Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dionne Dumitru's avatar

You make the point well, and that’s why I subscribe to your writing. Your specific voice and critical perspectives are apparent in all of the writing you do, even the articles you deem ‘content.’ It’s true that only some talented people will aggregate sufficient crowds to be considered successful, but that doesn’t change the actual work that’s being done by artists with smaller groups of followers. If the same body of work makes you a marquee name in one universe and a starving artist in another, the only difference is the response to the work. It all depends on how you define success for yourself.

I think the word ‘content’ devalues a person’s work. It spotlights that the work produced on Substack most benefits the owners of Substack. That can be true and also something writers can resist, in solidarity as you say.

Expand full comment
Amy Letter's avatar

It sounds to me like you're saying that there is art and there is content and sometimes they're the same thing but sometimes they're two entirely separate things, and that one person can do both of them? But just as that might mean you can create "content" with no pretensions towards "art," you can create "art" that does not want to be "content." I mean, sometimes the medium IS the point, and the things "contained" are grist / fodder / etc., but sometimes the medium is just the platform the art is placed on.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts