After reading, I'm compelled to ask the question "who are you writing for"? You've articulated the pros and cons of each path well (and I can relate deeply on all fronts).
It seems the clear path to internal fulfilment is to write deeply, intellectually, for yourself. However, that would require giving up the status game of a growing "internet publication". Is that something you can challenge yourself to give up?
As a reader, I subscribed in a hurry a few months ago when I stumbled upon some of your more literary writing. It was such a breath of fresh air. Exactly what I was looking for. The antithesis of this modern internet we find ourselves click click speed reading in.
Are you an experimenter? How would it feel to try the path you've never taken before? As you say, you know the formula inside out. If you venture down the artist's path for a defined couple of months before evaluating. What do you lose by trying? You can return to the formula six months from now if you miss the growth train. You might discover new ways of growing or facets of the internet you didn't know existed?
I dare say the conversations that follow that writing with your readers will be more fulfilling also.
In terms of fulfillment, I definitely think the deeper literary writing is more fulfilling. However, I also find it fulfilling to write for people, and to have people to write for other than myself. There's definitely an ego element to this, but I also think there's a more pure part of it--I value the exchange of ideas that can happen when I take the time to craft something well, and then a bunch of people read it and have their own reactions. It enriches the writing. So that does require readers, and, so far at least, having a larger community of people who are reading and responding has been wonderful.
That said, I agree with you on the "why not try" point. That is a truly great part of internet writing. You can do something new and then decided to do something else new later.
Jessica keeps it simple and direct. It's about a relationship with your readers. If there are different personality types among readers, then sort that out and speak to each one at a time. You are the one who knows and talks with your readers. Everyone wants to feel they have worth. One size does not fit all, so can you be intentional? And let the others wait their turn? For example, you might decide, in July "I am writing one post a week for four weeks to what I know and have learned from others who are female, professional, in our 30's, with one or more children, plus a spouse. Here's what's going on with this cohort and here's what I know about that. Most importantly, here are three questions I have, specifically to the desires and aspirations of that profile person." One person who does this well is Sari Botton who has three Substack newsletters and the one called Oldster Magazine features individuals and what it means to travel through time in a human body. Some are 40, or 50 or 60 or 70's. She's really clear that no matter where you are, if you keep living, you WILL get older and you will have a story others want to learn from. Fascinating.
I love Sari Botton and Oldster! I agree that there are many different ways to speak to many different people. I think the tricky part is not trying to please everyone all at once!
Exactly!!! Anyone who tries to please everyone ends up with Mass Irritation, not Mass Media. Individuals want to be treated individually. If you are clear with your topics and your readers understand they will be observers more than participants until it is time for Rachel to speak to their interests, their desires, their patterns of interacting with Rachel, then they know when they shift from observer to more active participant. That's the genius of Sari's strategy. If you are 54, you will be very interested in what the 54 year old has to say. If you are 34 and hoping to reach 54, there's some lessons already learned you can grab and apply. If you are 64, you can smile or laugh by looking back and remembering when you had such thoughts and experiences.
Wow to that insightful remark from the McKinsey partner! Do the two things need to be in competition? I wonder if you might get deep engagement even from publishing less often. FWIW, as a reader, I sometimes easily get overwhelmed and skip reading posts from Substack writers who publish frequently; I know they'll be there next week and I almost take their presence for granted, knowing I'll have regular reminders to "catch up." But if someone only pops up once in a blue moon, and I love their writing, I'll bookmark the work and make a point to read and savor it. When I think of writers I'll recommend to friends, frequency doesn't figure into the equation. Just like I'll recommend a favorite author whether they've published one book or twenty. Of course, I'm not the algorithm. I'm also the opposite personality type: how I'd love to have the discipline to publish regularly!
Very interesting to hear about how you receive the frequent/less frequent writers. I totally am making a lot of assumptions about what happens to publications that publish less frequently, and I can't know unless I try!
As a reader, I absolutely agree with Alicia’s comment. I much prefer to read occasional thought-provoking pieces… and in fact, the number one reason I’ll unsubscribe from a Substack is because the author publishes too frequently. Attention is my most valuable resource, and I would much rather devote it to a thoughtful half-hour ponder once a quarter than a weekly listicle.
As a writer, I’ve never seen the appeal of the Substack game, because it feels the same as every other social media platform. What I like about Substack is that you can publish here without playing (and, without reaping the benefits, but 🤷). I publish very occasionally and primarily so that I can have a public link to share when talking with people I know about my ideas — this is why I have 30 subscribers, lol. So that may not be helpful.
What I do hope that you take away is that there is a type of reader here that enjoys a slow and thoughtful pace. When I share your writing with three friends and we talk about your piece, that may not get you the growth you see from an algorithm-supported burst… but “fewer subscribers” doesn’t mean “no impact.”
What’s becoming obvious to me the more time I spend on Substack & talk about Substack, and meet new friends at events organized around niche Substacks is this: Substack is carving out a space on the Internet where we embrace humanness in ourselves and others—something we desperately crave amid crypto-web3-AI blather.
I follow Substacks because I care about the writer— I don’t mind if things get weird or experimental or don’t fulfill on their ~initial value proposition~. I follow because I saw a spark of something I connect with. I fully support the act of writing to share your ideas and find your people. Let the undesirables weed themselves out!
I love that you're having that experience with Substack! This has also been my experience, for the most part. However, as the *monetization strategy* of the company continues to push into clear view, I feel all the old pressures of the corporate world coming to bear on the platform, and therefore its writers. I may be extra sensitive to this because of my background in Silicon Valley, and extra prone to falling into the trap for the same reason. But as long as there are still humble and beautiful niches, to your point, I have the choice to engage with those.
Ah, yes, so good. My advice to my daughter would be to do the art, I think. Or do whatever makes you feel fulfilled? But that's where I get all in my head...does getting my writing in front of a bigger audience make me feel fulfilled? Sometimes it does, I think. But also is that real fulfillment or fleeting vanity metrics? Or both at different times? It's so hard to parse, and I don't think there's a straightforward or clear answer.
As I was approaching retirement, I asked this question about money. How much was enough? I recognized that having more would be really nice and I’d really like having more. But having more would mean a few more years where my time wasn’t my own. I recognized that although I’d always want more, I had enough. And I retired.
