This is, of course, an absolute banger, and nor just because you were kind enough to link to an essay of mine in there.
It all comes down to being the change you want to see, which is the biggest cliche in the book, but like all truisms it is fundamentally, importantly true in a way that many aren’t willing to accept. Because it demands action and change from them.
But some of us are dropping the ‘digital’ expectations of digital writers and are reverting to ‘cooking from scratch’, so to speak.
Hopefully some people will read this piece of yours and be inspired to do likewise.
The more I read more truisms, the truer they appear to be. Like some reverse self-improvement law or something, as if the more basic and obvious the advice is, the closer to the truth it becomes.
At the end of this piece I had my arms raised up and thought "I'd follow Craig into war!" Not that I want that to happen but an indication of how i was apparently altered by your enthusiasm and points.
A lot of what you are describing as Digital Writing I would describe as putting fishing hooks with colorful lures into the Web: shiny, colorful and designed to pull you out of the river and drag you somewhere else. Maybe Fishing Hook Writing or Anger-Inducing Writing or Fear-Inducing Writing are better terms. Or Copywriting, because that's the source of all of this. Copywriting is writing but it's not Writing.
I am not above experimenting with these techniques! Occasionally I do! And after almost 15 years on Twitter I do feel like I've gotten good at communicating a simple concept in as few words as possible. But it's just one style.
IMHO, if you want to appeal to smart, thoughtful readers then good longform writing is the key. A good writer can spool out longer, more descriptive sentences to convey detail and nuance and that's not an easy task. And I fully agree, Tweets are awful for conveying nuance. In fact, you have to be quite direct and structured, in the use of threads, etc. to try to come close. Soon most of that will be done by AI if it isn't already being done.
And if you don't really care who reads you then by all means, write as you will. There's a chance that people will find you and groove on what you are reading or else be moved enough in some way to respond. Tell your friends, if nothing else. And that's perfectly fine!
But I will always err on trying to be clear when I write when I want other people to read it, especially if I know people will don't speak English as their first language will read it. That's my bias.
And Craig, I didn't find this post difficult to read at all, FWIW.
Clear is my default too. I spent a lot of my days writing emails and it sees me write a little more direct and instruction-like than I wish I could. But I’m trying to improve that.
Of course you’re right. There’s different types of writing for different instances. But I have been seeing this idea grow around the marketing and copywriting communities specifically that we must be simple and more straightforward.
As a marketer myself I don’t buy it. If we keep regressing, eventually we all level out to writing the same thing. If there’s no ability to take risks or dare I say it, be artful, we risk defeating the object of the original piece we tried to write.
I’m a natural argumentative type person. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes not. But it definitely helps on the web where we must present strong arguments to be noticed.
I worry we’re losing some of that strong voice, strong argument and strong personality.
And I suppose looking at it from a *purely* marketing standpoint the over-saturation of these simplification ‘tactics’ mean that there is an increasingly large pool of (at least potentially) sophisticated readers who aren’t being targeted AT ALL.
The new blue ocean is adults who can understand nuance and are tired of being spoke. To and sold to like children.
Exactly. Even with my marketing head on, I don’t see a disadvantage to raising the level. Unless of course you’re targeting a lower level of customer, like, I dunno, Britain’s Got Talent watchers.
The fish hook analogy is a good one- the shiny bait certainly has its place but in my experience too much of that brings the *wrong* audience, essentially.
Often those who are drawn in by such tactics alone will not stick around for the more challenging stuff, so why rely to much on that, if the only advantage is to temporarily make the numbers go up. (I say this because this is something I learned the hard way on social media).
And yes, the fear or anger inducing aspect is pretty reprehensible in my book. Extremely low vibration, to use the hippy terminology. And again, that is not gonna attract the audience of intelligent, curious, passionate, aesthetically attuned readers which the in-it-for-the-long-haul writer needs and craves.
