Allow me to introduce Mike Sowden, who is taking over the comment section today in our first-ever edition of Ask a Guest Editor. To participate, head to the comments and share either a snipper of in-progress work, like a headline or first paragraph, OR ask a question about storytelling. In his own words, Mike loves “nerding out” on story structure and how to help readers get “hooked all the way to the final sentence,” and he’s here to help!
I might be late to the party, but if not - How do you follow your weird & wonderful curiosities but also maintain a cohesive thread with your Substack? I often feel that my title BiblioArcana (books + tarot) doesn’t quite cover all the things I like to think/write/talk about.
Also, an etiquette question - when is it appropriate to @ someone on Substack? I restack and mention folks who I meet and really resonate with their work, but I’m always hesitant to do the same for writers with an orange check. 🤷🏻♀️ Am I overthinking?
Hi Lindsey! You've been reading me for a while, so, thank you so much for putting up with my nonsense. :D
I think the answer to your first question is mostly what I said to Ali in my reply to her just now: it's by working in seasons, and giving each season a theme with a series of questions attached to it, that I manage to hold things together. I'm also trying to connect everything all the time. In my reply to Antonia, I said that it's fruitful to view our newsletters not as things we fire off into the void every week, but as a cumulative body of work, just as substantial as a book draft - so I'm always trying to join those dots and find new ways to bring things together. (This is also great for engagement, because it's a good excuse to send people into my archives.)
So, if you're feeling like you missing a sense of cohesiveness with anything you're doing - how does it connect to what you've previously written about? And what is currently missing in this "constellation of knowledge" you're building around a topic, newsletter by newsletter? And is there anything you can expand upon, to create a new constellation all of its own?
(Another benefit for working topic by topic (constellation by constellation): potentially, you can aim at a different bunch of readers! In my newsletter's case, by writing about eg. oceanic exploration in Season 4, I ended up with a bunch of oceanographers and marine scientists reading me. So you are not just marketing your work to the same people - you're not excluding them, but you're inviting new audiences in as well.)
As for your second question: if it's polite and respectful, TAG LIKE MAD. If you're showing them you're a true fan of their work, or you're providing a respectful and interesting counterpoint, they will love to see it. Orange check people and purple check people are still human beings, and they're also concerned with about 99% of the same things as the rest of us, including FOMO and imposter syndrome and the rest of it. Nobody is superhuman in this job. And if they have a huge following, they *probably* got it by not being a dick, meaning, they're lovely people and they will react like lovely people. (That said: the more subscribers they have, the less time to reply they probably have, so I always assume that if I tag someone super-successful, and they haven't reacted in days or even weeks, it's because they're busy, it's just because they're overwhelmed.)
But on the whole - I reckon fortune favours the bold tagger. As long as they're nice about it!
And as far as putting up with your “nonsense” - as an American my definition of nonsense is being put to the test daily and your writing does not apply. Thank you for the snippets of joy and curiosity and wonder that you share!
Thanks for all this - love the “constellation” idea so much. And even the idea that focusing on a theme for a time can attract new readers. That makes so much sense.
And I also appreciate the feedback on tags - I’ll share when it feels authentic and I won’t overthink it 💗💗
Hello Mike. I’m a fellow Brit but find myself here at 4 am with a blooming cough. So, I should be getting back to sleep, but…
My Substack is called ‘Tether & Tend’ (https://tetherandtend.substack.com/). I write about about what it’s like to be a deeply feeling person and parent in an often unfeeling world. It’s a mix of personal stories and insights from my work as a therapist.
I’m very new here and so far loving it. I’ve written more in the past 2 months than in the preceding 2 years. But I know that I run the risk of running out of steam. My question is about having regular types of post to anchor both my readers and my rather random nature. Within the arc of a month or two’s writing - posting once a week - do you think there’s a good balance of regular fixtures vs. ‘as the fancy takes me’ pieces? I value structure but don’t want to feel hemmed in.
So far I’ve not given an editorial calendar much thought because I write on the hoof and like to catch the wave of my own enthusiasm (just subscribed to your publication by the way because I love enthusiastic people!) I suppose I’m wondering whether pure enthusiasm outweighs any kind of forethought.
Hi Ali! I hope your cough is a bit better now. And I love the focus of your writing here...
It sounds like you're asking if some kind of editorial structure helps you avoid burning out? It is really hard to sit down in front of a blank page when you're feeling a bit uninspired (which for me is about 50% of my writing existence) and create emotional alchemy, turning Meh into Woah! That is such a hard thing, and on those days, all I want is to be told what to write. So if you're feeling a bit of that, but also DON'T want to feel trapped into grinding out stuff with no feeling of adventure and surprise in it (that all-important excitement of feeling "if I start digging into this thing, where will it take me? Only one way to find out!!!") then - I hear you, I really hear you.
My approach can look a bit too chaotic for some, but it's really working well for me and doesn't seem to annoy enough readers for it to be a problem. From the beginning of my newsletter I wanted to work in seasons, but I most definitely did NOT want to chart out exactly all the pieces of those seasons in advance. I don't want this job to feel mechanical. I want to be a student of what I write about, ideally as much as my readers. I want to stumble over things that take my thinking in whole new directions on the fly, and I want to end up somewhere that makes me feel like I've been on much the same journey of discovery and revelation.
So, in my case, each season has a theme - and I have questions I want to ask about that theme, to see where they will lead me. I also usually have a bunch of "plot points" I want to hit before the season is done. But beyond that, I'm just writing my way in. If I'd planned to write about something, and something else in the research suddenly grabs my attention in a much bigger way, I'll listen to that voice inside me that's going "WOWWWWW". If I can successfully transfer that "wow" feeling I'm having to my readers, I should have a newsletter that gets people excited. And if along the way my research makes me realise I just don't care enough - then I'll look for what I *do* care about, and lean into that. Otherwise what I write will be flatter, less enthusiastic, more tired-sounding, a bit by-the-numbers...
That's how I work with structure. It's not a framework, it's a bucket. I throw things into the bucket as I go, I try to connect those things together, I throw anything away that's the wrong shape for the bucket (eg. way too big!) and I try to empty the bucket by the end of the season.
How very romantic your metaphors aren't, Mike.
So maybe you could try a similar way? A time-limited investigation into a theme, but with the freedom week by week to do whatever you like depending on your whim, or lack of whim for something you think you *should* write about but suddenly can't be bothered? Within this you can have recurring anchor posts, or you can republish something if you're feeling at a really low ebb - but the overarching theme is what reminds you what to write, every time you show up?
Ooooh thanks Mike, having seasons is something I hadn't even considered but I love how that makes me think of 'bingeable series'... I think your answer backs up my gut feel that I need some sort of structure but plenty of wiggle room if my writing is going to continue to flow. Now I'm going to go off and think of my buckets. And then not worry too much if there's a hole in any one of my buckets. 🪣
Hi, late to the party! My question is about using audio “voiceovers” vs setting up posts as podcasts. Since Substack started offering the option, I’ve been doing an audio recording of most of my posts, and people seem to like them, but some still don’t realize it’s an option — I’m wondering if there’s a benefit to doing this as a podcast instead, maybe to pull in a few more readers/listeners since it would be available on podcast apps? Would love to hear your opinion on this, which is the better way to go? Thanks!