I actually just wrote about this, the inner conflict of art vs business, because I had the same dilemma. I personally realized the art must always exist because if it doesn’t, our soul will crash and burn. (Which often includes our health.) The truth is, whether you publish your art here or save it for a book or whatever, you’re not only fulfilling your soul’s desire for self-expression, which is what you came here to do, but also learning the lessons of detaching from approval, expectation and accolade. Ironically learning those lessons could open the door to even bigger success with your deeper work. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s possible. Another thing to consider is that your time constraints are temporary. After your children get older, you’ll have more space for both types of work. Reading this, it sounds like you have your answer, it’s just a matter of giving yourself permission to do the thing you most want to do.
Well, I think if the alternative is a crashing and burning soul, then I have my answer! :)
But yes, you're right, it was clear as I was writing this which path I'm drawn towards right now. It's also a great reminder that the time constraints are temporary--I always prefer to envision phases of life with different focal points, versus trying to balance every important thing all at once (family and creativity and exercise and money and hobbies and romance!) That said, I've heard from other parents that things start to change when the youngest child starts kindergarten, give or take a year or two. So I've got a solid chunk of time ahead where my life force will be majorly directed towards young children, and I want to try and move through that special period in a way where I'm not always feeling like I should be doing more, more, more.
Embrace the liberating word "and." It's your world and why not embrace all the bits and pieces?
It's exactly the reason I call my Substack thing "Switter's World." Some days I'm moved by Beethoven or Emily Dickinson. Some days, I feel compelled to write about difficult experiences from my life as a humanitarian aid worker. Some days, I feel like revealing my dream of owning a Texas Longhorn saddle steer that i can ride to town for the mail. That's my world.
Pura vida, as they say in Costa Rica. Give us some of your pure life.
Love the "do whatever moves you" mindset! I think the main thing I'm wrestling with is the limited energy pie, and whether any of that energy should go towards the growth part of the project.
I’m working on a book outside my Substack writing and although there are some thematic crossovers with my Substack, it’s something that goes in a different direction with a different reason for being. I don’t find either infringes on the other. Sometimes I need to scribble out something to clear my mind and those scribbles go on Substack. For the book, I write much more intricately, something that requires a more contemplative mindset.
Both approaches seem to work and I find I am more productive even if i don’t spend as much time writing as I want.
You’re description of your flying high career days evokes the time during my life when I held nothing back, nothing whatsoever, in pursuit of a career I believed in. Then when I was forced to quit because I could no longer outrun the demons, I learned I was as permanently indispensable to the world as the hole l leave when I pull my hand out of a bucket of water. The working title of my book is Whack Job, job as in career and whack as in all the meanings of whack.
Hey Rachel! There's a lot that resonates for me with this piece, so maybe sharing my experience might help you or someone else, or both. It's nice to be helpful.
OK, here we go.
My first thought reading this was about what I do for a living. I ghostwrite op-eds for tech executives. A "win" in that line of work used to be a placement in a top-tier publication. Increasingly, for a lot of reasons we don't need to discuss here, a win is defined as a post that goes viral on LinkedIn. Here's the thing: I don't think either one of these metrics is a real win. My smartest clients use thought leadership (man, I hate that term) to connect with & influence relatively small audiences. They want to change the way reporters cover a space, or the way investors talk about a space, or they want to create a warm room when they pitch a prospective client. I think this is relevant to you and a lot of writers, including me, because like my clients, we're trying to do two things:
1) We're going after relatively small audiences. Roxane Gay is a BFD, but she's not a household name and probably never will. Even the biggest writers have very small media footprints, although on Substack it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that the publication (The NY Times) is going to be a bigger brand than the writer (Gay, or Ezra Klein, or that conservative dude whose name I can't pronounce).
2) We're trying to get those audiences to take an action -- upgrade to paid to support our work, leave a really interest comment because community is awesome, share our work with their friends, etc.
If you think about that one-two punch, going viral and the pursuit of vanity metrics doesn't do a whole lot for you. In fact, I'd argue that sends you off in the wrong direction chasing the wrong readers and trying to get them to do things that don't matter (click the like button, please). But let's get real. Probably 85% of my clients pay me to chase vanity metrics. They're not dumb. But they are caught in the same dilemma you wrote about here. They are caught up in the game, and the game must be won, because if it's not one, it's lost, which is the kind of dumbass thing Ricky Bobby would say in Talladega Nights.
But let's back up for a second. I'm not so sure that there's a way to "win Substack." And I say that as someone who, at various times, has thought, "I need to write this post because I'll win Substack." I get caught up in the game, too. The badge plays a big part in that. And even if you earn the badge, there's an even better badge. And then the rare purple badge. And eventually, they'll be another badge that's even harder to earn. Is this good for writers? Is this winning? I'm not so sure, although I know it's good for Substack. I had a badge, lost it, got it back, lost it again, and now I'm knocking on the door of getting it back. Honestly, it's more trouble than it's worth, and because the badge is associated with revenue, I know exactly how much we're talking about. Honestly, I wish the badge didn't exist. Also, honestly, I want the damn badge. What can I say? I know what's good for me, and I still want what's bad for me.
I think I'm at a similar place with my writing. Four years ago, I came to Substack because I had written a very funny mystery novel that nobody knew about. I needed an email list so I could tell people to buy my book. Substack seemed like a solution. Writing funny stories every week seemed like a good way to get people interested in my fiction. And to some extent, that has worked. But along the way, I REALLY lost sight of my goals. I felt compelled to grow for the sake of growth. I chased a badge that has nothing to do with putting my book into someone's hand. And then I hit a big-ass wall. A lot of that wall was related mental health, but a good chunk of it was connected to what I was doing on Substack -- and what I wasn't doing with the rest of my writing. Basically, I was "winning" Substack, but I had stopped working on a new novel. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?! I came here *for* my fiction, and now I've lost sight of my fiction. That's messed up.
For me, there's a mental health side of this that involves anti-depressants and therapy. But there's also a writing practice side of this that I think is relevant. Basically, I found my way back to my fiction, but to get there I had to change the way I wrote my Substack. Instead of going after bangers I thought had a good chance of winning, I carved out a very small portion of my week to work on my Substack. For the past four months, my rule has been this: write for three hours every Friday morning, then schedule the thing to publish. Sometimes it hits, sometimes it misses. But you know what? I'm still connecting with readers in meaningful ways (the best part), I'm still selling books here and there, and I'm back to prioritizing the writing I set out to do in the first place because that writing is what's most important to me.
Do you have to follow my example? No! But I think it's worth asking yourself what a quicker more bloggy sporadic Inner Workings would look like. Would it free up time for all the things life is throwing at you? Would it free up time to do the kind of writing you value most? Would it keep you sane and in the game, rather than going bonkers trying to win a game that can't be won? I don't know the answers. Sorry. And to be honest, I was terrified to make that leap. But I did make it, and it is working for me.