Obviously there’s a danger we could potentially veer too far the otherway as a counter-signal, but I think the questions need to be raised and the conversation had.
In my experience, the apologists for full-on ‘digital writing’ with zero concern for artfulness at root only have the fact that it is successful as an argument. And that ignores that it is only successful until the influencer in question burns out.
I constantly question myself when I write things like this because I’m constantly questioned by others when I write them.
It must mean we’re onto something.
There is a very real danger of being too much of a ‘moaner’ about these sorts of things and I think about this a lot. But I’ve spotted a wave of Twitter users waking up to these kinds of discussions and that’s encouraging to see.
To think about 24/7. Letting myself go down the path where I write in the “digital” way will be a let down. I love this piece. Thanks for sharing with us all.
Great comments - yeah, there’s a place for copywriting of course. It’s just that this dumb it down consensus has been making me feel like an idiot (or a snob) for thinking otherwise.
It’s writing by numbers. But I agree that those formulas or structures can be a string to your bow, if used sparingly and with skill.
I think of all of us who read Craig’s piece and shouted “yes!!”, and think we can’t be the only ones.
True, but I think in using the particulars of formulas you can get away from the underlining principle that those formulas are supposed to lead you to.
The ultimate purpose of copywriting for example, is to persuade and therefore make a sale.
The few times I’ve written copy it has been to sell my group and because the person that is aimed at is someone who is into nuance and art and making online better etc etc big words and full paragraphs and assuming the audience was smart was the way to go. And it worked.
It’s all contextual. And I think the world is changing such that a lot of received ideas about this stuff is gonna become outdated very soon.
The web 2.0 content and algorithm backlash will be a trickle until it suddenly becomes a deluge.
I’ve written about this before- that advice to write for Grade 8. It’s so annoying!! I’m not in Grade 8, so why should I imagine my audience is? I hope they aren’t. That would be weird...
Microwave digital pies - love it :)
The dumb it down advice is given like it’s a given. And therefore it becomes a given.
You’re right. It’s given like it’s obvious. Like this should definitely happen, as blatant advice as spelling correctly. It’s odd and I think it’s leading to the eroding of our ability to read.
Would like to read your piece if you could like to it.
My theory is that it became a truism because the ‘Digital Writing Gurus’ can’t write above that level. They don’t have that x factor at all. Ask them to write something that isn’t in list format, let alone a piece of fiction or poetry and they will fold like a lawn chair.
Sad, really. But why write if you aren’t enchanted by the actual craft itself?
It’s when modern dime store Twitter copywriters started pretending to write. Instead of just admitting their piece was shit, they’ll just blame it on reading level or “the algorithm”.
Copywriters used to be genius-level writers. Who knows what happened there.
Nail on the head. I’m not Beatrix Potter, I’m not writing for children, so why do I have to use the vocabulary of that level? Engagement?
Nah. I’d rather slip in the occasional word like ‘prelapsarian’ and alienate those who can’t or won’t keep up. That might make me an elitist knob, but at least it doesn’t make me a digital pie reheater…
All I can say is YES. You nailed it, brilliantly written.
Once I freed myself from content cabal, the real work has started, and now the closest goal is to see in print all the odd and ‘unnecessary’ words and sentences I wrote over past year.
Thank you for putting into words something that has been bothering me too. It feels good to have a new way to see the whole phenomenon. There is a difference between using big, beautiful words because we have a love affair with them and using them to try to impress. Maybe the intention behind longer form, more complex writing is the reason to not abandon it? Great piece and love your read aloud!
Absolutely. This obsession with dumbing down purely so more people can understand has been bothering me for a while.
What if the precise reason you’re NOT dumbing down is so you don’t attract everyone?
It stems from the modern internet problem of growth for growth’s sake: the simple idea that we must always be adding more followers, subscribers, viewers by reaching more people
It's a tightrope walk for sure. As someone who would dearly love to make this writing thing into more than a side gig, the balance is always in the front of my mind. I'm still new to Substack but am really looking forward to making connections with the writers and their experiences with expressing on this format. So far, I love it! I will be re-reading your post for sure.
