I think there's a general misconception that if you work harder on something it's going to be better. That's not necessarily the case, particularly when it comes to creative work. It's true that there are times I need to revise (and revise, and revise...) to get something the way I want it, but there are other times I'll rattle something off and it will outperform everything else I've done that month. There has to be a balance between a willingness to create (and fail), and a drive to improve. I think the binary mode of thinking tricks us into misinterpreting the universe. We like to think in terms of two extremes, but what if we add another axis in there? What if we add two? You go from one dimension to two dimensions to three to four... Sometimes quality comes from being willing to embrace quantity ("I'll write 2 articles a day..."). Sometimes quantity limits your quality ("I have to work hard on this to make sure it's great, so I can't afford to do more than one article a week..."). But even the concept of "good" vs "bad" is oversimplified to the point of being useless. "Good and bad" aren't points, they're enormous overlapping zones of potential--but I feel I'm getting off in the weeds.
I think the creative process has to be organic and somewhat chaotic. When we try to impose order on it, we end up confusing ourselves. :) For me, it's not just quality vs quantity, there's also time, as in it has taken me until age 50 to consistently write articles that approach the standard I hope to meet.
So many layers indeed. I once posted a piece about being sick of mean people. Slammed that out in 15 minutes maybe and it went wild. Wasn't because it was good writing. It was because people resonated. But in hindsight, I wouldn't post that today. I'd go for a walk. For me the best way to reduce the time spent on a piece is to give it the gift of distance. Write the draft and don't look at it for several days. When I look again, it's way faster to edit.
Yeah, and the other wrinkle is that sometimes I finish an article and think it's good, only to read it again later and see that it's horrible. Fortunately, I also often write something I think is horrible only to later find that it is good. :)
Early on in my Medium days I kind of bought into the idea that in order to get anywhere, a writer needed to post OFTEN. As in, daily if possible. I tried it for a month on November, and saw my writing descend into a content canyon -- not pretty. I suspect this is what Medium is trying to get at: please, folks, write with patience and rigor! Write for clarity and meaning, write for originality and a fresh take, write stuff that actually adds something to readers' lives/minds/experience. Don't just journal-post into the void, add a clicky title, and hit Publish. It's impossible to legislate taste, but that's where I think (or hope) Medium is trying to go.
Jan, you're right. I had a similar result. I wrote every day in November, 2022. I wrote daily for the entire month. I didn't notice that much of a change; however, that was when Medium was making a lot of changes. I would rather take it slower, really think about what I'm going to write about, and make sure it's content that people can relate to.
"What’s the difference between people who can turn out quality in quantity and people who can’t?"
I think the main difference is training--as in proper training. The writers I'm thinking of have taken what they've learned (J-school, years of practice, etc.) and figured out how to use that online. They've eliminated purple prose, and write in their own unique style, but also figured out that one sentence paragraphs aren't always the way, ya know?
I agree Kevin. Training. They don't need to clean up purple prose and fluff because they've learned to leave that out in the first place. As the saying goes, easy reading is hard writing.
Yeah! I believe in finding critical feedback from experienced writers to improve! It's a shame that so many writers get defensive and refuse to change anything, even if the editor is super polite and nice in their suggestions. But the writers who are willing to take feedback to improve, get better and better, and eventually, become really compelling writers!
They can say that all they want, but the real truth, at least in my experience, is closer to "publish or perish." If I don't publish often, my reads drop like a rock. I would LOVE to publish only once or twice a week and know that my stuff would be read and would pay off, because I also have to do paid SEO work (because my other writing doesn't pay even my paltry bills) and because I am also writing Substack posts AND books, and I really-really-really want more time to work on my books. I am driving myself insane trying to keep up with all this. Medium is my backbone, as I have only a modest number of paid followers here on Substack. And I really do love Medium and recommend it to every writer I know. In a good month on Medium, I can make about as much as I make on freelance SEO. (There are, however, bad months when I don't do well on Medium, and in those bad months, my bank STILL expects a mortgage payment. Those bastards!) I would like to concentrate on writing 2-4 really well-done pieces for Medium and Substack each week, stop doing the freelance and publish more books. But I can't. And I don't dare stick to just one platform, because the last big change on Medium taught me not to trust any platform. We all saw plenty of people who had the secret sauce there suddenly make almost nothing. And we've all read stories of other people doing other things on other platforms suffer similarly after an algo change. You can't put all your eggs in one basket. But I have so damned many baskets that I am myself a basket case! (I need to clean my bathroom and give my dogs baths but I'm always furiously writing. My 30 years in newspapers taught me to write well and write fact, but this is ridiculous. I'm not going to be able to keep this up.)
God, I hear you Michelle. I juggle clients and Medium and Substack too. Plus I sell fonts and graphics. Nice thing about those is I make them once, sell them over and over. If I was smart I'd be doing more of that. But I love writing so much, can't seem to stop when ideas show up.