I hope this helps. And if you want to chat about this further, I'm here.
So much good stuff here, Michael, thanks for taking the time to write it. The whole story of coming to Substack for your fiction and then stopping the fiction writing because of the Substack is tragic, and similar to my path, just replace fiction with literary essays.
I agree with you that writers here are all chasing niche audiences, and it's good to remember that. I'm curious what you think about this, though: for me, having more readers does actually give me more options and often more fulfillment as a writer. A niche audience of 100 is very different from 1,000 which is very different from 100,000 (where Gay operates). Compared to when I started out on Substack, I am in a different position now to consider returning to literary writing. Today, if I send out an essay that is dear to my heart, it will go out to thousands of people versus thirty-six. Being careful to acknowledge that my ego certainly plays a role here, I also feel like it is genuinely valuable to me as a writer to have access to those readers. And I got there by...mostly doing Substack on Substack's terms.
Right now, I think I'm with you - it's time for me to rebalance. It sounds like you drastically downgraded time spent on Substack-y writing, but didn't stop altogether. Because the platform can provide real advantages, its seems to me that this kind of middle way is worth considering. As much I am totally envious of writers like Ted Chiang who publish once every ten years because that's how long it takes and screw the modern content machine, it's very hard to make that work if you're just some joe shmoe/rachel katz.
And finally...thought leader success is now defined as going viral on LinkedIn? The phrase "going viral on LinkedIn" just made gag a little. What a world. What a world.
I get what you're saying about more readers giving you more options and more fulfillment. As I try to back away from the idea of growth for the sake of growing, I find that I need to reframe how I think about fulfillment. If it's always about more, more, more, then I'll never have a enough. Even if I 10X Roxane Gay, I'll still need more. But if I think about fulfillment a little more like food, I wonder if I'm on a better / more sustain track?? That is, can I set a rough numerical target for audience that helps me accomplish what I want to accomplish as a writer? Basically, can I grow big enough to find nourishment and pleasure from what I'm doing? Obviously, there are many different goals there. If it's a full-time living, that's a big number, but I don't think it's endless growth. If the goal is creating enough of a platform to make my work attractive to a publisher or another publication for a submission, I think we're both there (congrats!) And if the goal is something along the lines of 'I want my work to resonate with a community, not just people I know,' well I think we're both in the early stages of that too (again, congrats!) And then there's another goal that I never really considered: my writing opens doors for me. I've met peers who totally get me and inspire me and push me to be better. I've met really accomplished writers who have mentored me. I've met clients. I even met a reader who is a doctor, and he helps me navigate the big bad bureaucracy that is my HMO. My assumption is that as I grow, more doors will open. It's winning. Not winning at Substack, but winning at something far more personal & meaningful.
I guess my point is there's nothing wrong with growth as long as you're growing toward something you want (your old boss was right to tell you to be careful about that). And sometimes getting there does mean playing the Substack game, but it's important to make sure there's overlap between their game and your game, and that you don't lose sight of your game.
One other thing I didn't mention initially. I gather that some of this is driven by the success of posts about Substack, specifically how to grow on Substack, and that the success of those posts is just a lot greater than other posts that are way more meaningful to you. I've found that to be true too. One really easy fix, for me, is that I remove those posts from my "most read" module. Out of sight, out of mind. The harder trick is that you really have to ask yourself what business you're in. I think you're in the Rachel Katz business, and that's a damn good business that's all about writing really deep essays that probably roll up into even deeper books. A post on how to grow your Substack will add some rocket fuel to that project, but like all rocket fuel it'll burn fast and it'll be expensive to replace. The thing you need to do to grow the Rachel Katz business is the thing you're already doing. Mostly, that's writing pieces that take you a long time, and sometimes it's popping in with a shorter, quicker post because you want to make sure that all that hard work has an audience to read it. Even this post, which is closer to playing Substack's game is probably more Rachel Katz than Substack game. Reading it isn't going to help someone grow. Reading this piece is going to help thoughtful people think deeply about complicated questions where there are no easy answers. My hunch is that this piece probably added a good amount of subs (rocket fuel), but you'll burn that fuel (churn), and what's left will be a handful of people who are here for the Rachel Katz business. So yeah, there's a place for the Substack game, but it's not at the center of your game, and it shouldn't be at the expense of it.
I love being publicly multifaceted! The issue for me is that right now I cannot do it all, at least the way I used to, because of the immense energy I'm putting into my two little tiny people. I had a bigger life whammy when the second one came than with the first, in terms of feeling totally consumed by childrearing. So that's one of the things prompting this current reevaluation.
That makes absolute sense! I hope you find the flow that feels most spacious for you during this season! Thank you for bringing your most authentic self forward for all of us to witness and learn from!
Honestly, this whole dilemma is why I got off of Substack. Not just the issue with Nazis, though that was a big chunk of it. The eternal grow grow grow dialogue and the frequent comparison with other writers...I already struggle as someone who writes crossgenre fiction (science fantasy contemporary western with relationships, anyone?) that gets rejected with positive comments about the writing. I didn't need yet another place that made me feel bad.
Neither Substack nor Medium reward the sort of writer I am--and trying to fit into that model, especially as I get older and have fewer spoons to spare, does neither me nor my writing any favors. I look back at the couple of years I spent on Substack and realize I didn't gain that much. Nor was I likely to gain any more, either. My politics don't match those that get highly praised and pushed by the founders; I don't write the sort of serial fiction that matches either.
So my recommendation? Follow your heart. Do the writing that fills your soul.
Makes sense! I think that anyone who reads a lot of Substacks can see that there is a Substack style, and that certain things work on the platform and others don't. I tend to naturally write in a way that is pretty close to what does well on Substack, so it's relatively easy for me to just shimmy left a little and fit right in. I'm certainly not saying that with any pride.
I want to focus on substantive reader interaction, which is what you say you prize the most about Subsrack. I do as well.
A "how I did it post" or an easy to read, shorter post will be read more, but is unlikely to get substantive reader interaction.
A beautiful piece of literary writing ––Deirdre Lewis, Mary Tabor, Laura Kennedy, Molly Moynihan are examples––can move careful and deep readers but how many deep readers are there? And the interactions may not lead to a great volume of substantive comments, either because what is there to say except "i was moved?"
Then there are the posts that touch upon a relatable experience in a substantive way. The posts that change you by writing them. Those are the posts I'd love to read from you, short or long. Those are the posts that will maximize substantive reader interaction.
