Why Can't We Reference Substack in our Academic Work?

On Substack becoming part of academic study...

‘Ars longa, vita brevis’

-Hippocrates

I likely clicked on a Substack article or two while working on my MA dissertation—finding them far more insightful than the sparse academic articles on mother-daughter conflict in Atwood’s The Robber Bride. Yet, no matter how enlightening these pieces were, I couldn’t use them. They weren’t validated by the sacred peer-review process. Citing them would be considered plagiarism, and adding a Substack link to my references would make my research look “unprofessional.”

This reflects a deep-rooted snobbery around which critical texts are deemed valuable in the humanities—and academia as a whole. There’s also a longstanding tension between literature and the digital, one that’s been simmering for decades. While progress is being made, it’s frustratingly slow. You see the divide in how people react to emerging technologies like AI: some are fiercely opposed to it, while others embrace it with uncritical enthusiasm.

The middle ground exists, but it’s sparse. Personally, I find this black-and-white thinking reflects a lack of maturity and critical engagement. To outright dismiss or blindly champion something is to miss the nuance essential to being a scholar in the humanities. Studying the humanities should mean staying open to multiple perspectives, not clinging to absolutes.

This antagonism between literature and the digital persists, framed as the "pure and beautiful" beige page versus the supposedly “corrupt” computer screen. It’s still considered more virtuous to read a physical book than to turn to the internet. But isn’t there an element of privilege in that mindset? For many, the digital is not a corruption but a gateway—a lifeline for kids who might not have access to physical books but can access digital resources.

Perhaps the disdain for the digital stems from those who enjoy the luxury of time and access to both books and online resources. I certainly didn’t have that luxury while studying for my degrees. I was working two jobs, commuting absurdly long hours, and juggling countless commitments. The last thing I had time for was sifting through pages of irrelevant articles to find one useful quote. Honestly, having AI as a tool would have been a lifesaver (it became a thing just as I graduated). But, of course, those who have the privilege of time also have the time to look down on people like me for relying on more efficient methods. (As always, it seems to come back to class and privilege.)

Anyway, I’m not bitter—well, maybe a little. But this is just the beginning of my exploration of digital humanities. In this particular piece, I want to dive into what digital humanities really is at its core. Is Substack ready to claim a place in this realm? Or is the writing on some of these articles no more substantive than an Instagram caption?

In Defense of Digital Humanities

Before diving in, I want to clarify that I’ll be using digital humanities and literature interchangeably throughout this piece. While my focus is primarily on literature and philosophy, I firmly believe that all humanities disciplines are interconnected, sharing common questions, methods, and challenges.

What Are the Digital Humanities?

Digital humanities offer new ways to study literary texts—although calling it “new” is a bit misleading. This field has been evolving for decades, but its prominence has surged in recent years, reshaping not only how we approach literature but also how we think about the humanities as a whole. It’s not just about digitalising texts; it’s about reimagining their meaning and use in the digital age, leading to subtle but significant semantic shifts in how we define and engage with literary scholarship.

In terms of theory, new historicism is where to look for digital humanities.

New Historicism, at its core, looks at literature in the context of its time. It argues that texts aren’t just reflections of their era; they actively shape and are shaped by the political, cultural, and historical forces around them. When we apply this to digital literature, things get pretty interesting.

For New Historicists, digital literature isn’t just some cool new tech trend—it’s deeply embedded in the digital age’s technological, social, and political fabric. Think about it: the rise of the internet, social media, e-books, and interactive fiction isn’t just a random coincidence. It's a response to our rapidly changing world, where information is more accessible and interactive than ever. Just like how the printing press once transformed the way knowledge was shared, digital literature represents a new chapter in how we create and experience stories.

But New Historicism doesn’t stop there. It would also encourage us to look at digital literature as a product of the power dynamics of the digital world. Who’s behind the platforms where we read these stories? What economic and political forces shape the way digital texts are produced and consumed? These are the kinds of questions that New Historicism asks, just like it would ask about the power structures behind the printing press or the book trade in the past.

At the end of the day, New Historicism encourages us to think of digital literature as more than just a new form—it’s a product of its time, just like any other piece of literature. And to really understand it, we need to look at how it interacts with the cultural, political, and historical forces that make up our digital age.

Accessibility and Inclusion

One of the most exciting aspects of digital humanities is the accessibility it brings to literature and critical texts. Digital literature removes barriers imposed by geography, socioeconomic status, or physical access to libraries. Novels, manuscripts, and critical works—once confined to beige pages printed in size 10 font—are now just a few clicks away. For individuals who may not have access to physical libraries or rare manuscripts, digitisation is revolutionary. It democratises literature, inviting a broader and more diverse range of voices into the conversation.

Even books banned in certain countries can often be accessed digitally, challenging the gatekeeping of knowledge and fostering intellectual freedom. Digital literature, in essence, offers unprecedented access to both classic and contemporary works, creating an ecosystem where ideas can circulate more freely than ever before.

Digital literature has the potential to reshape the literary canon in exciting ways. Traditionally, the canon has been shaped by a small group of influential texts, often from a limited range of authors, genres, and cultural contexts. But digital literature, with its accessibility and diverse forms, allows for a much broader and more inclusive range of voices to be heard. Platforms like Substack, online journals, and digital archives make it easier for writers, especially those from underrepresented groups, to share their work with a wider audience.