It is SO interesting. Most days Medium pays more than my fonts earn. But then, it's like they say. Money flows where attention goes. I spend more time writing than making and promoting my fonts. But there's been days when my fonts have out-earned Medium and that just delights me. I've always loved lettering. Used to do calligraphy forever ago. So I make the letters by hand on paper, scan them and use software to convert to fonts. I'm building a site to combine all my writing related interests, from this newsletter to my fonts and some bookplates I'm working on. If I ever get the dang thing done, I'll share it. lol
Re: those who can recognize quality but not produce it [yet]:
“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.” ― Ira Glass
Those writers need quantity, a lot of experimenting and learning, to bridge the gap to quality. It's not an either/or thing, they're interdependent.
Unfortunately because anyone can hit publish on Medium, we get to watch the whole fumbling process through quantity-to-quality with some writers. They're at the beginning of the process. The journalists have already gone through it, years of learning and fumbling in school, which is why they make it look easy.
Alison I love that piece by Ira Glass. The animation of it is magnificent. Interesting, too, that some people look at their work and know it's not great yet. And others look at work that's not great yet, but think it is. It's a real mixed bag out there, that's for sure.
"Those writers need quantity, a lot of experimenting and learning, to bridge the gap to quality. It's not an either/or thing, they're interdependent."
The ones on Medium, though, they don't like constructive critique. They're publishing there because they don't like "gatekeepers" who tell them their stuff isn't yet up to par. The publishing world doesn't care about anyone's "feelings." And that is unfortunately where these writers will really get stuck.
What I've published on Medium is of erratic quality, though as Linda pointed out, there's a matter of pride, so I try not to ever post utter crap. Thing is, what I think of as quality and what a reader thinks of as quality are not always the same thing. And nobody really knows what Medium thinks of as quality unless it's the last jumping off point before someone signs up for a paid membership on Medium - that's their quality, right there.
You make a couple of interesting points, Holly. The first is the subjective nature of taste. Spot on, there. There's a NY agent I wrote about a while ago, has a reputation for picking books that go bestseller. He says good writing is subjective but bad writing is universal. Which is basically saying everyone can recognize bad writing but when the writing is clean, whether or not someone likes it comes down to taste.
Second is the thing about the jumping off point to people signing up. Had a funny experience the other day. Writers see when people add stories to lists. Opened my Medium notifications one morning and saw that someone added my story to a list called "Join To Read This" -- made me smile.
That's a really interesting point, too. Made me see something I hadn't even thought of. Take a five year old with crayons. Draw a picture of mommy. And what they want is to be told omg, that's amazing. And it's not. It's a stick figure. But they are early enough in the drawing journey that they need praise, not critique. Later, much later, they will want to hear critique. To learn to improve. But that's later in the journey. After they've had enough praise to keep chasing this interest. I never thought of it that way but no reason the same journey wouldn't apply to writing. Thanks for that. Love when my eyes get opened to what I hadn't seen! :)
That’s interesting. But a five year old has little self awareness. I would hope that a writer beginning a journey at the age of 35 would have more intentionality and awareness than a child drawing his first stick figure.
Some, sure. No one says I think I'll sell art as a side gig, make some extra cash because they know it requires skill and ability. But writing looks a lot like typing. Makes it more likely people think they can do this. When I think of all the people writing journal entries and wondering why they didn't get boosted, makes me think they don't have that awareness.
What ever that inner engine is that allows certain writers to craft great stories on a regular basis is something they are born with. My ability to sustain a quality narrative tanks at 4 minutes. Medium wants 5 minutes or more. Getting J-school training allows writers to experience the intricacies of non-fiction forms beyond memoir. There are clear stylistic differences between an op-ed piece, a letter to the editor, a weekly column, breaking news, a human interest story, and health-related stories. The Boost program has helped institute essential quality standards. Now, I think they are working on the right percentage of story types. The biggest gap is well-written satire. Wit comes from word play not swear words. Patrick Metzger comes close but only when he writes about politics. Other writers sound like know-it-alls. I think the World is exhausted and is retreating from voices filled with outrage. As an editor-in-training, I don't want to read another article that is so revealing it should only happen in a therapist's office or with a loved one. I learned about boundaries late in life, but I'm keeping them in place.
I think people who can craft great stories on a regular basis have done a lot of work to learn a skill set whether they're trained or self taught. I think the desire to write might be something we're born with, but I don't think the skill is. Often writers who show talent early also started reading real young. Writing is one of the things we can learn by osmosis. lol. Agree with you on trauma dumping, though. There are ways to write about pain without traumatizing the reader and that's a skill a lot of people could stand to learn.
Sigh. There are a number of successful writers on Medium who don’t write very well. There are also quite a few great writers who get crickets. Medium is not going to pull the plug on consistent high earners who routinely repackage advice aimed at newbies, or people whose personal horror stories (real or embellished) draw attention like a ten-car pileup just because there isn’t a Pulitzer in their future. That said, I think the quality on the platform is improving overall. There are fewer ways to game the system and it’s the system gamers who put out the most crap. Every so often I get a read and clap or positive comment on an old story that I thought was very good that went nowhere. I reread it and usually still think it’s good, text, title, photo and all. It just wasn’t lucky. It posted at the wrong time of day or when everyone was looking elsewhere at the flavor (crime, celebrity, scandal, catastrophe) of the moment. What are you gonna do?
I agree that the quality is improving overall. Funny thing is, I know a couple of those high profile people from a private Slack for writers and they are seeing big drops in views. I'm sure there's some who aren't. Funny that you're experiencing that on some old stories. I've had a bit of that lately too. It's kind of nice to see when that happens.
That happens to me frequently. An old story from 2001, for example, will appear in my feed as selected for me. I never notice the date until I leave a comment. I hope then the author sees it. I enjoyed going back a few years to read what was happening on Medium.
Some great writers have been incredibly prolific. The quandary here is it takes quantity to get to quality. It’s called practice. But great writers and any creatives have internal standards and they won’t violate them. There’s no cutting corners or dumbing it down. Whether you publish a lot or slowly, there should be a level you will not accept from yourself. When you find that, you’re well on your way.
I so agree Martin. It does take quantity to get to quality. But writing doesn't mean we have to publish. I love the concept of internal standards. I have dozens of drafts that don't meet my own standards. So I let them sit. Because I know there's something in them, something that prompted me to do the draft. I go through them from time to time, and look with fresh eyes. Find the idea, rewrite it, delete the trash and voila. That's the internal standard you mentioned and I think that's spot on.
I write and publish a lot, not because I have deadlines but because I have something to say. Unfortunately it is simply not making anything like real money which may shut me up. I write about politics and it is simply nuts this year, so there is plenty to write about and I am passionate about it, which I think is more important than quality or quantity.
Quality: meets the customer's reasonable expectations, on time, within budget.
Medium is the customer and Quality has not been defined by them with transparency or clarity.
In fact, I'd say they have, in the case of "short form" and poetry, lied outright.
Why would anyone capable of good writing (let's distinguish this from whatever Medium's algorithms actually consider to be Quality and worth money) post or on Medium? Medium is a blogging platform that, for a relatively small fee, promises the possibility of an unspecified and deliberately vague return on that investment. And a few users exploit the hunger low-quality bloggers have for money by claiming inflated figures. Once upon a time (and maybe still) one writer I know of (and not the ones most think) wrote a very good, very timely piece that earned over $40k. They are the exception, not the rule, and they aren't crowing about it. They're still active on Substack, I think, and earning at least as much here.
I can answer that for you. I like to think I am capable of good writing. I write on Medium because I can write anything I want. One day a piece on feminism, the next day a piece on being an introvert, another day a piece on child brides. Substack is very niche oriented. If you look at the leaderboards of who is actually making money on Substack, they are all very niche focused. Tons of niches, sure. But writers kind of need to pick a topic to hang their hat on. On Medium I don't have to do that. Another reason is that there's no such thing as a post going viral on Substack. That can and does happen at Medium. There are pluses and minuses to both platforms. It's why I write on both.
I don't know - until I left it, I had several different newsletters here. Different topic, different audiences, big overlap. I'm not sure how that differs from Medium and having different "publications" there. Most of which are not really "edited" by "editors" of any skill (present company excluded, of course). I see people on LinkedIn claiming to be editors because they have a pub on Medium. Some of them claim to work for Medium. If I were Medium, I'd do what I could to shut that @#$% right down.
I can post anything I want to on my own website, too.
For validation and money (assuming you don't need a steady income, or have one already), winning blind, juried writing contests and publication by people who don't expect claps and read time in return can't be beat. ;) That's where I've been hanging out, mostly, this year.
I was born insecure and I’ll probably die wondering if I’ll make it to Heaven. 😉 So I never publish even 3rd drafts. Of course NOW Ms Insecure here is wondering if I can actually recognize when my writing is crap!!!! Yikes the writing life!
It really depends on the writer, and how experienced/talented they are. Can they turn out quality EVERY DAY. If so, then the work is worth reading. And I definitely see writers who can do this. (And, man, am I jealous, cuz I can't.)
I think of all the podcasts I listen to. I'm not going to listen to something that someone slapped together quickly, without a lot of thought. I want QUALITY and that takes time (scripting, editing, high production value). Same goes with YouTube. I'll listen to a vlog if the creator has invested some time into making a cohesive video where they're not just rambling.
So many writers on Medium produce crap. No one wants to read it. A lot of the pieces are first drafts that really need to be worked on more. Honestly, when I was trying to crank out content there, a lot of my stuff was just a first draft. These pieces needed time to deepen, grow longer, and then be cut shorter. Or maybe not exist at all.
I finally understand the boost. If all you're finding on Medium is shit, people will click away. I keep going back to, say, Wondery podcasts, because the product is high quality (slowly well-produced). It's in Medium's interest to hide low-quality slop and boost what's good. And a lot of time, good writing takes more than a couple of hours to produce.
Emme!! Your first paragraph. Me, too. I am so jealous because I can't turn out quality daily. I think maybe I could if I had more time. If I didn't have to juggle clients with writing. But there are people who work full time jobs and still turn out killer writing daily. And man, little bit jealous of that. lol
And even still, some of the best Medium writers turning out daily content continue to be restrained by the rapidity with which they write. None of their articles are worthy of publications like The New Yorker or The Atlantic. So it really depends on where you want to go with your writing. If you’re fine being a top daily Medium writer, cool. But if you want to create more thoughtful, more lasting pieces, then one sentence paragraphs aren’t going to cut it. Truly moving and engaging work takes time to craft.
Interesting, and that is why your little group is "magical"--one of the reasons. A large part of the problem is that writers read and believe the crap pieces about writing on Medium. It boggles my mind. I'm stopping there. I'm boggled out even pondering the situation. Thank you, Linda, for being my guide.
What a nice thing to say Catherine. When I was new, I believed those pieces too. Tried some of the stuff they suggested and everything got worse. Dawned on me maybe they were wrong. I wrote a piece about that once, how I tried following the advice and doing the opposite. I think I called it something like all the medium tips are wrong. lol
This reminds me of the great "talent vs. practice" debate. Most of us are believers in hard work being the route to success. We embrace Malcolm Gladwell's 10K hour formula for success. Effort and practice and quantity are in our control. We are less comfortable with notions like "talent" which sound more fixed and maybe inherited/genetic (yikes!). Talent plus practice will take you far (e.g. star athletes, musicians, scientists, surgeons etc.). Practice alone, less far. As one manager said about a low-performing team member: "They have a lot of experience. They've done the same thing a thousand times!"
I think there's another layer we could add on top. Typing is so easy. We all do it. Answer email, send texts. People don't usually think of other creative avenues as a quick way to make cash. No one says hey I'll sell paintings on the internet make some side income. But they think that about writing. Because it looks a lot like typing. Which they already do. You know?
Yeah my take on this, is that people need to be good at asking for and accepting critical feedback. (From people who are knowledgeable, not just anyone). We all have our blind spots, and not all of us were formally trained in writing. It can be scary to let someone review and give you honest feedback, but you will improve from it, and turn from a mediocre writer to at least a decent writer!
I know that wasn't exactly what you were asking, haha. But this occurred to me, because of how many writers get defensive when editors give them polite suggestions to improve their work. :(
I hear you Sieran. I've had writers unreceptive to feedback, too. I'd say 95% are very open to it. But the few who aren't, they're very defensive. But I learned something from that, too. And it's a little bit of hardball, but it's this: good writers don't submit a mess that needs a ton of editing. They just don't. When someone turns in a piece that needs a lot of work, it tells me they lack the discretion to see what's wrong with it. Then it's up to me to decide. Do I want to try teach them? Or just say it's not a good fit. And that depends on the strength of the story they're trying to tell.
Oh yes. When we have limited time, we can't devote that much attention to everyone. At Prism & Pen, we aim to be as inclusive as possible, but there are stories that are just...too off the mark, so to speak, that we may have to turn them away. That's a good point too that if the story itself is fantastic, it could be more worth our while to edit it. As opposed to a story that's boring or lacks substance.
Seems like 'quality, not quantity' should be part of the introduction for new writers. I'm not sure folks churning out multiple thoughtless posts are looking to get boosted. I think Medium could do a better job of introducing new writers AND readers to the culture--I don't believe readers who leave a lovely comment and then clap once are all being sarcastic.
Boost guidelines could speak more about what they mean by 'vulnerability'; does it really mean you need to compete for gold in the Trauma Olympics? The word authenticity is overused and doesn't help much but what about sincerity? Being effective in communicating your idea or deeply held belief?
Maybe 'commitment' is a better word to describe the quality Medium is after.
I agree Beth. I think medium could do more to introduce new members to the culture. A series of auto sent emails when new people sign up would do that nicely. God, I'm so with you on the trauma Olympics. There are far more powerful ways to write about pain than trauma dumping, but maybe that's part of the difference between writing and typing.
I'm a "quality" writer. I'm not psychologically able to produce on a daily basis, and I wonder how those who do publish daily are able to do it. I refuse to publish crap every day to meet a deadline. So I only publish when I feel I have something good and the time is right. It's not how everyone works, but it's how I work.
I think there's a general misconception that if you work harder on something it's going to be better. That's not necessarily the case, particularly when it comes to creative work. It's true that there are times I need to revise (and revise, and revise...) to get something the way I want it, but there are other times I'll rattle something off and it will outperform everything else I've done that month. There has to be a balance between a willingness to create (and fail), and a drive to improve. I think the binary mode of thinking tricks us into misinterpreting the universe. We like to think in terms of two extremes, but what if we add another axis in there? What if we add two? You go from one dimension to two dimensions to three to four... Sometimes quality comes from being willing to embrace quantity ("I'll write 2 articles a day..."). Sometimes quantity limits your quality ("I have to work hard on this to make sure it's great, so I can't afford to do more than one article a week..."). But even the concept of "good" vs "bad" is oversimplified to the point of being useless. "Good and bad" aren't points, they're enormous overlapping zones of potential--but I feel I'm getting off in the weeds.