My own ambition is to write those posts as often as I'm able.
That makes complete sense to me, David. I think it's the right answer for me as well. It's not what I've been doing lately, and I think I've strayed too far.
It's also harder! How much more pressure I feel if I set out to write something beautiful and moving. So there is fear here too. Every time I sit down to consider a new literary essay I have the little concerning voice, can I do it again? Is the well all dried up? Of course, there is always more to tap. But it's worth saying that it's easier and less scary to write a bunch of short snippets of thought and something considered and crafted over weeks or months.
The essays of yours that have stuck with me have done so because of your observations. For example I still remember your post about the VC guy at lunch who criticized you for not looking him up.
I don't remember beautiful sentences, but rather the clarity and fluidity of your prose allowing the story and your feelings to shine through unaffected.
Have you read 4000 Weeks, Time Management for Mortals by Oliver ….something? We can’t do it all but he gives useful advice for how we decide what to give ourselves to. My opinion is that if earning money is not your primary focus then give yourself over to doing what you love. As you said, you’ve already put in 25 years of doing it the other way. If not now, when?
Amen! I have read that book and loved it. Isn't it funny how we can read something and say, "yes, yes, I agree with all of this!" but then still have such a hard time implementing it? Humans, we're so funny.
I came here via your piece on what life could be like if we allowed/accepted the time tasks actually take in our life (like folding laundry). I have followed a few writers who have moved from literary life writing (is that a thing...i mean self examination I guess) and then started writing more about substack itself, how to write etc. I find the latter really navel gazing, uncreative and uninteresting.so would love for you to go with your instincts!
I love your longer, literary essays. That’s your voice, what differentiates you, and why/how I found your writing and subscribed. The promise of Substack is that you get to be in control of what you publish. Maybe it won’t make a ton of money or get you a huge following, but to me, that means the platform has work to do to work out its algorithm and discoverability kinks. People moved from Medium and the like to Substack in part to avoid the endless posts about writing success or how tos. It was meant to be a meditative place for writers to find readers who found their work meaningful. If you need to frame it as “winning” Substack, remember that the pieces you want to write are the pieces the platform was designed for, they do get you readers like me here and there, and the more you write what you want, the more you are contributing to the platform’s purpose and fixing it. Or just write what you want without the mental gymnastics. You have readers who love your voice and find solace in your stories.
Thanks so much for the kind words, Cindy. I do think that part of what I'm feeling are the changes on Substack since I started writing here--the introduction of the checkmark, the addition of Notes, putting the feed front and center in the experience. These are all defining the game, making the rules known, making it more tempting to play. Doesn't mean I have to play though!
I feel similarly about the changes. I started writing here to get away from the idea that you need to endlessly post on social media to promote your work, or follow some rules that someone in big tech invented long ago that turn art and expression into “content.” They rewrote the rules of the game at halftime.
It's an act of humility to write what you want to write, get little response, and just keep going anyway. It's an act of willpower and an act of defiance. But mostly, it's an act of love. It's saying that one's writing, one's art, takes precedence over one's ego. It's learning to live outside of these rules you mention, and it's freeing, a liminal space where a lot can happen.
I love your long-winded personal essays, Rachel. Those are what drew me to your Substack in the first place. That said, I also know the balance between pursuing art for art's sake and the need to make a living is a difficult one. I don't have an answer, as I'm still trying to figure that out myself. Either way, I love what you write and personally would rather read high-quality essays than more of them.
Thank you Tiffany! I tend to think people don't need more email in their inbox and stuff in their feed anyways. So why is it so hard just to write less?! I think one reason is that it increases the pressure for the work to be "really good," and perfectionism can really set in and become paralyzing. But I think that's something worth working through rather than avoiding.
So true; we're all so overstimulated already haha. Perfectionism is a real beast, but I think it creeps up no matter how often you post, so it probably has to come down to how much you personally feel you can handle.
Gosh Rae. I don't have the numbers you do, but I find that I am very often in a similar place.
Why am I writing this newsletter? What's the POINT? It comes up every time I hit a new mile marker number of subscribers. "OK, I did that. Now what?"
It brings me to ask two questions:
Can this be my job?
When I look at the math on turning a Substack into a real income stream, I can see that it will take several long years of hard work and hustling to come up with an annual number that will still likely not be enough to live off of (unless I decide to become a Substack Writing Coach). So the answer there is no, probably not — unless I am using it as a funnel to something else.
Can this cure my existential dread about my relative worth on the planet?
Also, probably not. Each milestone I reach feels great for a moment and then the hedonic treadmill sets in. When I first started publishing, I was elated to get 3 likes. Now if I don't get 10 right away, I am awash in many different unpleasant feelings. It feels an awful lot like how I found myself looking for a permanent state of bliss with every new job title. It's not a path to happiness, just a doom loop of self-comparison.
So then the only thing left to do is ask myself the following questions:
Am I having fun more often than feeling stressed?
Am I proud of what I'm making?
What is it adding to my life?
Would I rather do this with my time than anything else?
Am I learning something new?
Do I feel free?
The folks I've interviewed in my research who seem to really have a handle on prioritizing joy ask these questions on a daily, if not hourly basis and make plans accordingly even if that means walking away from money, status or prestige.
It doesn't mean they walk away from hard work — just away from anything that isn't giving back as much as it takes away.
I met this amazing artist a few weeks back and I saw this note in her sketchbook to "entertain myself."
I LOLed when I read your second question about curing existential dread 😂. It seems like this question drives so much of our frantic activity, but we rarely just spell it out, and once you do it's a little ridiculous. Will getting one hundred hearts on my post and an orange checkmark next to my name cure my existential dread? No, no it will not. Obviously.
Yours is such a reasonable way to approach this question, and I love that it is oriented around joy. That list of questions is wonderful, and may make its way onto a post-it note by my desk...
It's hard! We've been trained since we were babies to think of ourselves as existing only if we are constantly improving and beating everyone else.
I love this quote from Simone Weil:
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity."
Her whole deal was the idea that the quality of how we focus on things is how we connect with the divine. I feel it in myself — I can turn things I love into work just by changing the quality of my attention 👀
Three cheers to more freedom, play and fun — even if that means leaving the check mark behind, I am absolutely certain it will mean a good life is ahead 🫶🏻
After reading, I'm compelled to ask the question "who are you writing for"? You've articulated the pros and cons of each path well (and I can relate deeply on all fronts).
It seems the clear path to internal fulfilment is to write deeply, intellectually, for yourself. However, that would require giving up the status game of a growing "internet publication". Is that something you can challenge yourself to give up?
