This seems to be a problem on many Substack posts; it tends to attract ramblings. For all the talk about disintermediation, it turns out good editors are invaluable, and sorely missed.
You have no complained that his complaint is too long. His reply might be: that social media has transformed books into tokens. Their content worth nothing more than to provide an identity and tell what message can be explained in a single page. He is lamenting how while promoting his book he is getting interviewed by people who have only read the marketing sales points. How during consideration for a award the committee will only evaluate a synopsis.
Overall, a article worth the read. Yes it is long. Yes it is not concise. Yes it is not a great article to retweet to your followers and establish your credentials with crowd X.
Writing clearly should be a goal of every wannabe writer. Whats the point of long form writing if you dont even know what the whole point of the essay is 20% in?
Anyone can claim to be a writer. It does not take more than having a keyboard in front of you and lots of time.
> Sometimes the journey is as important as the destination, more.
You don't have to make the reader pain through your long and fastidious journey.
> Not all writing needs to follow an introduction, body, conclusion format, with topic sentences.
Indeed, but still writing is supposed to be more than just fluff that says nothing paragraph after paragraph. That's just filler content.
Writing also _can_ be more than just fluff, but it doesn't need to be. It may not be your style, but long form, not-concise content has it's place. See: The New Yorker, etc.
I don't disagree with the feedback that it's rambling; for some, that destroys the value, while for others that's the point.
It's also an interesting representation of a topic he touches on; that social media has turned everything in to bite-sized nuggets of insight with no meat around them, that nobody – not even literary reviewers – have the patience to sit down and fully digest anything longer than a simple blog post length summary.
Given that his book is plugged in the first line, I figure this article is intended simply to advertise more copies of his book. While it does have interesting nuggets of knowledge, such as the initially unimpressive teenager having the most engaging questions, it is competing with many more compelling reads.
It's not about finishing at 20%, it's having an actual clue what the whole thing is approximately going to be about after 1000 words. If you can't even achieve that, this is just bad, random word salad disguising as an essay.
A commentator upstream declared that there is only one purpose to writing: to impart information. I disagree strongly. That may be what that commentator expects from writing, but I'm in it for many possible things.
I like writing that tickles my fancy, or entertains. I like writing that teaches me something, even if it seems tangential to the purpose of the essay or book. I like writing that doesn't even try to teach me anything. I write a lot just to get my own thoughts clear---in my own head, not someone else's.
Not everything is for everyone, all of the time.
That's OK. You can just walk away, even without registering your opinion.
I think Justin's erudite and learned style provokes those who feel he thinks he's better than the reader. I've been reading him for a long time and nothing could be further from the truth. He just likes to write about things and sees connections where others would not.
Sometimes it takes a while to explain those connections.
I'm almost done with the book he wrote about. I quite like it and have learned a lot.
It doesn't matter to write long or short; it matters to write clearly.
The purpose of any art form is to promise a payoff and then deliver on that payoff.
If the artist doesn't deliver, they have failed. If they deliver so late that the public has left the building, they have failed. If they make no clear promise, they have failed even more.
> it is not a great article to retweet to your followers
I don't have any follower, and I don't "follow", anybody. I don't play that game at all. But I am used to great writing from great writers of the past, and this ain't it.
I disagree. Change “any” for “some” and I agree. The way you said it, it just seems like a gamification of art creation. There is very good, if long, essay on that.
There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
Incidentally, if his book resembles this essay, it's no wonder people prefer to read the marketing synopsis. He should maybe do some introspection instead of accusing the whole world of being... I'm not even sure what... childish?
People's time is precious. Don't waste it in vain.
In the bounds of the voice of the essay (personal, slightly dishy, academic) this is not rambling, it’s coherent and fairly pointed - the way that it makes its point is through triangulation and narrative, instead of the more typical blogspam which makes its point through h2 tags, name dropping and emphatic retellings of how CAC was cut by 18% resulting in the author becoming rich.
At any rate, you might give it another read, and mull over his idea that HN and the rest of the social internet are an especially pernicious ‘game’ - I think it’s worth the time.
There are some writers who would strongly benefit from an editor who could at least help pare down repeated points. I'm almost certain that Justin isn't one of them.
Even for others (Glenn Greenwald springs to mind), I wonder if something would be lost. I may prefer one formulation; someone else may be tickled by another. Diluting an essay down to one acceptable version might be an unacceptable loss.
I dunno. I'm just glad someone's thinking deep thoughts and simultaneously a gifted writer.