I think the creative process has to be organic and somewhat chaotic. When we try to impose order on it, we end up confusing ourselves. :) For me, it's not just quality vs quantity, there's also time, as in it has taken me until age 50 to consistently write articles that approach the standard I hope to meet.
So many layers indeed. I once posted a piece about being sick of mean people. Slammed that out in 15 minutes maybe and it went wild. Wasn't because it was good writing. It was because people resonated. But in hindsight, I wouldn't post that today. I'd go for a walk. For me the best way to reduce the time spent on a piece is to give it the gift of distance. Write the draft and don't look at it for several days. When I look again, it's way faster to edit.
There's something to be said for writing from the heart. Waiting a day to publish gives us poor writers the illusion of control :).
'consistently write articles that approach the standard I hope to meet' -- the Holy grail!
Yeah, and the other wrinkle is that sometimes I finish an article and think it's good, only to read it again later and see that it's horrible. Fortunately, I also often write something I think is horrible only to later find that it is good. :)
Early on in my Medium days I kind of bought into the idea that in order to get anywhere, a writer needed to post OFTEN. As in, daily if possible. I tried it for a month on November, and saw my writing descend into a content canyon -- not pretty. I suspect this is what Medium is trying to get at: please, folks, write with patience and rigor! Write for clarity and meaning, write for originality and a fresh take, write stuff that actually adds something to readers' lives/minds/experience. Don't just journal-post into the void, add a clicky title, and hit Publish. It's impossible to legislate taste, but that's where I think (or hope) Medium is trying to go.
I think that's where they're trying to go too, Jan. Whether or not they can get there, that's another thing.
Medium really does have a cat-herding dilemma.
lol Jan. They do. They really, really do
Jan, you're right. I had a similar result. I wrote every day in November, 2022. I wrote daily for the entire month. I didn't notice that much of a change; however, that was when Medium was making a lot of changes. I would rather take it slower, really think about what I'm going to write about, and make sure it's content that people can relate to.
"What’s the difference between people who can turn out quality in quantity and people who can’t?"
I think the main difference is training--as in proper training. The writers I'm thinking of have taken what they've learned (J-school, years of practice, etc.) and figured out how to use that online. They've eliminated purple prose, and write in their own unique style, but also figured out that one sentence paragraphs aren't always the way, ya know?
I agree Kevin. Training. They don't need to clean up purple prose and fluff because they've learned to leave that out in the first place. As the saying goes, easy reading is hard writing.
Yeah! I believe in finding critical feedback from experienced writers to improve! It's a shame that so many writers get defensive and refuse to change anything, even if the editor is super polite and nice in their suggestions. But the writers who are willing to take feedback to improve, get better and better, and eventually, become really compelling writers!
They can say that all they want, but the real truth, at least in my experience, is closer to "publish or perish." If I don't publish often, my reads drop like a rock. I would LOVE to publish only once or twice a week and know that my stuff would be read and would pay off, because I also have to do paid SEO work (because my other writing doesn't pay even my paltry bills) and because I am also writing Substack posts AND books, and I really-really-really want more time to work on my books. I am driving myself insane trying to keep up with all this. Medium is my backbone, as I have only a modest number of paid followers here on Substack. And I really do love Medium and recommend it to every writer I know. In a good month on Medium, I can make about as much as I make on freelance SEO. (There are, however, bad months when I don't do well on Medium, and in those bad months, my bank STILL expects a mortgage payment. Those bastards!) I would like to concentrate on writing 2-4 really well-done pieces for Medium and Substack each week, stop doing the freelance and publish more books. But I can't. And I don't dare stick to just one platform, because the last big change on Medium taught me not to trust any platform. We all saw plenty of people who had the secret sauce there suddenly make almost nothing. And we've all read stories of other people doing other things on other platforms suffer similarly after an algo change. You can't put all your eggs in one basket. But I have so damned many baskets that I am myself a basket case! (I need to clean my bathroom and give my dogs baths but I'm always furiously writing. My 30 years in newspapers taught me to write well and write fact, but this is ridiculous. I'm not going to be able to keep this up.)
God, I hear you Michelle. I juggle clients and Medium and Substack too. Plus I sell fonts and graphics. Nice thing about those is I make them once, sell them over and over. If I was smart I'd be doing more of that. But I love writing so much, can't seem to stop when ideas show up.
Selling fonts? That sounds interesting!
It is SO interesting. Most days Medium pays more than my fonts earn. But then, it's like they say. Money flows where attention goes. I spend more time writing than making and promoting my fonts. But there's been days when my fonts have out-earned Medium and that just delights me. I've always loved lettering. Used to do calligraphy forever ago. So I make the letters by hand on paper, scan them and use software to convert to fonts. I'm building a site to combine all my writing related interests, from this newsletter to my fonts and some bookplates I'm working on. If I ever get the dang thing done, I'll share it. lol
Re: those who can recognize quality but not produce it [yet]:
“Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.” ― Ira Glass
Those writers need quantity, a lot of experimenting and learning, to bridge the gap to quality. It's not an either/or thing, they're interdependent.
Unfortunately because anyone can hit publish on Medium, we get to watch the whole fumbling process through quantity-to-quality with some writers. They're at the beginning of the process. The journalists have already gone through it, years of learning and fumbling in school, which is why they make it look easy.
Alison I love that piece by Ira Glass. The animation of it is magnificent. Interesting, too, that some people look at their work and know it's not great yet. And others look at work that's not great yet, but think it is. It's a real mixed bag out there, that's for sure.
That piece by Ira Glass is the best Allison! I recommend it to every novice struggling with imposter syndrome. Practice practice.
Oops! I should at least spell your name right Alison. Sorry about that!
Alison, I think this is my favorite answer. I really like what you said about experimenting our way to quality. I completely agree.
"Those writers need quantity, a lot of experimenting and learning, to bridge the gap to quality. It's not an either/or thing, they're interdependent."
The ones on Medium, though, they don't like constructive critique. They're publishing there because they don't like "gatekeepers" who tell them their stuff isn't yet up to par. The publishing world doesn't care about anyone's "feelings." And that is unfortunately where these writers will really get stuck.
What I've published on Medium is of erratic quality, though as Linda pointed out, there's a matter of pride, so I try not to ever post utter crap. Thing is, what I think of as quality and what a reader thinks of as quality are not always the same thing. And nobody really knows what Medium thinks of as quality unless it's the last jumping off point before someone signs up for a paid membership on Medium - that's their quality, right there.
You make a couple of interesting points, Holly. The first is the subjective nature of taste. Spot on, there. There's a NY agent I wrote about a while ago, has a reputation for picking books that go bestseller. He says good writing is subjective but bad writing is universal. Which is basically saying everyone can recognize bad writing but when the writing is clean, whether or not someone likes it comes down to taste.
Second is the thing about the jumping off point to people signing up. Had a funny experience the other day. Writers see when people add stories to lists. Opened my Medium notifications one morning and saw that someone added my story to a list called "Join To Read This" -- made me smile.
Holly, also a very valid point. Some people don’t want to improve, they want to feel good.
That's a really interesting point, too. Made me see something I hadn't even thought of. Take a five year old with crayons. Draw a picture of mommy. And what they want is to be told omg, that's amazing. And it's not. It's a stick figure. But they are early enough in the drawing journey that they need praise, not critique. Later, much later, they will want to hear critique. To learn to improve. But that's later in the journey. After they've had enough praise to keep chasing this interest. I never thought of it that way but no reason the same journey wouldn't apply to writing. Thanks for that. Love when my eyes get opened to what I hadn't seen! :)
That’s interesting. But a five year old has little self awareness. I would hope that a writer beginning a journey at the age of 35 would have more intentionality and awareness than a child drawing his first stick figure.
Some, sure. No one says I think I'll sell art as a side gig, make some extra cash because they know it requires skill and ability. But writing looks a lot like typing. Makes it more likely people think they can do this. When I think of all the people writing journal entries and wondering why they didn't get boosted, makes me think they don't have that awareness.
Say it again, Linda. I don’t understand. ;)
What ever that inner engine is that allows certain writers to craft great stories on a regular basis is something they are born with. My ability to sustain a quality narrative tanks at 4 minutes. Medium wants 5 minutes or more. Getting J-school training allows writers to experience the intricacies of non-fiction forms beyond memoir. There are clear stylistic differences between an op-ed piece, a letter to the editor, a weekly column, breaking news, a human interest story, and health-related stories. The Boost program has helped institute essential quality standards. Now, I think they are working on the right percentage of story types. The biggest gap is well-written satire. Wit comes from word play not swear words. Patrick Metzger comes close but only when he writes about politics. Other writers sound like know-it-alls. I think the World is exhausted and is retreating from voices filled with outrage. As an editor-in-training, I don't want to read another article that is so revealing it should only happen in a therapist's office or with a loved one. I learned about boundaries late in life, but I'm keeping them in place.
I think people who can craft great stories on a regular basis have done a lot of work to learn a skill set whether they're trained or self taught. I think the desire to write might be something we're born with, but I don't think the skill is. Often writers who show talent early also started reading real young. Writing is one of the things we can learn by osmosis. lol. Agree with you on trauma dumping, though. There are ways to write about pain without traumatizing the reader and that's a skill a lot of people could stand to learn.
'I think they are working on the right percentage of story types. The biggest gap is well-written satire.' - interesting, I hope it's true.
I have nearly quit posting satire there because it seldom gained traction.