As a reader, I subscribed in a hurry a few months ago when I stumbled upon some of your more literary writing. It was such a breath of fresh air. Exactly what I was looking for. The antithesis of this modern internet we find ourselves click click speed reading in.
Are you an experimenter? How would it feel to try the path you've never taken before? As you say, you know the formula inside out. If you venture down the artist's path for a defined couple of months before evaluating. What do you lose by trying? You can return to the formula six months from now if you miss the growth train. You might discover new ways of growing or facets of the internet you didn't know existed?
I dare say the conversations that follow that writing with your readers will be more fulfilling also.
Keep us posted whatever you choose.
Love,
Jess
Thanks for the encouragement, Jess!
In terms of fulfillment, I definitely think the deeper literary writing is more fulfilling. However, I also find it fulfilling to write for people, and to have people to write for other than myself. There's definitely an ego element to this, but I also think there's a more pure part of it--I value the exchange of ideas that can happen when I take the time to craft something well, and then a bunch of people read it and have their own reactions. It enriches the writing. So that does require readers, and, so far at least, having a larger community of people who are reading and responding has been wonderful.
That said, I agree with you on the "why not try" point. That is a truly great part of internet writing. You can do something new and then decided to do something else new later.
Jessica keeps it simple and direct. It's about a relationship with your readers. If there are different personality types among readers, then sort that out and speak to each one at a time. You are the one who knows and talks with your readers. Everyone wants to feel they have worth. One size does not fit all, so can you be intentional? And let the others wait their turn? For example, you might decide, in July "I am writing one post a week for four weeks to what I know and have learned from others who are female, professional, in our 30's, with one or more children, plus a spouse. Here's what's going on with this cohort and here's what I know about that. Most importantly, here are three questions I have, specifically to the desires and aspirations of that profile person." One person who does this well is Sari Botton who has three Substack newsletters and the one called Oldster Magazine features individuals and what it means to travel through time in a human body. Some are 40, or 50 or 60 or 70's. She's really clear that no matter where you are, if you keep living, you WILL get older and you will have a story others want to learn from. Fascinating.
I love Sari Botton and Oldster! I agree that there are many different ways to speak to many different people. I think the tricky part is not trying to please everyone all at once!
Exactly!!! Anyone who tries to please everyone ends up with Mass Irritation, not Mass Media. Individuals want to be treated individually. If you are clear with your topics and your readers understand they will be observers more than participants until it is time for Rachel to speak to their interests, their desires, their patterns of interacting with Rachel, then they know when they shift from observer to more active participant. That's the genius of Sari's strategy. If you are 54, you will be very interested in what the 54 year old has to say. If you are 34 and hoping to reach 54, there's some lessons already learned you can grab and apply. If you are 64, you can smile or laugh by looking back and remembering when you had such thoughts and experiences.
Wow to that insightful remark from the McKinsey partner! Do the two things need to be in competition? I wonder if you might get deep engagement even from publishing less often. FWIW, as a reader, I sometimes easily get overwhelmed and skip reading posts from Substack writers who publish frequently; I know they'll be there next week and I almost take their presence for granted, knowing I'll have regular reminders to "catch up." But if someone only pops up once in a blue moon, and I love their writing, I'll bookmark the work and make a point to read and savor it. When I think of writers I'll recommend to friends, frequency doesn't figure into the equation. Just like I'll recommend a favorite author whether they've published one book or twenty. Of course, I'm not the algorithm. I'm also the opposite personality type: how I'd love to have the discipline to publish regularly!
Very interesting to hear about how you receive the frequent/less frequent writers. I totally am making a lot of assumptions about what happens to publications that publish less frequently, and I can't know unless I try!
Good point re timing and space
As a reader, I absolutely agree with Alicia’s comment. I much prefer to read occasional thought-provoking pieces… and in fact, the number one reason I’ll unsubscribe from a Substack is because the author publishes too frequently. Attention is my most valuable resource, and I would much rather devote it to a thoughtful half-hour ponder once a quarter than a weekly listicle.
As a writer, I’ve never seen the appeal of the Substack game, because it feels the same as every other social media platform. What I like about Substack is that you can publish here without playing (and, without reaping the benefits, but 🤷). I publish very occasionally and primarily so that I can have a public link to share when talking with people I know about my ideas — this is why I have 30 subscribers, lol. So that may not be helpful.
What I do hope that you take away is that there is a type of reader here that enjoys a slow and thoughtful pace. When I share your writing with three friends and we talk about your piece, that may not get you the growth you see from an algorithm-supported burst… but “fewer subscribers” doesn’t mean “no impact.”
What’s becoming obvious to me the more time I spend on Substack & talk about Substack, and meet new friends at events organized around niche Substacks is this: Substack is carving out a space on the Internet where we embrace humanness in ourselves and others—something we desperately crave amid crypto-web3-AI blather.
I follow Substacks because I care about the writer— I don’t mind if things get weird or experimental or don’t fulfill on their ~initial value proposition~. I follow because I saw a spark of something I connect with. I fully support the act of writing to share your ideas and find your people. Let the undesirables weed themselves out!
I love that you're having that experience with Substack! This has also been my experience, for the most part. However, as the *monetization strategy* of the company continues to push into clear view, I feel all the old pressures of the corporate world coming to bear on the platform, and therefore its writers. I may be extra sensitive to this because of my background in Silicon Valley, and extra prone to falling into the trap for the same reason. But as long as there are still humble and beautiful niches, to your point, I have the choice to engage with those.
And thank you for the kind words!
Amen 🙏
What advice would you give your daughter?
Ah, yes, so good. My advice to my daughter would be to do the art, I think. Or do whatever makes you feel fulfilled? But that's where I get all in my head...does getting my writing in front of a bigger audience make me feel fulfilled? Sometimes it does, I think. But also is that real fulfillment or fleeting vanity metrics? Or both at different times? It's so hard to parse, and I don't think there's a straightforward or clear answer.
How big an audience would be big enough?
As I was approaching retirement, I asked this question about money. How much was enough? I recognized that having more would be really nice and I’d really like having more. But having more would mean a few more years where my time wasn’t my own. I recognized that although I’d always want more, I had enough. And I retired.
What size audience is big enough?
✨🙏
THIS. What an excellent question!
