
I know little about Substack, and am oblivious of Patreon, too.
I had no idea that such newsletters were controversial until I received an excerpt from a Substack newsletter in my email. A book columnist had responded to the writer Lauren Groff’s scathing criticism of Substack. The whole thing was a bit confusing, but then I don’t subscribe to Substack.
I loved Groff’s first novel, The Monsters of Templeton, though I have not kept up with her work. And I admit I’m puzzled by her animosity to Substack, though her remarks seem to have been taken out of context. In the quotes below, she is, I think, talking about Substack’s effect on new literary writers and on the closure of literary magazines.
Groff writes, “Substack is an inherently pro-individual, anti-community, anti-new-writer technology and is responsible for the death of so many excellent small literary venues.”
And Niko Stratis says, ‘We are rapidly losing the outlets where new writers can learn to shape a voice, where they can cultivate skills beyond quick news hits and PR with the guidance and mentorship of strong editors and the benefit of a trusted name, and it’s such a loss for writers and readers alike.”
Groff says, “I blame Substack. The single worst development for the literary world in the last few decades.”
Strong language, I say. But I gently differ. Much more damaging than Substack (many of the newsletters are fascinating and well-written) has been the rise of Facebook (Meta), where people blithely learned to give their identities away. Even worse is Twitter ( X), which originally limited communications (tweets) to 114 characters, and finally raised the limit to 280 characters in 2017. This kind of dumbing down is the short road to illiteracy. But I did read that with a premium subscription you can now write long posts at X.
There used to be a greater sense of community online. What I miss are the book groups. There were book discussion boards at AOL, Yahoo groups, and various now defunct book websites. Many academics as well as common readers were involved in discussions of Proust, Edith Wharton, Jane Austen, and Virginia Woolf. At these venues, people wrote in full sentences, paragraphs, sometimes even essays. I love Goodreads, but its book group discussions are in the form of super short sentences. But I highly recommend the reader book reviews at Goodreads, which are often thoughtful and brilliantly-written.
Of course I am a blogger, and my blog is free. In the early 2010s journalists and editors complained that bloggers were the Devil. OK, they didn’t use those words. But they did claim we were putting book reviewers out of business. Since I was writing a book blog, not book reviews, it seemed a big laugh to me.
There are many, many factors in the death of book review pages and newspapers. People began to read news at Facebook and at other venues on the internet. (I’m not on Facebook, but so I’ve been told.) In addition to blogs, the internet has sites like Politico. And so Pulitzer Prize winning-newspapers folded, or the remaining reporters devote more time to the State Fair than the war in Ukraine.
I imagine the worst effect on new writers on Substack would be lack of subscribers, unless they have friends, or “friends” online who are willing to support them. Still, from my point of view, Substack is an excellent venue for established writers to reach their audience and make a little money.
Now if only we readers could find what we’re looking for… unless it’s a Jane Austen book club, I haven’t the faintest idea what that might be.
But one of these days I’ll subscribe to a newsletter.



