Sigh. There are a number of successful writers on Medium who don’t write very well. There are also quite a few great writers who get crickets. Medium is not going to pull the plug on consistent high earners who routinely repackage advice aimed at newbies, or people whose personal horror stories (real or embellished) draw attention like a ten-car pileup just because there isn’t a Pulitzer in their future. That said, I think the quality on the platform is improving overall. There are fewer ways to game the system and it’s the system gamers who put out the most crap. Every so often I get a read and clap or positive comment on an old story that I thought was very good that went nowhere. I reread it and usually still think it’s good, text, title, photo and all. It just wasn’t lucky. It posted at the wrong time of day or when everyone was looking elsewhere at the flavor (crime, celebrity, scandal, catastrophe) of the moment. What are you gonna do?
I agree that the quality is improving overall. Funny thing is, I know a couple of those high profile people from a private Slack for writers and they are seeing big drops in views. I'm sure there's some who aren't. Funny that you're experiencing that on some old stories. I've had a bit of that lately too. It's kind of nice to see when that happens.
That happens to me frequently. An old story from 2001, for example, will appear in my feed as selected for me. I never notice the date until I leave a comment. I hope then the author sees it. I enjoyed going back a few years to read what was happening on Medium.
Some great writers have been incredibly prolific. The quandary here is it takes quantity to get to quality. It’s called practice. But great writers and any creatives have internal standards and they won’t violate them. There’s no cutting corners or dumbing it down. Whether you publish a lot or slowly, there should be a level you will not accept from yourself. When you find that, you’re well on your way.
I so agree Martin. It does take quantity to get to quality. But writing doesn't mean we have to publish. I love the concept of internal standards. I have dozens of drafts that don't meet my own standards. So I let them sit. Because I know there's something in them, something that prompted me to do the draft. I go through them from time to time, and look with fresh eyes. Find the idea, rewrite it, delete the trash and voila. That's the internal standard you mentioned and I think that's spot on.
Exactly. My drawers are littered with unpublished work. Whole manuscripts.
Well said!
I write and publish a lot, not because I have deadlines but because I have something to say. Unfortunately it is simply not making anything like real money which may shut me up. I write about politics and it is simply nuts this year, so there is plenty to write about and I am passionate about it, which I think is more important than quality or quantity.
SO much material. You're not even kidding. I can't even go there. Props to you that you can.
Quality: meets the customer's reasonable expectations, on time, within budget.
Medium is the customer and Quality has not been defined by them with transparency or clarity.
In fact, I'd say they have, in the case of "short form" and poetry, lied outright.
Why would anyone capable of good writing (let's distinguish this from whatever Medium's algorithms actually consider to be Quality and worth money) post or on Medium? Medium is a blogging platform that, for a relatively small fee, promises the possibility of an unspecified and deliberately vague return on that investment. And a few users exploit the hunger low-quality bloggers have for money by claiming inflated figures. Once upon a time (and maybe still) one writer I know of (and not the ones most think) wrote a very good, very timely piece that earned over $40k. They are the exception, not the rule, and they aren't crowing about it. They're still active on Substack, I think, and earning at least as much here.
I can answer that for you. I like to think I am capable of good writing. I write on Medium because I can write anything I want. One day a piece on feminism, the next day a piece on being an introvert, another day a piece on child brides. Substack is very niche oriented. If you look at the leaderboards of who is actually making money on Substack, they are all very niche focused. Tons of niches, sure. But writers kind of need to pick a topic to hang their hat on. On Medium I don't have to do that. Another reason is that there's no such thing as a post going viral on Substack. That can and does happen at Medium. There are pluses and minuses to both platforms. It's why I write on both.
I don't know - until I left it, I had several different newsletters here. Different topic, different audiences, big overlap. I'm not sure how that differs from Medium and having different "publications" there. Most of which are not really "edited" by "editors" of any skill (present company excluded, of course). I see people on LinkedIn claiming to be editors because they have a pub on Medium. Some of them claim to work for Medium. If I were Medium, I'd do what I could to shut that @#$% right down.
I can post anything I want to on my own website, too.
For validation and money (assuming you don't need a steady income, or have one already), winning blind, juried writing contests and publication by people who don't expect claps and read time in return can't be beat. ;) That's where I've been hanging out, mostly, this year.
I was born insecure and I’ll probably die wondering if I’ll make it to Heaven. 😉 So I never publish even 3rd drafts. Of course NOW Ms Insecure here is wondering if I can actually recognize when my writing is crap!!!! Yikes the writing life!
It really depends on the writer, and how experienced/talented they are. Can they turn out quality EVERY DAY. If so, then the work is worth reading. And I definitely see writers who can do this. (And, man, am I jealous, cuz I can't.)
I think of all the podcasts I listen to. I'm not going to listen to something that someone slapped together quickly, without a lot of thought. I want QUALITY and that takes time (scripting, editing, high production value). Same goes with YouTube. I'll listen to a vlog if the creator has invested some time into making a cohesive video where they're not just rambling.