I actually just wrote about this, the inner conflict of art vs business, because I had the same dilemma. I personally realized the art must always exist because if it doesn’t, our soul will crash and burn. (Which often includes our health.) The truth is, whether you publish your art here or save it for a book or whatever, you’re not only fulfilling your soul’s desire for self-expression, which is what you came here to do, but also learning the lessons of detaching from approval, expectation and accolade. Ironically learning those lessons could open the door to even bigger success with your deeper work. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s possible. Another thing to consider is that your time constraints are temporary. After your children get older, you’ll have more space for both types of work. Reading this, it sounds like you have your answer, it’s just a matter of giving yourself permission to do the thing you most want to do.
Well, I think if the alternative is a crashing and burning soul, then I have my answer! :)
But yes, you're right, it was clear as I was writing this which path I'm drawn towards right now. It's also a great reminder that the time constraints are temporary--I always prefer to envision phases of life with different focal points, versus trying to balance every important thing all at once (family and creativity and exercise and money and hobbies and romance!) That said, I've heard from other parents that things start to change when the youngest child starts kindergarten, give or take a year or two. So I've got a solid chunk of time ahead where my life force will be majorly directed towards young children, and I want to try and move through that special period in a way where I'm not always feeling like I should be doing more, more, more.
Almost exactly what I said! So true!
Embrace the liberating word "and." It's your world and why not embrace all the bits and pieces?
It's exactly the reason I call my Substack thing "Switter's World." Some days I'm moved by Beethoven or Emily Dickinson. Some days, I feel compelled to write about difficult experiences from my life as a humanitarian aid worker. Some days, I feel like revealing my dream of owning a Texas Longhorn saddle steer that i can ride to town for the mail. That's my world.
Pura vida, as they say in Costa Rica. Give us some of your pure life.
Love the "do whatever moves you" mindset! I think the main thing I'm wrestling with is the limited energy pie, and whether any of that energy should go towards the growth part of the project.
I’m working on a book outside my Substack writing and although there are some thematic crossovers with my Substack, it’s something that goes in a different direction with a different reason for being. I don’t find either infringes on the other. Sometimes I need to scribble out something to clear my mind and those scribbles go on Substack. For the book, I write much more intricately, something that requires a more contemplative mindset.
Both approaches seem to work and I find I am more productive even if i don’t spend as much time writing as I want.
You’re description of your flying high career days evokes the time during my life when I held nothing back, nothing whatsoever, in pursuit of a career I believed in. Then when I was forced to quit because I could no longer outrun the demons, I learned I was as permanently indispensable to the world as the hole l leave when I pull my hand out of a bucket of water. The working title of my book is Whack Job, job as in career and whack as in all the meanings of whack.
Hey Rachel! There's a lot that resonates for me with this piece, so maybe sharing my experience might help you or someone else, or both. It's nice to be helpful.
OK, here we go.
My first thought reading this was about what I do for a living. I ghostwrite op-eds for tech executives. A "win" in that line of work used to be a placement in a top-tier publication. Increasingly, for a lot of reasons we don't need to discuss here, a win is defined as a post that goes viral on LinkedIn. Here's the thing: I don't think either one of these metrics is a real win. My smartest clients use thought leadership (man, I hate that term) to connect with & influence relatively small audiences. They want to change the way reporters cover a space, or the way investors talk about a space, or they want to create a warm room when they pitch a prospective client. I think this is relevant to you and a lot of writers, including me, because like my clients, we're trying to do two things:
1) We're going after relatively small audiences. Roxane Gay is a BFD, but she's not a household name and probably never will. Even the biggest writers have very small media footprints, although on Substack it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that the publication (The NY Times) is going to be a bigger brand than the writer (Gay, or Ezra Klein, or that conservative dude whose name I can't pronounce).
2) We're trying to get those audiences to take an action -- upgrade to paid to support our work, leave a really interest comment because community is awesome, share our work with their friends, etc.
If you think about that one-two punch, going viral and the pursuit of vanity metrics doesn't do a whole lot for you. In fact, I'd argue that sends you off in the wrong direction chasing the wrong readers and trying to get them to do things that don't matter (click the like button, please). But let's get real. Probably 85% of my clients pay me to chase vanity metrics. They're not dumb. But they are caught in the same dilemma you wrote about here. They are caught up in the game, and the game must be won, because if it's not one, it's lost, which is the kind of dumbass thing Ricky Bobby would say in Talladega Nights.
But let's back up for a second. I'm not so sure that there's a way to "win Substack." And I say that as someone who, at various times, has thought, "I need to write this post because I'll win Substack." I get caught up in the game, too. The badge plays a big part in that. And even if you earn the badge, there's an even better badge. And then the rare purple badge. And eventually, they'll be another badge that's even harder to earn. Is this good for writers? Is this winning? I'm not so sure, although I know it's good for Substack. I had a badge, lost it, got it back, lost it again, and now I'm knocking on the door of getting it back. Honestly, it's more trouble than it's worth, and because the badge is associated with revenue, I know exactly how much we're talking about. Honestly, I wish the badge didn't exist. Also, honestly, I want the damn badge. What can I say? I know what's good for me, and I still want what's bad for me.
I think I'm at a similar place with my writing. Four years ago, I came to Substack because I had written a very funny mystery novel that nobody knew about. I needed an email list so I could tell people to buy my book. Substack seemed like a solution. Writing funny stories every week seemed like a good way to get people interested in my fiction. And to some extent, that has worked. But along the way, I REALLY lost sight of my goals. I felt compelled to grow for the sake of growth. I chased a badge that has nothing to do with putting my book into someone's hand. And then I hit a big-ass wall. A lot of that wall was related mental health, but a good chunk of it was connected to what I was doing on Substack -- and what I wasn't doing with the rest of my writing. Basically, I was "winning" Substack, but I had stopped working on a new novel. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?! I came here *for* my fiction, and now I've lost sight of my fiction. That's messed up.
For me, there's a mental health side of this that involves anti-depressants and therapy. But there's also a writing practice side of this that I think is relevant. Basically, I found my way back to my fiction, but to get there I had to change the way I wrote my Substack. Instead of going after bangers I thought had a good chance of winning, I carved out a very small portion of my week to work on my Substack. For the past four months, my rule has been this: write for three hours every Friday morning, then schedule the thing to publish. Sometimes it hits, sometimes it misses. But you know what? I'm still connecting with readers in meaningful ways (the best part), I'm still selling books here and there, and I'm back to prioritizing the writing I set out to do in the first place because that writing is what's most important to me.
Do you have to follow my example? No! But I think it's worth asking yourself what a quicker more bloggy sporadic Inner Workings would look like. Would it free up time for all the things life is throwing at you? Would it free up time to do the kind of writing you value most? Would it keep you sane and in the game, rather than going bonkers trying to win a game that can't be won? I don't know the answers. Sorry. And to be honest, I was terrified to make that leap. But I did make it, and it is working for me.