I find it much easier on Substack. They definitely have the kindest and most understanding comment section on the web. There’s something for everyone here, and I genuinely feel you are free to be whatever you like.
Nicely done. When I was Medium (since left that boat), article after article floated by on my feed about the necessity of keeping it super simple without long paragraphs and certainly no long sentences that a reader of tweets might have to parse.
I'm one of these people that has found this dumb-down (maybe it's dump down) effect to be emblematic of the age but something I've never been on board with.
I think readers are smart. And if your writing or my my writing or the writing of many others here on Substack that I've encountered and enjoyed in my 5 weeks here is not their thing, well... that's okay; there's plenty of internet material to "consume." No worries.
And I agree with Thomas (below, above, not sure where this will land and I haven't learned to tag if that's even possible) that it does come down to being the change you want to see. I hope to find other like-minded authors here. Thanks for the article.
I think that’s it yeah. Be the change you’d like to see. Write what you want to see more of instead of bending yourself to what others think it should be.
This is, of course, an absolute banger, and nor just because you were kind enough to link to an essay of mine in there.
It all comes down to being the change you want to see, which is the biggest cliche in the book, but like all truisms it is fundamentally, importantly true in a way that many aren’t willing to accept. Because it demands action and change from them.
But some of us are dropping the ‘digital’ expectations of digital writers and are reverting to ‘cooking from scratch’, so to speak.
Hopefully some people will read this piece of yours and be inspired to do likewise.
Cheers!
The more I read more truisms, the truer they appear to be. Like some reverse self-improvement law or something, as if the more basic and obvious the advice is, the closer to the truth it becomes.
Thanks for the kind words.
‘The elusive obvious’ is how I once heard someone describe this phenomena.
At the end of this piece I had my arms raised up and thought "I'd follow Craig into war!" Not that I want that to happen but an indication of how i was apparently altered by your enthusiasm and points.
Let's just start a bit of a casual war, just a war on blandness. One where we can break every 20 minutes for tea and biscuits.
Reporting for duty, Commodore. I’ve brought the TimTams.
I had to Google what a TimTam was...
Tea and biscuits! I like your style of mayhem - I'm in!
Phenomenal.
Very kind, thanks Felix
I have some thoughts.
A lot of what you are describing as Digital Writing I would describe as putting fishing hooks with colorful lures into the Web: shiny, colorful and designed to pull you out of the river and drag you somewhere else. Maybe Fishing Hook Writing or Anger-Inducing Writing or Fear-Inducing Writing are better terms. Or Copywriting, because that's the source of all of this. Copywriting is writing but it's not Writing.
I am not above experimenting with these techniques! Occasionally I do! And after almost 15 years on Twitter I do feel like I've gotten good at communicating a simple concept in as few words as possible. But it's just one style.
IMHO, if you want to appeal to smart, thoughtful readers then good longform writing is the key. A good writer can spool out longer, more descriptive sentences to convey detail and nuance and that's not an easy task. And I fully agree, Tweets are awful for conveying nuance. In fact, you have to be quite direct and structured, in the use of threads, etc. to try to come close. Soon most of that will be done by AI if it isn't already being done.
And if you don't really care who reads you then by all means, write as you will. There's a chance that people will find you and groove on what you are reading or else be moved enough in some way to respond. Tell your friends, if nothing else. And that's perfectly fine!
But I will always err on trying to be clear when I write when I want other people to read it, especially if I know people will don't speak English as their first language will read it. That's my bias.
And Craig, I didn't find this post difficult to read at all, FWIW.
Clear is my default too. I spent a lot of my days writing emails and it sees me write a little more direct and instruction-like than I wish I could. But I’m trying to improve that.
