Substack seems to be attracting a certain set of writers who are arrogant, self-righteous, offended by social justice efforts, and/or just looking for a fight. This thread is about one small part of this pattern: editing, and what contempt for editing says about someone (1/x)
Substack is a platform that lets writers publish what they want, unedited. I get the attraction. It can be painful to hear from an editor that, say, your introduction takes too long to get to the point or your metaphor doesn’t track or your logic has holes in it (2/x)
A good editor identifies the parts that are confusing or unsupported or insensitive and helps fix them. Sure, there are bad editors, but in most cases writers and editors can reach an agreement about structure and language that works well for the editor’s publication (3/x)
Most writers appreciate the help and want to make their work welcoming and clear and inclusive. Some don’t. (4/x)
Most writers appreciate the help and want to make their work welcoming and clear and inclusive. Some don’t. (4/x)
Fundamentally, working with an editor in good faith is about being considerate of your audience. There are plenty of good, respectful, fascinating writers on Substack who do think a lot about their audience, and it's not about freedom from editing for them (5/x)
Writers who resent editing tend to be belligerent and disdainful of their potential audience. Some of them are people who use the word “woke” as an insult and claim they’re being cancelled if anyone disagrees with them or has a different interpretation of the world (6/x)
Anyway, if editors have ever helped you improve your thinking or writing, please thank them <end>
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