So many writers on Medium produce crap. No one wants to read it. A lot of the pieces are first drafts that really need to be worked on more. Honestly, when I was trying to crank out content there, a lot of my stuff was just a first draft. These pieces needed time to deepen, grow longer, and then be cut shorter. Or maybe not exist at all.
I finally understand the boost. If all you're finding on Medium is shit, people will click away. I keep going back to, say, Wondery podcasts, because the product is high quality (slowly well-produced). It's in Medium's interest to hide low-quality slop and boost what's good. And a lot of time, good writing takes more than a couple of hours to produce.
Emme!! Your first paragraph. Me, too. I am so jealous because I can't turn out quality daily. I think maybe I could if I had more time. If I didn't have to juggle clients with writing. But there are people who work full time jobs and still turn out killer writing daily. And man, little bit jealous of that. lol
And even still, some of the best Medium writers turning out daily content continue to be restrained by the rapidity with which they write. None of their articles are worthy of publications like The New Yorker or The Atlantic. So it really depends on where you want to go with your writing. If you’re fine being a top daily Medium writer, cool. But if you want to create more thoughtful, more lasting pieces, then one sentence paragraphs aren’t going to cut it. Truly moving and engaging work takes time to craft.
Interesting, and that is why your little group is "magical"--one of the reasons. A large part of the problem is that writers read and believe the crap pieces about writing on Medium. It boggles my mind. I'm stopping there. I'm boggled out even pondering the situation. Thank you, Linda, for being my guide.
What a nice thing to say Catherine. When I was new, I believed those pieces too. Tried some of the stuff they suggested and everything got worse. Dawned on me maybe they were wrong. I wrote a piece about that once, how I tried following the advice and doing the opposite. I think I called it something like all the medium tips are wrong. lol
They are. lol
This reminds me of the great "talent vs. practice" debate. Most of us are believers in hard work being the route to success. We embrace Malcolm Gladwell's 10K hour formula for success. Effort and practice and quantity are in our control. We are less comfortable with notions like "talent" which sound more fixed and maybe inherited/genetic (yikes!). Talent plus practice will take you far (e.g. star athletes, musicians, scientists, surgeons etc.). Practice alone, less far. As one manager said about a low-performing team member: "They have a lot of experience. They've done the same thing a thousand times!"
I think there's another layer we could add on top. Typing is so easy. We all do it. Answer email, send texts. People don't usually think of other creative avenues as a quick way to make cash. No one says hey I'll sell paintings on the internet make some side income. But they think that about writing. Because it looks a lot like typing. Which they already do. You know?
Yeah my take on this, is that people need to be good at asking for and accepting critical feedback. (From people who are knowledgeable, not just anyone). We all have our blind spots, and not all of us were formally trained in writing. It can be scary to let someone review and give you honest feedback, but you will improve from it, and turn from a mediocre writer to at least a decent writer!
I know that wasn't exactly what you were asking, haha. But this occurred to me, because of how many writers get defensive when editors give them polite suggestions to improve their work. :(
I hear you Sieran. I've had writers unreceptive to feedback, too. I'd say 95% are very open to it. But the few who aren't, they're very defensive. But I learned something from that, too. And it's a little bit of hardball, but it's this: good writers don't submit a mess that needs a ton of editing. They just don't. When someone turns in a piece that needs a lot of work, it tells me they lack the discretion to see what's wrong with it. Then it's up to me to decide. Do I want to try teach them? Or just say it's not a good fit. And that depends on the strength of the story they're trying to tell.
Oh yes. When we have limited time, we can't devote that much attention to everyone. At Prism & Pen, we aim to be as inclusive as possible, but there are stories that are just...too off the mark, so to speak, that we may have to turn them away. That's a good point too that if the story itself is fantastic, it could be more worth our while to edit it. As opposed to a story that's boring or lacks substance.
Seems like 'quality, not quantity' should be part of the introduction for new writers. I'm not sure folks churning out multiple thoughtless posts are looking to get boosted. I think Medium could do a better job of introducing new writers AND readers to the culture--I don't believe readers who leave a lovely comment and then clap once are all being sarcastic.
Boost guidelines could speak more about what they mean by 'vulnerability'; does it really mean you need to compete for gold in the Trauma Olympics? The word authenticity is overused and doesn't help much but what about sincerity? Being effective in communicating your idea or deeply held belief?
Maybe 'commitment' is a better word to describe the quality Medium is after.
I agree Beth. I think medium could do more to introduce new members to the culture. A series of auto sent emails when new people sign up would do that nicely. God, I'm so with you on the trauma Olympics. There are far more powerful ways to write about pain than trauma dumping, but maybe that's part of the difference between writing and typing.
I'm a "quality" writer. I'm not psychologically able to produce on a daily basis, and I wonder how those who do publish daily are able to do it. I refuse to publish crap every day to meet a deadline. So I only publish when I feel I have something good and the time is right. It's not how everyone works, but it's how I work.