Of course you’re right. There’s different types of writing for different instances. But I have been seeing this idea grow around the marketing and copywriting communities specifically that we must be simple and more straightforward.
As a marketer myself I don’t buy it. If we keep regressing, eventually we all level out to writing the same thing. If there’s no ability to take risks or dare I say it, be artful, we risk defeating the object of the original piece we tried to write.
I’m a natural argumentative type person. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes not. But it definitely helps on the web where we must present strong arguments to be noticed.
I worry we’re losing some of that strong voice, strong argument and strong personality.
And I suppose looking at it from a *purely* marketing standpoint the over-saturation of these simplification ‘tactics’ mean that there is an increasingly large pool of (at least potentially) sophisticated readers who aren’t being targeted AT ALL.
The new blue ocean is adults who can understand nuance and are tired of being spoke. To and sold to like children.
Exactly. Even with my marketing head on, I don’t see a disadvantage to raising the level. Unless of course you’re targeting a lower level of customer, like, I dunno, Britain’s Got Talent watchers.
Surely more sophisticated product and marketing = more sophisticated audience = £££ if the product (or art) is congruent with that.
That is my default state, yes.
Lot’s of good stuff here, Mark.
The fish hook analogy is a good one- the shiny bait certainly has its place but in my experience too much of that brings the *wrong* audience, essentially.
Often those who are drawn in by such tactics alone will not stick around for the more challenging stuff, so why rely to much on that, if the only advantage is to temporarily make the numbers go up. (I say this because this is something I learned the hard way on social media).
And yes, the fear or anger inducing aspect is pretty reprehensible in my book. Extremely low vibration, to use the hippy terminology. And again, that is not gonna attract the audience of intelligent, curious, passionate, aesthetically attuned readers which the in-it-for-the-long-haul writer needs and craves.
I really enjoy what you and Craig write here and elsewhere, it's sustaining and healthy.
Obviously there’s a danger we could potentially veer too far the otherway as a counter-signal, but I think the questions need to be raised and the conversation had.
In my experience, the apologists for full-on ‘digital writing’ with zero concern for artfulness at root only have the fact that it is successful as an argument. And that ignores that it is only successful until the influencer in question burns out.
I constantly question myself when I write things like this because I’m constantly questioned by others when I write them.
It must mean we’re onto something.
There is a very real danger of being too much of a ‘moaner’ about these sorts of things and I think about this a lot. But I’ve spotted a wave of Twitter users waking up to these kinds of discussions and that’s encouraging to see.
WE ARE THE WAVE! as Tony or one of them might put it.
Wait, is Craig still here?
Probably not. I have seemingly taken his place and commandeered his comment section.
To think about 24/7. Letting myself go down the path where I write in the “digital” way will be a let down. I love this piece. Thanks for sharing with us all.
An amazing complementary video from Sarah Z on how potentially Netflix and binge culture is to blame for this Dracula Writing project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RgI1yH2_ys&ab_channel=SarahZ
I will watch, thank you!
Makes sense, yes
Great comments - yeah, there’s a place for copywriting of course. It’s just that this dumb it down consensus has been making me feel like an idiot (or a snob) for thinking otherwise.
It’s writing by numbers. But I agree that those formulas or structures can be a string to your bow, if used sparingly and with skill.
I think of all of us who read Craig’s piece and shouted “yes!!”, and think we can’t be the only ones.
True, but I think in using the particulars of formulas you can get away from the underlining principle that those formulas are supposed to lead you to.
The ultimate purpose of copywriting for example, is to persuade and therefore make a sale.
The few times I’ve written copy it has been to sell my group and because the person that is aimed at is someone who is into nuance and art and making online better etc etc big words and full paragraphs and assuming the audience was smart was the way to go. And it worked.
It’s all contextual. And I think the world is changing such that a lot of received ideas about this stuff is gonna become outdated very soon.
The web 2.0 content and algorithm backlash will be a trickle until it suddenly becomes a deluge.