This is a really good question - and to be honest, I'm not the person to answer it! I'm in the same boat - I do occasional voiceovers, they're very popular, and yet I haven't got around to doing a proper podcast with them, and haven't yet learned where to start...
I think excellent people to ask are either Nishant Jain (https://sneakyart.substack.com/) or Valorie Castellanos Clark (https://unrulyfigures.substack.com/). Both of them have been podcasting for a while now and really understand that side of things, and they're both super-nice folk too.
Hi Robin, great to connect in this thread and over on email! I have an answer of sorts to this question although I am still puzzling over the difference between article voiceovers and the dedicated podcast option here on Substack.
I have selected the option (in settings) to host a new podcast on Substack. Now, when I publish a normal post with audio voiceover, it gives me the option to add that audio as an RSS feed to my podcast. I had to do some other behind the scenes stuff to make sure my Substack podcast connected to Apple Podcasts but it is there. I can see all my article voiceovers as podcast episodes. This means my subscribers could choose to follow my podcast.
The only problem I can see with this method is that there are no download stats available. So I have no idea if anyone is accessing the podcast other than me! When you set up a dedicated podcast post it appears on a separate tab on your Substack homepage and you get the stats.
And, hi again, just something I should have added on to this (and so I am) - I think that storytelling, and particularly non-fiction and historical storytelling and personal essay, can really benefit from an oral presentation, it lifts the words off the page and helps people “get” it - and I think that’s perhaps why Substack has added audio (and video) capability. Just wondering, as the writer/storyteller you are, what you think about those mediums vs your text newsletters and how they do (or don’t) work together. Thanks!
Yes, agreed, narrating stories can be an extra level of intimacy and drama and emotion. I model my newsletter after my science writing heroes, and they include the podcast Radiolab - which is a masterclass in playing with audio to make something that just wouldn't have the same impact if it was just in written form. You can do things with audio that you just can't do with the written word! And I try to throw in as much humour as I can into my writing, and again, audio is another level of added comedy value - the mock-awkward pauses, the change in tone, putting self-exasperation into your voice, all that stuff.
Also, audio for EDITING is incredible. Want to get a feel for how good your first draft feels? Read it out to yourself, or even better, to some friends. You will be able to tell *instantly* where some of your writing just isn't working, or isn't in your own true voice - it's just immediately apparent. I gather that Brene Brown used this technique to edit a chapter of one of her books: she gathered together a bunch of friends (one was Elizabeth Gilbert, I think), poured out wine for everyone, and then performed her chapter to them. The feedback - from her guests, and from herself! - let her see where she could tighten the writing up.
Yes, I use the audio recording to help me in my final edit all the time - and would that we all could be as polished with sound effects and multiple narrators and audio editing as Radiolab!!
Actually, something I've been wondering about re Substack in general: as more people read a newsletter, how often do you recommend going back and re-upping older essays or even just explanations of what you're doing? Sometimes I forget that there are new people reading all the time, and they don't know a lot of information (personal or the research I do) that I assume people have. But I don't want to bore people who've been there a while by including stuff they already know.
As I'm writing this, I'm thinking of people who write, say, opinion columns for big publications. It seems like something they don't necessarily have to worry about, because they're writing under a masthead so people are going to the paper in general, but also can just assume that anyone reading what they write is familiar with their previous work, or might become so. But with newsletters there is slightly more of an element of personal connection. (I don't want to use the phrase "parasocial relationship" but I guess that's some of the difference in these two mediums.)
It's a good question. As a reader, I think that having some newsletters begin with "as regular/long-time readers are aware,...." openings. If I'm a long-time reader, that phrase makes me feel included and in on the act. If I'm new, I feel this is a gateway to entry into the community. Either effect is good.
This is a really great observation - thank you, Jeffrey! Yes, that opener makes me feel the same way, yet I hadn't really thought about that until now...
All my advice is free! I mean, NOBODY would pay for it, so it has to be free. I know the worth of my wisdom and it is appalling...
Oh boy, yeah - this is a topic very much on my mind. I actually wonder if people writing columns for newspapers, the paper kind, used to have far more pressure of *having* to be a largely standalone read - the equivalent of a "Monster Of The Week" episode of "The X-Files", designed to appeal to casual readers with no knowledge of the writer. But now, we get to mix it up - sometimes standalone, sometimes part of the "plot arcs" of our newsletters, which can be created in a way that hooks readers into devouring our archives. I think there's a lot of engagement power there - that's where people really fall in love with what we're doing and want to be part of it in a deeper way - and that's the personal connection, too.
As I said in my reply to Noha, I'm doing this in a messy way, because Substack still doesn't make it easier. A welcome page really helps, not just the About page but a pinned "Start here!" newsletter on the front page. But what's really needed is a sustained campaign of delivering the basics, the "story so far", to everyone. An autoresponder sequence that we could just rack up that gets triggered by a new free signup - I think that would give us hugely better conversion rates to paid, amongst everything else. I know that beehiiv has them, I know ConvertKit does, and I used to use them in Mailchimp so I know how well they work - but Substack, so far, is a Nope. If it turned into a Yep, I think this would be huge for all of us.
But right now we have to do them manually, which is messy and tricky and often a bit bewildering. Right now I've been doing quite a lot of "reruns", both of old newsletters and of pieces I wrote for my old blog, because they're foundational in what I'm writing about soon, or I just think they were cool. (I totted it up: of the last 25 newsletters I've sent out, 11 were reruns! And my next one going out today is another rerun, because it's also the first half of what I'm sending out on Saturday. But after this, I'm throttling back for the rest of the season because if you overdo it, long-time readers might feel short-changed...)
But if there's one thing I've learned over the last year or so, it's that nobody is bored by re-reading an old banger of a newsletter which did well the first time. It's healthy we worry about boring readers, but if the stuff is good and it's been a year or so since we sent it, it will work just as well again. Often better, in fact! (That recent piece of mine on staring at your own reflection until you hallucinate...when that first went out in 2021, it got 16 Likes. When I resent it a few weeks ago, it got 144 Likes. As imperfect as Likes are as a way to measure how much people care, well, that's a big difference.)
So I think it's a good thing to do occasionally. How occasionally? I have no idea. And I don't intend to abuse it, which I may be on the verge of doing. But I'd much rather err on the side of reminding everyone that my newsletter has Big Themes that I want to keep returning to, than to keep assuming every new reader is automatically going back to my first newsletter and reading everything from the beginning. NOBODY is doing this automatically, including the hardcore fans of our work, unless they have an unusual amount of time and enthusiasm to do it (which is something to be grateful for, but never assumed!).
So, we have to guide them. That's part of our job. Maybe the hardest bit. We have to be tour guides to our own work, and walking indexes. Because nobody has the time to have read everything we've done. (Including us! Doing a self-audit of our Story So Far is always an illuminating exercise - "woah, why haven't I written more about that????").
"But what's really needed is a sustained campaign of delivering the basics, the "story so far", to everyone." -- that would be super useful! What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I think even my asking it is almost a condition of thinking too small. Like, "Surely everyone who's here reading this has been here reading this forever, nobody knew ..." which is silly. I don't pay much attention to subscriber stats but do check occasionally.
Also: "We have to guide them. That's part of our job." That is GREAT advice! Thanks, Free Advice Mike!
[BBC interviewer talking to hollow-eyed bald man in tattered clothes]
"Yes, I think it was when everyone started calling me 'Free Advice Mike' that my career as a writer really started to fall apart, and of course here I am 12 months later, living on the beach in a tent because nobody will pay me, doing nothing but eating seaweed and the occasional incautious seagull..."