I hope this helps. And if you want to chat about this further, I'm here.
So much good stuff here, Michael, thanks for taking the time to write it. The whole story of coming to Substack for your fiction and then stopping the fiction writing because of the Substack is tragic, and similar to my path, just replace fiction with literary essays.
I agree with you that writers here are all chasing niche audiences, and it's good to remember that. I'm curious what you think about this, though: for me, having more readers does actually give me more options and often more fulfillment as a writer. A niche audience of 100 is very different from 1,000 which is very different from 100,000 (where Gay operates). Compared to when I started out on Substack, I am in a different position now to consider returning to literary writing. Today, if I send out an essay that is dear to my heart, it will go out to thousands of people versus thirty-six. Being careful to acknowledge that my ego certainly plays a role here, I also feel like it is genuinely valuable to me as a writer to have access to those readers. And I got there by...mostly doing Substack on Substack's terms.
Right now, I think I'm with you - it's time for me to rebalance. It sounds like you drastically downgraded time spent on Substack-y writing, but didn't stop altogether. Because the platform can provide real advantages, its seems to me that this kind of middle way is worth considering. As much I am totally envious of writers like Ted Chiang who publish once every ten years because that's how long it takes and screw the modern content machine, it's very hard to make that work if you're just some joe shmoe/rachel katz.
And finally...thought leader success is now defined as going viral on LinkedIn? The phrase "going viral on LinkedIn" just made gag a little. What a world. What a world.
I get what you're saying about more readers giving you more options and more fulfillment. As I try to back away from the idea of growth for the sake of growing, I find that I need to reframe how I think about fulfillment. If it's always about more, more, more, then I'll never have a enough. Even if I 10X Roxane Gay, I'll still need more. But if I think about fulfillment a little more like food, I wonder if I'm on a better / more sustain track?? That is, can I set a rough numerical target for audience that helps me accomplish what I want to accomplish as a writer? Basically, can I grow big enough to find nourishment and pleasure from what I'm doing? Obviously, there are many different goals there. If it's a full-time living, that's a big number, but I don't think it's endless growth. If the goal is creating enough of a platform to make my work attractive to a publisher or another publication for a submission, I think we're both there (congrats!) And if the goal is something along the lines of 'I want my work to resonate with a community, not just people I know,' well I think we're both in the early stages of that too (again, congrats!) And then there's another goal that I never really considered: my writing opens doors for me. I've met peers who totally get me and inspire me and push me to be better. I've met really accomplished writers who have mentored me. I've met clients. I even met a reader who is a doctor, and he helps me navigate the big bad bureaucracy that is my HMO. My assumption is that as I grow, more doors will open. It's winning. Not winning at Substack, but winning at something far more personal & meaningful.
I guess my point is there's nothing wrong with growth as long as you're growing toward something you want (your old boss was right to tell you to be careful about that). And sometimes getting there does mean playing the Substack game, but it's important to make sure there's overlap between their game and your game, and that you don't lose sight of your game.
One other thing I didn't mention initially. I gather that some of this is driven by the success of posts about Substack, specifically how to grow on Substack, and that the success of those posts is just a lot greater than other posts that are way more meaningful to you. I've found that to be true too. One really easy fix, for me, is that I remove those posts from my "most read" module. Out of sight, out of mind. The harder trick is that you really have to ask yourself what business you're in. I think you're in the Rachel Katz business, and that's a damn good business that's all about writing really deep essays that probably roll up into even deeper books. A post on how to grow your Substack will add some rocket fuel to that project, but like all rocket fuel it'll burn fast and it'll be expensive to replace. The thing you need to do to grow the Rachel Katz business is the thing you're already doing. Mostly, that's writing pieces that take you a long time, and sometimes it's popping in with a shorter, quicker post because you want to make sure that all that hard work has an audience to read it. Even this post, which is closer to playing Substack's game is probably more Rachel Katz than Substack game. Reading it isn't going to help someone grow. Reading this piece is going to help thoughtful people think deeply about complicated questions where there are no easy answers. My hunch is that this piece probably added a good amount of subs (rocket fuel), but you'll burn that fuel (churn), and what's left will be a handful of people who are here for the Rachel Katz business. So yeah, there's a place for the Substack game, but it's not at the center of your game, and it shouldn't be at the expense of it.
Do it all!!! The world needs to see that we are multifaceted 🙏🏾✨
I love being publicly multifaceted! The issue for me is that right now I cannot do it all, at least the way I used to, because of the immense energy I'm putting into my two little tiny people. I had a bigger life whammy when the second one came than with the first, in terms of feeling totally consumed by childrearing. So that's one of the things prompting this current reevaluation.
That makes absolute sense! I hope you find the flow that feels most spacious for you during this season! Thank you for bringing your most authentic self forward for all of us to witness and learn from!
Honestly, this whole dilemma is why I got off of Substack. Not just the issue with Nazis, though that was a big chunk of it. The eternal grow grow grow dialogue and the frequent comparison with other writers...I already struggle as someone who writes crossgenre fiction (science fantasy contemporary western with relationships, anyone?) that gets rejected with positive comments about the writing. I didn't need yet another place that made me feel bad.
Neither Substack nor Medium reward the sort of writer I am--and trying to fit into that model, especially as I get older and have fewer spoons to spare, does neither me nor my writing any favors. I look back at the couple of years I spent on Substack and realize I didn't gain that much. Nor was I likely to gain any more, either. My politics don't match those that get highly praised and pushed by the founders; I don't write the sort of serial fiction that matches either.
So my recommendation? Follow your heart. Do the writing that fills your soul.
Makes sense! I think that anyone who reads a lot of Substacks can see that there is a Substack style, and that certain things work on the platform and others don't. I tend to naturally write in a way that is pretty close to what does well on Substack, so it's relatively easy for me to just shimmy left a little and fit right in. I'm certainly not saying that with any pride.
I want to focus on substantive reader interaction, which is what you say you prize the most about Subsrack. I do as well.
A "how I did it post" or an easy to read, shorter post will be read more, but is unlikely to get substantive reader interaction.
A beautiful piece of literary writing ––Deirdre Lewis, Mary Tabor, Laura Kennedy, Molly Moynihan are examples––can move careful and deep readers but how many deep readers are there? And the interactions may not lead to a great volume of substantive comments, either because what is there to say except "i was moved?"
Then there are the posts that touch upon a relatable experience in a substantive way. The posts that change you by writing them. Those are the posts I'd love to read from you, short or long. Those are the posts that will maximize substantive reader interaction.
