This is a very small data set. I know you know this, but the list implies that DFW and Leslie Jamison have some sort of extraordinary talent others don't (though I'm in agreement that they do), but this list is merely a reflection of which and the number of essays you've chosen to score. DFW and Leslie Jamison just happen to have gotten more attention. Ah, literary nepotism in action. Nothing wrong with it. Happens all the time with prizes and awards.
Thanks for bringing this up Sarah. The bottom of this post gets into my scoring system, but not my selection process, which seems to be your main critique.
Over 90% of these were read from physical essay books I’ve bought (because I understand essays better when I draw over them). I suppose this is a filter for published writers… but is starting with ones that cross a filter of acclaim considered nepotism? There's a pantheon of "known" work that I've barely tapped into, and I'm bottlenecked by a meticulous reading process (each one is scored out of 135 points). I need to start somewhere. I’m conscious about my range, and am open to recommendations!
Are you implying that I should be using this list to promote deserving, but undiscovered writers? That sounds great (seriously!), but where do I start? I know quite a few great writers on Substack, and I’m friends with some that have surely written essays in the 8s or 9s. If I feature them, wouldn’t that *actually* be nepotism? I think there's more risk of perceived nepotism (personal gain by helping others) by reviewing emerging writers than by reviewing already famous, dead, or ancient ones. Of course, I want to feature new writers too, but I still have some thinking to do on it.
I don’t have a perfect selection process, and am open to ideas on how to make this better (either here or through email). The goal is to have 200-300 essays by end of next year, so this current selection (44) is just a sliver of what it will become. I'm hoping my subscribers can contribute both essays and selection principles (thank you for kicking off the process!)
I think it's a great list. Definitely not undiscovered writers! That would be way too much.
If you were a PhD student, you'd be told to narrow the period, e.g. the Essay Architecture framework is derived from 21st-century literary essays published in x number of literary journals and magazines.
(Yes, you have DFW and Joan Didion, but I'd cut them. Narrowing the time frame will give you more credibility.)
You could use Best American Essays as your guide. Their notable mentions list in the back of each edition is such a great list of the lit journals and magazines that have been the homes for the contemporary personal essay.
Thanks Sarah. This is very helpful. I totally hear you on the value of defining the scope. Best American Essays could serve as an excellent guide / starting point.
Another option could be to do something similar to COCA (the corpus of contemporary American English). They amassed a dataset of 1 billion words to see which words are frequently and rarely used. To assemble their set, they created 8 equal buckets of 125 millions words (novels, speeches, magazines, academic papers, etc.).
Looking at my current set, I'd say 47% are 21st-century literary essays. Other buckets (online, magazine, historical) are much smaller (5-10%). One approach would be to do one bucket very thoroughly; the other would be to define the right group of buckets, and make sure they each have equal coverage.
This is a very small data set. I know you know this, but the list implies that DFW and Leslie Jamison have some sort of extraordinary talent others don't (though I'm in agreement that they do), but this list is merely a reflection of which and the number of essays you've chosen to score. DFW and Leslie Jamison just happen to have gotten more attention. Ah, literary nepotism in action. Nothing wrong with it. Happens all the time with prizes and awards.
Thanks for bringing this up Sarah. The bottom of this post gets into my scoring system, but not my selection process, which seems to be your main critique.
Over 90% of these were read from physical essay books I’ve bought (because I understand essays better when I draw over them). I suppose this is a filter for published writers… but is starting with ones that cross a filter of acclaim considered nepotism? There's a pantheon of "known" work that I've barely tapped into, and I'm bottlenecked by a meticulous reading process (each one is scored out of 135 points). I need to start somewhere. I’m conscious about my range, and am open to recommendations!
Are you implying that I should be using this list to promote deserving, but undiscovered writers? That sounds great (seriously!), but where do I start? I know quite a few great writers on Substack, and I’m friends with some that have surely written essays in the 8s or 9s. If I feature them, wouldn’t that *actually* be nepotism? I think there's more risk of perceived nepotism (personal gain by helping others) by reviewing emerging writers than by reviewing already famous, dead, or ancient ones. Of course, I want to feature new writers too, but I still have some thinking to do on it.
I don’t have a perfect selection process, and am open to ideas on how to make this better (either here or through email). The goal is to have 200-300 essays by end of next year, so this current selection (44) is just a sliver of what it will become. I'm hoping my subscribers can contribute both essays and selection principles (thank you for kicking off the process!)
I think it's a great list. Definitely not undiscovered writers! That would be way too much.
If you were a PhD student, you'd be told to narrow the period, e.g. the Essay Architecture framework is derived from 21st-century literary essays published in x number of literary journals and magazines.
(Yes, you have DFW and Joan Didion, but I'd cut them. Narrowing the time frame will give you more credibility.)
You could use Best American Essays as your guide. Their notable mentions list in the back of each edition is such a great list of the lit journals and magazines that have been the homes for the contemporary personal essay.
Thanks Sarah. This is very helpful. I totally hear you on the value of defining the scope. Best American Essays could serve as an excellent guide / starting point.
Another option could be to do something similar to COCA (the corpus of contemporary American English). They amassed a dataset of 1 billion words to see which words are frequently and rarely used. To assemble their set, they created 8 equal buckets of 125 millions words (novels, speeches, magazines, academic papers, etc.).
Looking at my current set, I'd say 47% are 21st-century literary essays. Other buckets (online, magazine, historical) are much smaller (5-10%). One approach would be to do one bucket very thoroughly; the other would be to define the right group of buckets, and make sure they each have equal coverage.
Thanks again for helping me think through this.