But more seriously (not that I'm NOT being serious, of course, I'm ruined) - yeah, rethinking this stuff re. "re-runs" has made me realise how writing a newsletter can be treated so differently to writing a book. In a way, we've been taught for the last 10 years that newsletters are - throwaway? They're treated like of-the-time, one-shot kinds of things, sent out once and that's most of their shelf-life used up. Not timeless bodies of work!
But if there's a Web version we can point to (thank you, Substack!), they ARE bodies of work in exactly the same way a back-catalogue of books is.
They're also digital assets. And this changes everything, because when you are writing a new edition of a newsletter, you are, in a way, creating yet another way to get paid, and for people to find your work. It's another doorway that people will enter through, in of itself, and another path people can follow into our work. It's not a page we refresh with new stuff, banishing the old stuff off the face of the internet. It's cumulative. And what accumulates is a body of micro-works that can do the same job again and again for us with new audiences, if we can find a way to reorganise it in such a way....
It feels hugely important. But of course you get this - you're both writing a newsletter AND a book into your Substack! (Which is amazing, by the way.)
Whether it lands you living in a tent on the beach or not (hopefully with a good rain fly), this is a seriously great perspective. It's both cumulative AND something we can bring out into the sun from where it got buried in a closet, shake out and see again with fresh insights.
I generally appreciate re-runs of previous successful posts. If it's really good and I haven't read it before, that's great. If it's really good and I have read it before (I'm pretty new on Substack, so that hasn't happened yet) I'll probably want to read it again anyway. But as you say, there has to be a balance. between that and the new stuff.
The staring at your own reflection piece was my first of yours, and the reason I am here.
Also your “No one reads this” welcome letter. Which of course I read the entire thing (being extremely oppositional) and I bought a paid year immediately, because I sensed that what you had already written would absolutely be worth my supporting financially because I will be going back to the beginning to follow the whole journey, a very late-comer to your newsletter.
First off, I want to say sorry for how silly or small this question is - it's Ramadan and live is busy so I don't have a WIP going so much right now as I do have a title and the beginnings of one in my head.
I write the newsletter, "Letter's from a Muslim Woman" (https://nohabeshir.substack.com/) where I share the joys and challenges of being a visibly Muslim woman in a sometimes unfriendly world. I write personal essays and poetry, for the most part, usually either discussing a specific aspect of my life that people may not often consider, or explaining or demystifying things that people think they know about Muslims.
My challenge is really around how much time I need to spend explaining things - because I don't want to be expository in my writing.
For example, next week I'm probably writing an essay on some commonly used (by Muslims) phrases and explaining how they're used - the tone I'm imagining right now is playful while still being informative. The headline I have in my head is "Insha Allah vs. Masha Allah - A guide to Muslim vernacular". My challenge - will people understand this or be totally lost?
So my question is about this specific title but also about how to navigate writing about something that isn't commonly known, but not wanting every post to be explainers... Would love to hear your thoughts.
Hi Noha! I know your work well, and I know how great and admired it is, so none of this "silly or small question" stuff, *I* will be doing the self-deprecation today thankyouverymuch. (Also, Ramadan Kareem.)
This is such a great question. I also struggle with this, because we're all fighting to hit a manageable wordcount, and to also keep the flow of what we're writing without breaking it to provide explainers. I know some people use footnotes for this purpose, and I think that works great (and Substack now has functionality for this, I believe). Being a longtime blog writer, I tend to use hyperlinks - but that's another form of a break in the flow of reading, and I can see the downsides to that approach. But I still do this! And you've got me thinking about why...
I think it's about our ability to create sustained arguments. Every newsletter we send isn't a one-off that exists in a vacuum - it's building on themes and ideas and knowledge we've already explored previously. So this means part of our job is to keep reintroducing our readers to that previous work, so they get the full through-line - or at least, we make it as clear as possible where that through-line is, what posts they should read first, if they want to get the full impact of what we're saying. The "Story So Far", in entertainment parlance. (In content marketing, this was called "Evergreen content".)
This is where Substack still falls a bit short, for me. What I would LOVE is for us to be able to create an autoresponder email sequence that delivers that "story so far" series in the form of our most important newsletters, one per day for maybe a week, to everyone who newly signs up to us. (I used to do this with my storytelling course: a free "mini-course" of 5 emails to explain the basics, which then laid the groundwork for the main course, while also getting them on my email list for marketing purposes.) Instead, we have to do it manually. Which is...messy messy messy.
So in terms of whether people will understand a topic (here, Muslim vernacular) - what have those people read by you on this topic before this, if they are longterm readers? Where have you introduced that topic already? What platform of prior knowledge are you building on? And specifically: where in your archives could you send your readers from this latest newsletter that gives them the basic info you wish everyone had before reading this latest piece? Because if you can send them to an archived piece, you benefit in two ways: you don't have to repeat that info here, AND you send readers into your archives, so they can rediscover your best work!
This is how I'm instinctively doing it these days. I have a bunch of "core newsletters" that I keep sending readers back to, with an implicit "here are the basics, please read this stuff before continuing" and it means I don't have to repeat myself, and also, I'm adding value to my latest work in the form of reintroducing my former work.
That's....a lot of words, Mike. Get an editor.
Anyway, that's my approach. It's imperfect, because it's messy and I'm continually trying to string things together in ways that are navigationally a bit awkward. But it feels important, too, because our archives should be living arguments, not dead ones. They're available on the Web for anyone to read - so they're an asset we can use, and link back to. This is one way!
Makes me realize that I don't have much in the archive that I'm sending everyone back to yet but that I can built that up as I keep writing and building the repertoire of this newsletter.
I have been making use of the footnotes recently because I found my in text explanations so clunky, and also because as I've amassed more Muslim readers, it feels almost unfair for them to have to wade through the "explainer" material if it's not really a part of the story, just background.
Re the archives, this leads me to a second question: my paid subscription strategy is haphazard at best right now, but I am essentially paywalling older posts (except for some of them that I love too much and want everyone to read lol), and writing the odd paid post here and there. Do you keep those key posts that you keep referring new readers back to free and open?
Yes, if it's a post I know I'll want to keep reintroducing people to, I'll leave it unlocked. I want the paywalled stuff to be clearly "extra", not foundational material. And also, I really want to foundational stuff to reach the biggest audience! Good for the topic, and good for me, because it'll help reel people in. A lot of my marketing happens that way - I used to have Twitter threads promoting some of those posts, and those threads could get shared by someone wityh a big following at any time, sending me a spike of traffic. I wouldn't want those visitors to hit a paywall as soon as they arrive!
(Nowadays, Twitter is a great big steaming pile of X, so I'm trying to do the same thing on Threads. Early days, but it's working so far.)
So - yes, if it's an important beginner's post, I'd suggest keeping it open so you can keep sending new visitors to it, to give them the introductory material they need to get hooked on your work.
Very good. And I keep seeing mention of posting the good stuff in threads or the steaming pile of X that used to be Twitter! I’ll take this as a hint that I really should get around to it 😅😅
Only if you think it'd be fun! Social media can be such a drag and a drain to use if it feels like a chore. I feel lucky that I found a way to make it feel fun, and if I hadn't, I'd be steering well clear because it can be such a bottomless hole to throw all your energy into...