My own ambition is to write those posts as often as I'm able.
That makes complete sense to me, David. I think it's the right answer for me as well. It's not what I've been doing lately, and I think I've strayed too far.
It's also harder! How much more pressure I feel if I set out to write something beautiful and moving. So there is fear here too. Every time I sit down to consider a new literary essay I have the little concerning voice, can I do it again? Is the well all dried up? Of course, there is always more to tap. But it's worth saying that it's easier and less scary to write a bunch of short snippets of thought and something considered and crafted over weeks or months.
The essays of yours that have stuck with me have done so because of your observations. For example I still remember your post about the VC guy at lunch who criticized you for not looking him up.
I don't remember beautiful sentences, but rather the clarity and fluidity of your prose allowing the story and your feelings to shine through unaffected.
Have you read 4000 Weeks, Time Management for Mortals by Oliver ….something? We can’t do it all but he gives useful advice for how we decide what to give ourselves to. My opinion is that if earning money is not your primary focus then give yourself over to doing what you love. As you said, you’ve already put in 25 years of doing it the other way. If not now, when?
Amen! I have read that book and loved it. Isn't it funny how we can read something and say, "yes, yes, I agree with all of this!" but then still have such a hard time implementing it? Humans, we're so funny.
I came here via your piece on what life could be like if we allowed/accepted the time tasks actually take in our life (like folding laundry). I have followed a few writers who have moved from literary life writing (is that a thing...i mean self examination I guess) and then started writing more about substack itself, how to write etc. I find the latter really navel gazing, uncreative and uninteresting.so would love for you to go with your instincts!
I love your longer, literary essays. That’s your voice, what differentiates you, and why/how I found your writing and subscribed. The promise of Substack is that you get to be in control of what you publish. Maybe it won’t make a ton of money or get you a huge following, but to me, that means the platform has work to do to work out its algorithm and discoverability kinks. People moved from Medium and the like to Substack in part to avoid the endless posts about writing success or how tos. It was meant to be a meditative place for writers to find readers who found their work meaningful. If you need to frame it as “winning” Substack, remember that the pieces you want to write are the pieces the platform was designed for, they do get you readers like me here and there, and the more you write what you want, the more you are contributing to the platform’s purpose and fixing it. Or just write what you want without the mental gymnastics. You have readers who love your voice and find solace in your stories.
Thanks so much for the kind words, Cindy. I do think that part of what I'm feeling are the changes on Substack since I started writing here--the introduction of the checkmark, the addition of Notes, putting the feed front and center in the experience. These are all defining the game, making the rules known, making it more tempting to play. Doesn't mean I have to play though!
I feel similarly about the changes. I started writing here to get away from the idea that you need to endlessly post on social media to promote your work, or follow some rules that someone in big tech invented long ago that turn art and expression into “content.” They rewrote the rules of the game at halftime.
It's an act of humility to write what you want to write, get little response, and just keep going anyway. It's an act of willpower and an act of defiance. But mostly, it's an act of love. It's saying that one's writing, one's art, takes precedence over one's ego. It's learning to live outside of these rules you mention, and it's freeing, a liminal space where a lot can happen.
I love the idea of a "freeing, liminal space where a lot can happen." That certainly sounds like a worthy goal!
I love your long-winded personal essays, Rachel. Those are what drew me to your Substack in the first place. That said, I also know the balance between pursuing art for art's sake and the need to make a living is a difficult one. I don't have an answer, as I'm still trying to figure that out myself. Either way, I love what you write and personally would rather read high-quality essays than more of them.
Thank you Tiffany! I tend to think people don't need more email in their inbox and stuff in their feed anyways. So why is it so hard just to write less?! I think one reason is that it increases the pressure for the work to be "really good," and perfectionism can really set in and become paralyzing. But I think that's something worth working through rather than avoiding.
So true; we're all so overstimulated already haha. Perfectionism is a real beast, but I think it creeps up no matter how often you post, so it probably has to come down to how much you personally feel you can handle.
Gosh Rae. I don't have the numbers you do, but I find that I am very often in a similar place.
Why am I writing this newsletter? What's the POINT? It comes up every time I hit a new mile marker number of subscribers. "OK, I did that. Now what?"
It brings me to ask two questions:
Can this be my job?
When I look at the math on turning a Substack into a real income stream, I can see that it will take several long years of hard work and hustling to come up with an annual number that will still likely not be enough to live off of (unless I decide to become a Substack Writing Coach). So the answer there is no, probably not — unless I am using it as a funnel to something else.
Can this cure my existential dread about my relative worth on the planet?
Also, probably not. Each milestone I reach feels great for a moment and then the hedonic treadmill sets in. When I first started publishing, I was elated to get 3 likes. Now if I don't get 10 right away, I am awash in many different unpleasant feelings. It feels an awful lot like how I found myself looking for a permanent state of bliss with every new job title. It's not a path to happiness, just a doom loop of self-comparison.
So then the only thing left to do is ask myself the following questions:
Am I having fun more often than feeling stressed?
Am I proud of what I'm making?
What is it adding to my life?
Would I rather do this with my time than anything else?
Am I learning something new?
Do I feel free?
The folks I've interviewed in my research who seem to really have a handle on prioritizing joy ask these questions on a daily, if not hourly basis and make plans accordingly even if that means walking away from money, status or prestige.
It doesn't mean they walk away from hard work — just away from anything that isn't giving back as much as it takes away.
I met this amazing artist a few weeks back and I saw this note in her sketchbook to "entertain myself."
She's got some wise words, maybe it will help!
https://onpurposeproject.substack.com/publish/post/145166547
I LOLed when I read your second question about curing existential dread 😂. It seems like this question drives so much of our frantic activity, but we rarely just spell it out, and once you do it's a little ridiculous. Will getting one hundred hearts on my post and an orange checkmark next to my name cure my existential dread? No, no it will not. Obviously.
Yours is such a reasonable way to approach this question, and I love that it is oriented around joy. That list of questions is wonderful, and may make its way onto a post-it note by my desk...
It's hard! We've been trained since we were babies to think of ourselves as existing only if we are constantly improving and beating everyone else.
I love this quote from Simone Weil:
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity."
Her whole deal was the idea that the quality of how we focus on things is how we connect with the divine. I feel it in myself — I can turn things I love into work just by changing the quality of my attention 👀
Three cheers to more freedom, play and fun — even if that means leaving the check mark behind, I am absolutely certain it will mean a good life is ahead 🫶🏻