Daniel Oyaskiiᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠᅠ retweetledi
I'll be blunt with you, but this is a shallow mindset, and it says a lot about how you think about writing as a culture.
Yes, I believe you can’t pour from an empty cup. You have to read to write better.
But who sets the standard for what “reading enough” even means?
And what makes you think that people aren’t reading “enough”?
Substack is not a platform that requires some kind of qualification. It's not like Medium, where you write for visibility.
Substack is an intimate platform. It's an app of connection.
So when people write on Substack, they’re not always trying to perform or impress. They’re sharing thoughts, ideas, experiences… sometimes even things they’re still figuring out.
And that’s valid.
I know this because I’ve actually read a lot of Substack pieces.
I also have a community where I read people’s work privately, both on Substack and Medium.
And I can tell you this: I’ve been exposed to thoughtful, intentional, and provoking pieces on Substack.
These are people who are not just writing for virality, but for meaning.
And yes, I believe in critiquing. I believe writing should be challenged and refined.
But dismissing people’s writing because you assume they “don’t read enough” feels shallow.
Because good writing is not only about how much you’ve read… it’s also about how honestly you think and how clearly you express it.
Onyango (Wuod Awuor)@TroyOnyango
my only issue is people aren’t reading enough to be writing all these substacks.
English