Thank you for this question Noha and for your reply Mike. I find myself quoting my own phrases I’ve used in earlier essays and then hyperlinking them so that newer readers who think ‘what the...what?’ can pop back and get context. You just gave me permission! I find if someone follows me down the rabbithole for a couple of these they may subscribe... is this part of how we find our tribes, do you think? Am I wishful thinking?
Yes, that is *exactly* how it works, I reckon. There are lots of reasons for someone deciding to lean into our work, but I reckon we persuade them when they're used to our work enough to understand it and see what we're building towards. How does that happen? Maybe by reading half a dozen or a dozen really great pieces by us. Writer Rand Fishkin describes this as "marketing touches with our brand" - we just have to show up in our readers' Inboxes enough times with something really, really good. That's how we persuade them and win them over. And our archives can - and should! - have a big role to play in that process...
Wow, that is a GREAT question! I love that you asked this of Mike in particular since so much of his Substack writing involves being curious about things he didn't know, so it makes me wonder how much explaining he consciously or unconsciously leaves out when he's sharing that with a wider audience.
I haven’t got a question, but I do want to say that I found your Substack in the wee hours of the morning just a few nights ago and I have now listened to all five of your podcast episodes (they were WONDERFUL), subscribed to your Substack, and very much enjoyed your work. So much so that I have very obnoxiously shared it with all my friends in private messages like I’d struck gold, and nattered on about it to those who read my newsletter.
I have led a life being fascinated by everything, and it was so wonderful to encounter another writer ahead of me on the path who has been fighting for the right to be curious, and enthusiastic.
So this is a giant thank you. I’m so very glad you exist. I’ve learned so very much already.
Oh, that's incredibly kind of you to say. THANK YOU. Gosh. *shuffles feet for a while, making "Gosh" and "Good lord" noises*
Confession: I'm really just following the tradition set by some of my curiosity heroes, so if you are enjoying my stuff, I reckon you'll be more than delighted by the following book...
It's called "On Looking", by canine behaviour researcher Alexandra Horowitz, in which she sets herself the task of walking round her block in New York in the company of different experts who point out all the things she'd miss on her own.
One of those experts is her toddler, another is her dog, another is a seasoned world traveller who also happens to be blind, another is a typography nerd, another a field naturalist... It's a fantastic book and really shows the power of refocusing on what you think you already know, to see what's REALLY there.
I am honoured that you found the time to respond to my comment, especially seeing as it wasn’t a question.
I do want to also tell you that it is not likely that I will stop reading your newsletter, for two reasons.
One: I find the tone of your enthusiasm and researched content to be exactly the way my brain needs to be told things in order to learn and retain them (this does not come along often)
And
Two: it is not that I need my curiosity to be piqued. I have been curious my entire life. What I need to know is that there are other people in the world who are as excited, enthusiastic and (a word I can’t find that exactly conveys my current absurd joy) about the ways in which we engage the world with our curiosity. I need a community of other humans excited about explaining the wondrous things they are learning about. Because STORYTELLING is HOW I learn. (Which I likely why I have spent my life collecting stories, telling them and working for such organizations as The Moth, and running my own weird storytelling events to draw more stories to my brain. People are utterly fascinating, and it is their fascinations with the world that spark my own. Long aside complete.)
Thank you for your generous suggestions, and the way you put the things you’ve learned into the world.
(The third reason I will continue to read your newsletter is because you remind me of two of my very favourite authors who are no longer on this plane, and I have missed the way they approach the world. And here you are, alive, and in the world, writing. And for that I am grateful. )
Working for The Moth! Now there's a dream come true.
Thank you so much for the kind words here - and YES, there are so many curious folk out there with a love of a good yarn. I am very lucky to know a few. HOORAY for these people. 🎉🎉🎉
Hi everyone! I'm Mike, I'm extremely British, I'm delighted to meet you all, and I apologise for all the self-deprecation - it's genetic, I can't help myself.
As a writer, I've been a copywriter for small business, a storytelling consultant, a travel writer and now, at "Everything Is Amazing," a sort-of-science-writer. And I'm also a voracious reader of fiction. My vocational greediness knows no bounds - I'm interested in EVERYTHING. This probably means I'm too much of a Jack-of-all-trades for my own good, but it's certainly good fun trying. I am like a dog that never gets bored of the stick you throw for me. YES THROW IT AGAIN, I'M READY, LET'S GO.
As for how I might be able to help: I've been on Substack for just over 3 years now, and I hope I've learned a few things. (My numbers, if you're interested in that sort of thing: 23.5k on my free list, 650 paid.) It's now my full-time job, so I take it about as seriously as I take anything in this life, which may not mean a lot considering my HEY THROW THAT STICK AGAIN enthusiastic nature. I also might be able to help with your story structure on whatever you're working on - I've worked part-time as a story editor (as opposed to a line editor) so I'm more of a "big picture" sort of assistant here, looking for the rhythm and shape of the story.
Basically, fire away! Happy to help if I can. I'm no Amanda, but I'll do my very best.
I'm also going to chuck this in here, because it's such an incredibly useful and FREE resource for anyone wanting to improve their self-editing and storytelling skills:
Nieman Storyboard is run by and gathers wisdom from seasoned journalists who tend to write what's now called "literary journalism" - non-fiction storytelling that borrows techniques from fiction-writing to create a true story that you absolutely cannot put down. And this is a massive collection of their best articles. If you learn and apply most of everything in here, you're following in the footsteps of some of the world's best non-fiction storytellers.
I was reminded of something the other day: one of the shortest short stories in the world. It's a good reminder that great storytelling comes at any length, even the super-super-brief. You might know of this one:
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."
It's been attributed to Hemingway, but it almost certainly isn't by him - the first time anyone tied it to Hemingway was in 1991, and a version of the story appears in a newspaper in 1906 (I very much doubt Hemingway wrote it at the tender age of 7).
Anyway, that's the famous one. But another I like is this:
"The last person on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door."
Sci-fi? Horror? Ghost story? Psychological thriller? Take your pick. But I reckon any extra detail would ruin it.
I didn't know that about the Hemingway (notHemingway) line! After I had my first kid, the shine of it wore off for me -- we had lots of baby shoes that were never worn. Babies don't in general need shoes. 🫠
Ha! I had not considered that. I wonder if it's a relic of a bygone age - did babies wear shoes instead of socks or booties back in the late 1890s? Did parents strap their bairns into shoes at a disgracefully early age? If so, that could change the tone of the story completely: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn....[because we realised our babies don't need shoes and we're all much the happier for it, good riddance]"
I would guess something along the lines of a different time. Still, the power of that story remains if you don't think about babies' general lack of shoes.
I might be late to the party, but if not - How do you follow your weird & wonderful curiosities but also maintain a cohesive thread with your Substack? I often feel that my title BiblioArcana (books + tarot) doesn’t quite cover all the things I like to think/write/talk about.
Also, an etiquette question - when is it appropriate to @ someone on Substack? I restack and mention folks who I meet and really resonate with their work, but I’m always hesitant to do the same for writers with an orange check. 🤷🏻♀️ Am I overthinking?
