they had to say why they thought so. Maybe I was onto something.
I love that Jan. I ran across a thread in the educator's reddit, and I know reddit (ugh) but it was educators talking. Lamenting kids writing the way they talk on the internet and man, I could write a whole post or three just about the stuff I saw in there.
Appreciate your crusade to get writers to at least aspire to get better. Writing, as in story telling, is an ancient craft deserving respect regardless of what passes for writing online. As readers we need to curate and not give time and likes to junk. I had a new subscriber this past week who is subscribed to over 900 substacks. Basically this person must automatically subscribe to everything they encounter. It’s a sad statement about how things get consumed here but it is still an outlier, at least here on substack where I find quality is still a goal.
Wow, 900 is a lot. I see a lot of 400 and 500+. I've started to notice a strange thing. Started one day when I got a subscriber who follows 2 others. So I went to see what she writes and she doesn't write anything. Made me curious. So every time I get a new subscriber who follows less than 20, I go look. They're almost never writers. The ones who follow or subscribe to hundreds, they're always writing their buns off. Makes me wonder if it's some weird Substack version of follow for follow. Thinking if they follow enough people, some will follow back. I don't know, but there's no way on earth I want 500 newsletters in my inbox. Just no thanks. lol
Hi, Linda -- I like your honest perspectives about writing, and I appreciate your willingness to cut through a lot of BS. I was concerned about the graphic you included in your post, which isn't doing women any favors. Women are far too often seen in graphics as "YTB" -- Young, Thin, and Beautiful. This graphic, showing a woman with a to-die-for figure with lots of skin showing, is just not how most women look! I think a different graphic would have supported your message far more effectively. Once again, thanks for your perspectives.
Hey Lori. I don't usually use graphics like that, I'm sure you've noticed. It was a little dig at the post I was talking about in the opening.
Interesting stuff, Linda. The thing is, Everything is subjective. Just ask Americans about the subjectivity in politics. (Sorry, I just passed out from recalling the election results. I'm feeling better now.) Good and bad is subjective. Many thought, Howl by Ginsberg was horrific. It wasn't. Many think Bukowski is crude and obnoxious. Yeah, he may be at times, but his poetry is brilliant. Many think pizza with pineapple and ham toppings is awesome - it's NOT! I've read Classics where the first 25 pages were a grind to get through - would that agent reject them? Not sure. This is one aspect of it. The other is that social media and the Internet is dumbing down civilization. As in it rewards extreme brevity. It promotes 10 word lessons. It teaches everyone that a short story is way too long because TikTok can get the same result in 12 seconds with three words, a little music and the sound of a hippopotamus farting. The playing field for writers is vastly different than 30-40 years ago and though EVERY technologist will say for the better - I disagree. It's chaos. Because there are millions acting as writers all at once with every imaginable skill level. It's hard to find the "good" when there's so much "bad" to wade through. Is this the way it should be - just a natural progression in the arts? Not as I see it - not when it creates poor readers and poor social analysts. Again, good article.
Thanks for the reminder. I'm guilty.
Tag leaderboards? I was wondering about those tags here
Dear Linda Caroll :
Very nice and interesting writing topic I really enjoy it.
But I was shocked to know this as I am still shaking.
(America is proud of having a high literacy rate because 79% of Americans “can” read, but the USA ranks 36th in the world for adult literacy. More than half of Americans have a reading comprehension rate lower than sixth grade which means their comprehension is basically a Harry Potter novel.)
My God
The USA is the best country in the world in nearly everything, that is the impression most people have.
Sam John
IRAQ
American exceptionalism is a myth.
Hard truths but TRUTHS. This sentence made me LOL and sigh at the same time. "But maybe it helps explain 3000 claps for an article that uses boldface like chocolate sauce on a sundae. But hey, it’s about sex."
In the past, I've had the privilege of serving on arts-funding juries. They've all been an education.
Going into the process of assessing other people's passions is daunting. My initial impulse has always been to award every artist the funding they request. Well, that has never happened in my experience.
I often notice a pattern after assessing a seemingly endless number of applications. Many good artists champion good ideas, causes and approaches but lack a thirst for excellence.
The exceptional artists always stand out amongst the crowd. Great artists put in the time to make their applications great. But, of course, jury members have different definitions of excellence. I have felt profound sadness when I've been unable to champion an extraordinary proposal successfully.
Sometimes, juries must agree upon funding one exceptional artist amongst many outstanding artists. Sometimes, the collective tastes of the jury align with one lucky applicant. Like my mother-in-law used to say, "You can't beat luck." That's carved on her gravestone. She died at 93.
In the process of not awarding funds to exceptional projects, I do offer kind and encouraging notes. On occasion, I've been on the receiving end of those notes. Kindness and encouragement remove some of the sting.
Creating distinguished funding applications (or great writing) takes more time and effort than good sense and reason. The best applications always feel like the artist is processed, outlandish and crazed. That's when they get lucky.
😆 so sassy! I personally like bolded sentences in newsletters because I have ADHD and tend to skim and reread, but that's just me. I also spell terribly, but that's what spell check is for. 🤷♀️ Anyway, thanks for the tips. 👍
A great essay. Noah Lukeman was my agent when he started out.
Terrific Linda, like everything you write.
Linda, could you recommend me some books about writing that could be a resource for me to avoid bad writing?