I honestly believe we're reaching an algorithmic backlash. Over the next few years we'll see a return to pre-algorithms
I’ve written about this before- that advice to write for Grade 8. It’s so annoying!! I’m not in Grade 8, so why should I imagine my audience is? I hope they aren’t. That would be weird...
Microwave digital pies - love it :)
The dumb it down advice is given like it’s a given. And therefore it becomes a given.
F👍ck that
You’re right. It’s given like it’s obvious. Like this should definitely happen, as blatant advice as spelling correctly. It’s odd and I think it’s leading to the eroding of our ability to read.
Would like to read your piece if you could like to it.
My theory is that it became a truism because the ‘Digital Writing Gurus’ can’t write above that level. They don’t have that x factor at all. Ask them to write something that isn’t in list format, let alone a piece of fiction or poetry and they will fold like a lawn chair.
Sad, really. But why write if you aren’t enchanted by the actual craft itself?
It’s when modern dime store Twitter copywriters started pretending to write. Instead of just admitting their piece was shit, they’ll just blame it on reading level or “the algorithm”.
Copywriters used to be genius-level writers. Who knows what happened there.
That old school Mad Men era was sharp as a tack. Huge difference between simple and simplistic, between lean and threadbare.
A nuance that is fading.
Nail on the head. I’m not Beatrix Potter, I’m not writing for children, so why do I have to use the vocabulary of that level? Engagement?
Nah. I’d rather slip in the occasional word like ‘prelapsarian’ and alienate those who can’t or won’t keep up. That might make me an elitist knob, but at least it doesn’t make me a digital pie reheater…
All I can say is YES. You nailed it, brilliantly written.
Once I freed myself from content cabal, the real work has started, and now the closest goal is to see in print all the odd and ‘unnecessary’ words and sentences I wrote over past year.
Thank you for putting into words something that has been bothering me too. It feels good to have a new way to see the whole phenomenon. There is a difference between using big, beautiful words because we have a love affair with them and using them to try to impress. Maybe the intention behind longer form, more complex writing is the reason to not abandon it? Great piece and love your read aloud!
Absolutely. This obsession with dumbing down purely so more people can understand has been bothering me for a while.
What if the precise reason you’re NOT dumbing down is so you don’t attract everyone?
It stems from the modern internet problem of growth for growth’s sake: the simple idea that we must always be adding more followers, subscribers, viewers by reaching more people
It's a tightrope walk for sure. As someone who would dearly love to make this writing thing into more than a side gig, the balance is always in the front of my mind. I'm still new to Substack but am really looking forward to making connections with the writers and their experiences with expressing on this format. So far, I love it! I will be re-reading your post for sure.
I find it much easier on Substack. They definitely have the kindest and most understanding comment section on the web. There’s something for everyone here, and I genuinely feel you are free to be whatever you like.
Nicely done. When I was Medium (since left that boat), article after article floated by on my feed about the necessity of keeping it super simple without long paragraphs and certainly no long sentences that a reader of tweets might have to parse.
I'm one of these people that has found this dumb-down (maybe it's dump down) effect to be emblematic of the age but something I've never been on board with.
I think readers are smart. And if your writing or my my writing or the writing of many others here on Substack that I've encountered and enjoyed in my 5 weeks here is not their thing, well... that's okay; there's plenty of internet material to "consume." No worries.
And I agree with Thomas (below, above, not sure where this will land and I haven't learned to tag if that's even possible) that it does come down to being the change you want to see. I hope to find other like-minded authors here. Thanks for the article.
I think that’s it yeah. Be the change you’d like to see. Write what you want to see more of instead of bending yourself to what others think it should be.
Absolutely. A chase for followers is usually a race to the bottom in terms of quality. Make what you want, in all its complicated and abstract glory.
If it makes you feel any better, I signed up for it too 😶
“why I prefer the smell of a new book's first page over the dim glare of an eReader“
YES