Hi Lindsey! You've been reading me for a while, so, thank you so much for putting up with my nonsense. :D
I think the answer to your first question is mostly what I said to Ali in my reply to her just now: it's by working in seasons, and giving each season a theme with a series of questions attached to it, that I manage to hold things together. I'm also trying to connect everything all the time. In my reply to Antonia, I said that it's fruitful to view our newsletters not as things we fire off into the void every week, but as a cumulative body of work, just as substantial as a book draft - so I'm always trying to join those dots and find new ways to bring things together. (This is also great for engagement, because it's a good excuse to send people into my archives.)
So, if you're feeling like you missing a sense of cohesiveness with anything you're doing - how does it connect to what you've previously written about? And what is currently missing in this "constellation of knowledge" you're building around a topic, newsletter by newsletter? And is there anything you can expand upon, to create a new constellation all of its own?
(Another benefit for working topic by topic (constellation by constellation): potentially, you can aim at a different bunch of readers! In my newsletter's case, by writing about eg. oceanic exploration in Season 4, I ended up with a bunch of oceanographers and marine scientists reading me. So you are not just marketing your work to the same people - you're not excluding them, but you're inviting new audiences in as well.)
As for your second question: if it's polite and respectful, TAG LIKE MAD. If you're showing them you're a true fan of their work, or you're providing a respectful and interesting counterpoint, they will love to see it. Orange check people and purple check people are still human beings, and they're also concerned with about 99% of the same things as the rest of us, including FOMO and imposter syndrome and the rest of it. Nobody is superhuman in this job. And if they have a huge following, they *probably* got it by not being a dick, meaning, they're lovely people and they will react like lovely people. (That said: the more subscribers they have, the less time to reply they probably have, so I always assume that if I tag someone super-successful, and they haven't reacted in days or even weeks, it's because they're busy, it's just because they're overwhelmed.)
But on the whole - I reckon fortune favours the bold tagger. As long as they're nice about it!
And as far as putting up with your “nonsense” - as an American my definition of nonsense is being put to the test daily and your writing does not apply. Thank you for the snippets of joy and curiosity and wonder that you share!
Thanks for all this - love the “constellation” idea so much. And even the idea that focusing on a theme for a time can attract new readers. That makes so much sense.
And I also appreciate the feedback on tags - I’ll share when it feels authentic and I won’t overthink it 💗💗
Hello Mike. I’m a fellow Brit but find myself here at 4 am with a blooming cough. So, I should be getting back to sleep, but…
My Substack is called ‘Tether & Tend’ (https://tetherandtend.substack.com/). I write about about what it’s like to be a deeply feeling person and parent in an often unfeeling world. It’s a mix of personal stories and insights from my work as a therapist.
I’m very new here and so far loving it. I’ve written more in the past 2 months than in the preceding 2 years. But I know that I run the risk of running out of steam. My question is about having regular types of post to anchor both my readers and my rather random nature. Within the arc of a month or two’s writing - posting once a week - do you think there’s a good balance of regular fixtures vs. ‘as the fancy takes me’ pieces? I value structure but don’t want to feel hemmed in.
So far I’ve not given an editorial calendar much thought because I write on the hoof and like to catch the wave of my own enthusiasm (just subscribed to your publication by the way because I love enthusiastic people!) I suppose I’m wondering whether pure enthusiasm outweighs any kind of forethought.
Thanks very much, Ali
Hi Ali! I hope your cough is a bit better now. And I love the focus of your writing here...
It sounds like you're asking if some kind of editorial structure helps you avoid burning out? It is really hard to sit down in front of a blank page when you're feeling a bit uninspired (which for me is about 50% of my writing existence) and create emotional alchemy, turning Meh into Woah! That is such a hard thing, and on those days, all I want is to be told what to write. So if you're feeling a bit of that, but also DON'T want to feel trapped into grinding out stuff with no feeling of adventure and surprise in it (that all-important excitement of feeling "if I start digging into this thing, where will it take me? Only one way to find out!!!") then - I hear you, I really hear you.
My approach can look a bit too chaotic for some, but it's really working well for me and doesn't seem to annoy enough readers for it to be a problem. From the beginning of my newsletter I wanted to work in seasons, but I most definitely did NOT want to chart out exactly all the pieces of those seasons in advance. I don't want this job to feel mechanical. I want to be a student of what I write about, ideally as much as my readers. I want to stumble over things that take my thinking in whole new directions on the fly, and I want to end up somewhere that makes me feel like I've been on much the same journey of discovery and revelation.
So, in my case, each season has a theme - and I have questions I want to ask about that theme, to see where they will lead me. I also usually have a bunch of "plot points" I want to hit before the season is done. But beyond that, I'm just writing my way in. If I'd planned to write about something, and something else in the research suddenly grabs my attention in a much bigger way, I'll listen to that voice inside me that's going "WOWWWWW". If I can successfully transfer that "wow" feeling I'm having to my readers, I should have a newsletter that gets people excited. And if along the way my research makes me realise I just don't care enough - then I'll look for what I *do* care about, and lean into that. Otherwise what I write will be flatter, less enthusiastic, more tired-sounding, a bit by-the-numbers...
That's how I work with structure. It's not a framework, it's a bucket. I throw things into the bucket as I go, I try to connect those things together, I throw anything away that's the wrong shape for the bucket (eg. way too big!) and I try to empty the bucket by the end of the season.
How very romantic your metaphors aren't, Mike.
So maybe you could try a similar way? A time-limited investigation into a theme, but with the freedom week by week to do whatever you like depending on your whim, or lack of whim for something you think you *should* write about but suddenly can't be bothered? Within this you can have recurring anchor posts, or you can republish something if you're feeling at a really low ebb - but the overarching theme is what reminds you what to write, every time you show up?
Ooooh thanks Mike, having seasons is something I hadn't even considered but I love how that makes me think of 'bingeable series'... I think your answer backs up my gut feel that I need some sort of structure but plenty of wiggle room if my writing is going to continue to flow. Now I'm going to go off and think of my buckets. And then not worry too much if there's a hole in any one of my buckets. 🪣
I relate to this and appreciate this question 💗
Hi, late to the party! My question is about using audio “voiceovers” vs setting up posts as podcasts. Since Substack started offering the option, I’ve been doing an audio recording of most of my posts, and people seem to like them, but some still don’t realize it’s an option — I’m wondering if there’s a benefit to doing this as a podcast instead, maybe to pull in a few more readers/listeners since it would be available on podcast apps? Would love to hear your opinion on this, which is the better way to go? Thanks!
This is a really good question - and to be honest, I'm not the person to answer it! I'm in the same boat - I do occasional voiceovers, they're very popular, and yet I haven't got around to doing a proper podcast with them, and haven't yet learned where to start...
I think excellent people to ask are either Nishant Jain (https://sneakyart.substack.com/) or Valorie Castellanos Clark (https://unrulyfigures.substack.com/). Both of them have been podcasting for a while now and really understand that side of things, and they're both super-nice folk too.
Thanks for this, I’ll dig more on this!
Hi Robin, great to connect in this thread and over on email! I have an answer of sorts to this question although I am still puzzling over the difference between article voiceovers and the dedicated podcast option here on Substack.
I have selected the option (in settings) to host a new podcast on Substack. Now, when I publish a normal post with audio voiceover, it gives me the option to add that audio as an RSS feed to my podcast. I had to do some other behind the scenes stuff to make sure my Substack podcast connected to Apple Podcasts but it is there. I can see all my article voiceovers as podcast episodes. This means my subscribers could choose to follow my podcast.
The only problem I can see with this method is that there are no download stats available. So I have no idea if anyone is accessing the podcast other than me! When you set up a dedicated podcast post it appears on a separate tab on your Substack homepage and you get the stats.
Hope that helps somewhat.
That does help, thank you, nice to know that you can add the voiceover to the podcast feed. I will be thinking about this more!
And, hi again, just something I should have added on to this (and so I am) - I think that storytelling, and particularly non-fiction and historical storytelling and personal essay, can really benefit from an oral presentation, it lifts the words off the page and helps people “get” it - and I think that’s perhaps why Substack has added audio (and video) capability. Just wondering, as the writer/storyteller you are, what you think about those mediums vs your text newsletters and how they do (or don’t) work together. Thanks!
Yes, agreed, narrating stories can be an extra level of intimacy and drama and emotion. I model my newsletter after my science writing heroes, and they include the podcast Radiolab - which is a masterclass in playing with audio to make something that just wouldn't have the same impact if it was just in written form. You can do things with audio that you just can't do with the written word! And I try to throw in as much humour as I can into my writing, and again, audio is another level of added comedy value - the mock-awkward pauses, the change in tone, putting self-exasperation into your voice, all that stuff.
Also, audio for EDITING is incredible. Want to get a feel for how good your first draft feels? Read it out to yourself, or even better, to some friends. You will be able to tell *instantly* where some of your writing just isn't working, or isn't in your own true voice - it's just immediately apparent. I gather that Brene Brown used this technique to edit a chapter of one of her books: she gathered together a bunch of friends (one was Elizabeth Gilbert, I think), poured out wine for everyone, and then performed her chapter to them. The feedback - from her guests, and from herself! - let her see where she could tighten the writing up.
Yes, I use the audio recording to help me in my final edit all the time - and would that we all could be as polished with sound effects and multiple narrators and audio editing as Radiolab!!
Yea hi I got a question. Mike why are you such an idiot
Hi Alex! The answer is practise. Lots and lots of it. Hope that helps!
Hm, a chance for free advice from Mike ...
Actually, something I've been wondering about re Substack in general: as more people read a newsletter, how often do you recommend going back and re-upping older essays or even just explanations of what you're doing? Sometimes I forget that there are new people reading all the time, and they don't know a lot of information (personal or the research I do) that I assume people have. But I don't want to bore people who've been there a while by including stuff they already know.
As I'm writing this, I'm thinking of people who write, say, opinion columns for big publications. It seems like something they don't necessarily have to worry about, because they're writing under a masthead so people are going to the paper in general, but also can just assume that anyone reading what they write is familiar with their previous work, or might become so. But with newsletters there is slightly more of an element of personal connection. (I don't want to use the phrase "parasocial relationship" but I guess that's some of the difference in these two mediums.)
It's a good question. As a reader, I think that having some newsletters begin with "as regular/long-time readers are aware,...." openings. If I'm a long-time reader, that phrase makes me feel included and in on the act. If I'm new, I feel this is a gateway to entry into the community. Either effect is good.
I had literally never thought about it before, but you're right, I feel the same way with that kind of opener. that's a great insight.
This is a really great observation - thank you, Jeffrey! Yes, that opener makes me feel the same way, yet I hadn't really thought about that until now...
All my advice is free! I mean, NOBODY would pay for it, so it has to be free. I know the worth of my wisdom and it is appalling...
Oh boy, yeah - this is a topic very much on my mind. I actually wonder if people writing columns for newspapers, the paper kind, used to have far more pressure of *having* to be a largely standalone read - the equivalent of a "Monster Of The Week" episode of "The X-Files", designed to appeal to casual readers with no knowledge of the writer. But now, we get to mix it up - sometimes standalone, sometimes part of the "plot arcs" of our newsletters, which can be created in a way that hooks readers into devouring our archives. I think there's a lot of engagement power there - that's where people really fall in love with what we're doing and want to be part of it in a deeper way - and that's the personal connection, too.
As I said in my reply to Noha, I'm doing this in a messy way, because Substack still doesn't make it easier. A welcome page really helps, not just the About page but a pinned "Start here!" newsletter on the front page. But what's really needed is a sustained campaign of delivering the basics, the "story so far", to everyone. An autoresponder sequence that we could just rack up that gets triggered by a new free signup - I think that would give us hugely better conversion rates to paid, amongst everything else. I know that beehiiv has them, I know ConvertKit does, and I used to use them in Mailchimp so I know how well they work - but Substack, so far, is a Nope. If it turned into a Yep, I think this would be huge for all of us.
But right now we have to do them manually, which is messy and tricky and often a bit bewildering. Right now I've been doing quite a lot of "reruns", both of old newsletters and of pieces I wrote for my old blog, because they're foundational in what I'm writing about soon, or I just think they were cool. (I totted it up: of the last 25 newsletters I've sent out, 11 were reruns! And my next one going out today is another rerun, because it's also the first half of what I'm sending out on Saturday. But after this, I'm throttling back for the rest of the season because if you overdo it, long-time readers might feel short-changed...)
But if there's one thing I've learned over the last year or so, it's that nobody is bored by re-reading an old banger of a newsletter which did well the first time. It's healthy we worry about boring readers, but if the stuff is good and it's been a year or so since we sent it, it will work just as well again. Often better, in fact! (That recent piece of mine on staring at your own reflection until you hallucinate...when that first went out in 2021, it got 16 Likes. When I resent it a few weeks ago, it got 144 Likes. As imperfect as Likes are as a way to measure how much people care, well, that's a big difference.)
So I think it's a good thing to do occasionally. How occasionally? I have no idea. And I don't intend to abuse it, which I may be on the verge of doing. But I'd much rather err on the side of reminding everyone that my newsletter has Big Themes that I want to keep returning to, than to keep assuming every new reader is automatically going back to my first newsletter and reading everything from the beginning. NOBODY is doing this automatically, including the hardcore fans of our work, unless they have an unusual amount of time and enthusiasm to do it (which is something to be grateful for, but never assumed!).
So, we have to guide them. That's part of our job. Maybe the hardest bit. We have to be tour guides to our own work, and walking indexes. Because nobody has the time to have read everything we've done. (Including us! Doing a self-audit of our Story So Far is always an illuminating exercise - "woah, why haven't I written more about that????").
"But what's really needed is a sustained campaign of delivering the basics, the "story so far", to everyone." -- that would be super useful! What you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I think even my asking it is almost a condition of thinking too small. Like, "Surely everyone who's here reading this has been here reading this forever, nobody knew ..." which is silly. I don't pay much attention to subscriber stats but do check occasionally.
Also: "We have to guide them. That's part of our job." That is GREAT advice! Thanks, Free Advice Mike!
[Flash forward a year]
[BBC interviewer talking to hollow-eyed bald man in tattered clothes]
"Yes, I think it was when everyone started calling me 'Free Advice Mike' that my career as a writer really started to fall apart, and of course here I am 12 months later, living on the beach in a tent because nobody will pay me, doing nothing but eating seaweed and the occasional incautious seagull..."
But more seriously (not that I'm NOT being serious, of course, I'm ruined) - yeah, rethinking this stuff re. "re-runs" has made me realise how writing a newsletter can be treated so differently to writing a book. In a way, we've been taught for the last 10 years that newsletters are - throwaway? They're treated like of-the-time, one-shot kinds of things, sent out once and that's most of their shelf-life used up. Not timeless bodies of work!
But if there's a Web version we can point to (thank you, Substack!), they ARE bodies of work in exactly the same way a back-catalogue of books is.
They're also digital assets. And this changes everything, because when you are writing a new edition of a newsletter, you are, in a way, creating yet another way to get paid, and for people to find your work. It's another doorway that people will enter through, in of itself, and another path people can follow into our work. It's not a page we refresh with new stuff, banishing the old stuff off the face of the internet. It's cumulative. And what accumulates is a body of micro-works that can do the same job again and again for us with new audiences, if we can find a way to reorganise it in such a way....
It feels hugely important. But of course you get this - you're both writing a newsletter AND a book into your Substack! (Which is amazing, by the way.)
Whether it lands you living in a tent on the beach or not (hopefully with a good rain fly), this is a seriously great perspective. It's both cumulative AND something we can bring out into the sun from where it got buried in a closet, shake out and see again with fresh insights.
I generally appreciate re-runs of previous successful posts. If it's really good and I haven't read it before, that's great. If it's really good and I have read it before (I'm pretty new on Substack, so that hasn't happened yet) I'll probably want to read it again anyway. But as you say, there has to be a balance. between that and the new stuff.
Agree with that. When Mike started doing it, I realized I enjoyed rereading old ones of his and being reminded of some cool stuff.
The staring at your own reflection piece was my first of yours, and the reason I am here.
Also your “No one reads this” welcome letter. Which of course I read the entire thing (being extremely oppositional) and I bought a paid year immediately, because I sensed that what you had already written would absolutely be worth my supporting financially because I will be going back to the beginning to follow the whole journey, a very late-comer to your newsletter.
"Tour guides to our work": Mike, you've just given me a whole new way of thinking about it. Thanks! And thanks, Antonia, for the question.
He did the same for me! Great advice.
Hi Mike!
First off, I want to say sorry for how silly or small this question is - it's Ramadan and live is busy so I don't have a WIP going so much right now as I do have a title and the beginnings of one in my head.
I write the newsletter, "Letter's from a Muslim Woman" (https://nohabeshir.substack.com/) where I share the joys and challenges of being a visibly Muslim woman in a sometimes unfriendly world. I write personal essays and poetry, for the most part, usually either discussing a specific aspect of my life that people may not often consider, or explaining or demystifying things that people think they know about Muslims.
My challenge is really around how much time I need to spend explaining things - because I don't want to be expository in my writing.
For example, next week I'm probably writing an essay on some commonly used (by Muslims) phrases and explaining how they're used - the tone I'm imagining right now is playful while still being informative. The headline I have in my head is "Insha Allah vs. Masha Allah - A guide to Muslim vernacular". My challenge - will people understand this or be totally lost?
So my question is about this specific title but also about how to navigate writing about something that isn't commonly known, but not wanting every post to be explainers... Would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks!
I like that title, "Insha Allah vs. Masha Allah - A guide to Muslim vernacular". I know I'll find the essay interesting!
I second that I would be drawn in by this title! I was just googling how to extend the proper greeting during Ramadan the other day 😆
I’m glad! You probably don’t need the guide though, Jeffrey, but I like to imagine you nodding along as you read 😁😁
Hi Noha! I know your work well, and I know how great and admired it is, so none of this "silly or small question" stuff, *I* will be doing the self-deprecation today thankyouverymuch. (Also, Ramadan Kareem.)
This is such a great question. I also struggle with this, because we're all fighting to hit a manageable wordcount, and to also keep the flow of what we're writing without breaking it to provide explainers. I know some people use footnotes for this purpose, and I think that works great (and Substack now has functionality for this, I believe). Being a longtime blog writer, I tend to use hyperlinks - but that's another form of a break in the flow of reading, and I can see the downsides to that approach. But I still do this! And you've got me thinking about why...
I think it's about our ability to create sustained arguments. Every newsletter we send isn't a one-off that exists in a vacuum - it's building on themes and ideas and knowledge we've already explored previously. So this means part of our job is to keep reintroducing our readers to that previous work, so they get the full through-line - or at least, we make it as clear as possible where that through-line is, what posts they should read first, if they want to get the full impact of what we're saying. The "Story So Far", in entertainment parlance. (In content marketing, this was called "Evergreen content".)
This is where Substack still falls a bit short, for me. What I would LOVE is for us to be able to create an autoresponder email sequence that delivers that "story so far" series in the form of our most important newsletters, one per day for maybe a week, to everyone who newly signs up to us. (I used to do this with my storytelling course: a free "mini-course" of 5 emails to explain the basics, which then laid the groundwork for the main course, while also getting them on my email list for marketing purposes.) Instead, we have to do it manually. Which is...messy messy messy.
So in terms of whether people will understand a topic (here, Muslim vernacular) - what have those people read by you on this topic before this, if they are longterm readers? Where have you introduced that topic already? What platform of prior knowledge are you building on? And specifically: where in your archives could you send your readers from this latest newsletter that gives them the basic info you wish everyone had before reading this latest piece? Because if you can send them to an archived piece, you benefit in two ways: you don't have to repeat that info here, AND you send readers into your archives, so they can rediscover your best work!
This is how I'm instinctively doing it these days. I have a bunch of "core newsletters" that I keep sending readers back to, with an implicit "here are the basics, please read this stuff before continuing" and it means I don't have to repeat myself, and also, I'm adding value to my latest work in the form of reintroducing my former work.
That's....a lot of words, Mike. Get an editor.
Anyway, that's my approach. It's imperfect, because it's messy and I'm continually trying to string things together in ways that are navigationally a bit awkward. But it feels important, too, because our archives should be living arguments, not dead ones. They're available on the Web for anyone to read - so they're an asset we can use, and link back to. This is one way!
Ooooh I love this answer! Thank you so much.
Makes me realize that I don't have much in the archive that I'm sending everyone back to yet but that I can built that up as I keep writing and building the repertoire of this newsletter.
I have been making use of the footnotes recently because I found my in text explanations so clunky, and also because as I've amassed more Muslim readers, it feels almost unfair for them to have to wade through the "explainer" material if it's not really a part of the story, just background.
Re the archives, this leads me to a second question: my paid subscription strategy is haphazard at best right now, but I am essentially paywalling older posts (except for some of them that I love too much and want everyone to read lol), and writing the odd paid post here and there. Do you keep those key posts that you keep referring new readers back to free and open?
So glad this unlocked a few ideas for you!
Yes, if it's a post I know I'll want to keep reintroducing people to, I'll leave it unlocked. I want the paywalled stuff to be clearly "extra", not foundational material. And also, I really want to foundational stuff to reach the biggest audience! Good for the topic, and good for me, because it'll help reel people in. A lot of my marketing happens that way - I used to have Twitter threads promoting some of those posts, and those threads could get shared by someone wityh a big following at any time, sending me a spike of traffic. I wouldn't want those visitors to hit a paywall as soon as they arrive!
(Nowadays, Twitter is a great big steaming pile of X, so I'm trying to do the same thing on Threads. Early days, but it's working so far.)
So - yes, if it's an important beginner's post, I'd suggest keeping it open so you can keep sending new visitors to it, to give them the introductory material they need to get hooked on your work.
Very good. And I keep seeing mention of posting the good stuff in threads or the steaming pile of X that used to be Twitter! I’ll take this as a hint that I really should get around to it 😅😅
Only if you think it'd be fun! Social media can be such a drag and a drain to use if it feels like a chore. I feel lucky that I found a way to make it feel fun, and if I hadn't, I'd be steering well clear because it can be such a bottomless hole to throw all your energy into...
Thank you for this question Noha and for your reply Mike. I find myself quoting my own phrases I’ve used in earlier essays and then hyperlinking them so that newer readers who think ‘what the...what?’ can pop back and get context. You just gave me permission! I find if someone follows me down the rabbithole for a couple of these they may subscribe... is this part of how we find our tribes, do you think? Am I wishful thinking?
Yes, that is *exactly* how it works, I reckon. There are lots of reasons for someone deciding to lean into our work, but I reckon we persuade them when they're used to our work enough to understand it and see what we're building towards. How does that happen? Maybe by reading half a dozen or a dozen really great pieces by us. Writer Rand Fishkin describes this as "marketing touches with our brand" - we just have to show up in our readers' Inboxes enough times with something really, really good. That's how we persuade them and win them over. And our archives can - and should! - have a big role to play in that process...
Thank you Mike. I’m still in the ‘get them to subscribe’ space, with a longer term view of maybe turning on paid.
Wow, that is a GREAT question! I love that you asked this of Mike in particular since so much of his Substack writing involves being curious about things he didn't know, so it makes me wonder how much explaining he consciously or unconsciously leaves out when he's sharing that with a wider audience.
Yeah I figured he’d be the perfect person to ask this 🥰🥰
I haven’t got a question, but I do want to say that I found your Substack in the wee hours of the morning just a few nights ago and I have now listened to all five of your podcast episodes (they were WONDERFUL), subscribed to your Substack, and very much enjoyed your work. So much so that I have very obnoxiously shared it with all my friends in private messages like I’d struck gold, and nattered on about it to those who read my newsletter.
I have led a life being fascinated by everything, and it was so wonderful to encounter another writer ahead of me on the path who has been fighting for the right to be curious, and enthusiastic.
So this is a giant thank you. I’m so very glad you exist. I’ve learned so very much already.
Oh, that's incredibly kind of you to say. THANK YOU. Gosh. *shuffles feet for a while, making "Gosh" and "Good lord" noises*
Confession: I'm really just following the tradition set by some of my curiosity heroes, so if you are enjoying my stuff, I reckon you'll be more than delighted by the following book...
It's called "On Looking", by canine behaviour researcher Alexandra Horowitz, in which she sets herself the task of walking round her block in New York in the company of different experts who point out all the things she'd miss on her own.
One of those experts is her toddler, another is her dog, another is a seasoned world traveller who also happens to be blind, another is a typography nerd, another a field naturalist... It's a fantastic book and really shows the power of refocusing on what you think you already know, to see what's REALLY there.
Maria Popova has a great review of it here: https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/08/12/on-looking-eleven-walks-with-expert-eyes/
Once you start reading that book, you'll completely give up on reading my newsletter, and I will understand completely. :D
I am honoured that you found the time to respond to my comment, especially seeing as it wasn’t a question.
I do want to also tell you that it is not likely that I will stop reading your newsletter, for two reasons.
One: I find the tone of your enthusiasm and researched content to be exactly the way my brain needs to be told things in order to learn and retain them (this does not come along often)
And
Two: it is not that I need my curiosity to be piqued. I have been curious my entire life. What I need to know is that there are other people in the world who are as excited, enthusiastic and (a word I can’t find that exactly conveys my current absurd joy) about the ways in which we engage the world with our curiosity. I need a community of other humans excited about explaining the wondrous things they are learning about. Because STORYTELLING is HOW I learn. (Which I likely why I have spent my life collecting stories, telling them and working for such organizations as The Moth, and running my own weird storytelling events to draw more stories to my brain. People are utterly fascinating, and it is their fascinations with the world that spark my own. Long aside complete.)
Thank you for your generous suggestions, and the way you put the things you’ve learned into the world.
(The third reason I will continue to read your newsletter is because you remind me of two of my very favourite authors who are no longer on this plane, and I have missed the way they approach the world. And here you are, alive, and in the world, writing. And for that I am grateful. )
Working for The Moth! Now there's a dream come true.
Thank you so much for the kind words here - and YES, there are so many curious folk out there with a love of a good yarn. I am very lucky to know a few. HOORAY for these people. 🎉🎉🎉
Hi everyone! I'm Mike, I'm extremely British, I'm delighted to meet you all, and I apologise for all the self-deprecation - it's genetic, I can't help myself.
As a writer, I've been a copywriter for small business, a storytelling consultant, a travel writer and now, at "Everything Is Amazing," a sort-of-science-writer. And I'm also a voracious reader of fiction. My vocational greediness knows no bounds - I'm interested in EVERYTHING. This probably means I'm too much of a Jack-of-all-trades for my own good, but it's certainly good fun trying. I am like a dog that never gets bored of the stick you throw for me. YES THROW IT AGAIN, I'M READY, LET'S GO.
As for how I might be able to help: I've been on Substack for just over 3 years now, and I hope I've learned a few things. (My numbers, if you're interested in that sort of thing: 23.5k on my free list, 650 paid.) It's now my full-time job, so I take it about as seriously as I take anything in this life, which may not mean a lot considering my HEY THROW THAT STICK AGAIN enthusiastic nature. I also might be able to help with your story structure on whatever you're working on - I've worked part-time as a story editor (as opposed to a line editor) so I'm more of a "big picture" sort of assistant here, looking for the rhythm and shape of the story.
Basically, fire away! Happy to help if I can. I'm no Amanda, but I'll do my very best.
I'm also going to chuck this in here, because it's such an incredibly useful and FREE resource for anyone wanting to improve their self-editing and storytelling skills:
https://nieman.harvard.edu/stories/storyboard-75-the-big-book-of-narrative/
Nieman Storyboard is run by and gathers wisdom from seasoned journalists who tend to write what's now called "literary journalism" - non-fiction storytelling that borrows techniques from fiction-writing to create a true story that you absolutely cannot put down. And this is a massive collection of their best articles. If you learn and apply most of everything in here, you're following in the footsteps of some of the world's best non-fiction storytellers.
This is extremely helpful! Thank you!
I was reminded of something the other day: one of the shortest short stories in the world. It's a good reminder that great storytelling comes at any length, even the super-super-brief. You might know of this one:
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."
It's been attributed to Hemingway, but it almost certainly isn't by him - the first time anyone tied it to Hemingway was in 1991, and a version of the story appears in a newspaper in 1906 (I very much doubt Hemingway wrote it at the tender age of 7).
Anyway, that's the famous one. But another I like is this:
"The last person on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock at the door."
Sci-fi? Horror? Ghost story? Psychological thriller? Take your pick. But I reckon any extra detail would ruin it.
I didn't know that about the Hemingway (notHemingway) line! After I had my first kid, the shine of it wore off for me -- we had lots of baby shoes that were never worn. Babies don't in general need shoes. 🫠
Ok I will now never thing of it the same way again lol
Ha! I had not considered that. I wonder if it's a relic of a bygone age - did babies wear shoes instead of socks or booties back in the late 1890s? Did parents strap their bairns into shoes at a disgracefully early age? If so, that could change the tone of the story completely: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn....[because we realised our babies don't need shoes and we're all much the happier for it, good riddance]"
😂
I would guess something along the lines of a different time. Still, the power of that story remains if you don't think about babies' general lack of shoes.