Digital texts—whether they’re interactive fiction, hypertext, or e-books—invite new ways of storytelling that challenge traditional literary structures. This opens up the possibility for works that might have been dismissed or overlooked in the past to gain attention, and for new genres to emerge. By democratising both the production and consumption of literature, digital literature can expand the canon, making it more reflective of a diverse range of perspectives and experiences that better align with today’s globalised, interconnected world.

Saving Time

Let’s face it—we all have short attention spans. Even here on Substack where we all claim to be avid newsletter readers, we prefer short sentences and lists to long paragraphs. This isn’t a modern phenomenon; it’s something humans have always grappled with. So, why not embrace it? Why not cut a few corners to read more texts and expand our knowledge? After all, many of us live in fear of never finishing our ever-growing TBR piles.

I remember countless articles I wanted to read during university while working on essays, but there simply wasn’t enough time. Having tools to help pinpoint the most relevant ones would have been a lifesaver—a way to ease that relentless FOMO.

Asking New Questions

Digital humanities don’t just make literature more accessible—they also allow us to ask entirely new questions about it. By leveraging digital tools and methodologies, scholars can explore texts in ways that were previously impossible. Quantitative approaches, like text mining or network analysis, open doors to patterns, trends, and connections that would be too vast for human cognition alone.

For instance, rather than asking traditional questions about a single work or author, digital methods enable us to examine entire literary movements, cross-cultural influences, or changes in language use over centuries. These methods don’t replace traditional close reading; they complement it, offering fresh perspectives and new insights.

Online forums like Reddit hold significant power in shaping discourse and fostering creativity. These platforms act as digital hubs where diverse voices exchange ideas, debate, and build new cultural norms.

Reddit’s subreddits, for instance, enable discussions on everything from classic literature to philosophical debates, democratising conversations by breaking down barriers like location or formal qualifications. They also serve as cultural incubators, where memes, trends, and new forms of expression emerge and influence mainstream culture.

Far from being mere time-wasters, forums are spaces for creativity, the evolution of ideas, and the creation of new intellectual and cultural climates.

The Fear of Quantitative Inquiry

Perhaps what unsettles traditionalists the most about digital humanities is its embrace of quantitative approaches. These methods force us to think differently about literature, treating it as both art and data. For some, this feels like a betrayal of the deeply personal, subjective nature of literary interpretation. But for others, it represents an opportunity—a chance to expand the horizons of what literary studies can achieve.

Far from diminishing literature’s richness, these approaches highlight new dimensions of texts, uncovering layers of meaning that can coexist with more subjective, interpretive readings. Using certain sites can help us to find the most common words in books — or by authors — and this generates new theories or contexts.

Hyperlinks are one of the coolest things digital literature brings to the table. Hyperlinks don’t just make reading interactive—they also reflect the way we experience information today. We’re constantly navigating through a sea of links, ideas, and connections online, and hyperlinks in digital literature mirror that reality. It’s this non-linear, multifaceted way of engaging with stories that makes digital lit so exciting—it’s not just about the destination, it’s about the journey, and the many twists and turns along the way.

Quantitative data then becomes useful in studies like my literary zeitgeist subjects. Whilst I don’t have access to the tools that digital humanists have, chatGPT can help narrow down some of the trends. Having a larger pool of data to go through, only gives you better results — and sadly I have not read every book that came out in every single year!

Is Substack Truly Worthy of Being Considered a Digital Humanity?

After conducting research and engaging with Substack on a daily basis, I find myself questioning whether Substack truly merits recognition as part of the digital humanities. From a literary perspective, it often feels more akin to another form of social media—filled with aesthetically pleasing book images and flowery language, but lacking in meaningful, nuanced discourse.

In my view, some accounts deserve critical study, particularly those that provide thoughtful and well-rounded perspectives like:

• personal canon

• Mona Mona

However, my general observation is that the literature-focused newsletters on Substack tend to be overly one-dimensional. While it is perfectly acceptable to offer personal opinions and critiques, it is essential to consider multiple viewpoints. Much like social media, where opinions can be swayed by popular trends, Substack too often reflects a singular, dominant narrative on books. When a widely circulated opinion takes hold—such as the prevailing dislike for Colleen Hoover's writing or A Little Life slander—it can lead to an unbalanced discourse that ultimately does more harm than good.

While I personally share some criticisms of these works, particularly regarding its portrayal, we must acknowledge that for many readers, these books have provided something substantial to readers. Isn't there merit in that? Criticism should be constructive, leaving room for differing tastes and preferences. There is a significant difference between being critically engaged and resorting to mean-spiritedness. One is an essential aspect of academic discussion, while the other is a product of social media discourse.

Moreover, literature, in its essence, is about conversation—an ongoing dialogue among readers and writers. Digital platforms like Substack are meant to facilitate and enhance these conversations. However, on Substack, the environment often feels insular, as if only certain voices matter. When others contribute their perspectives, it is not always welcomed; instead, it can lead to personal attacks or be seen as bullying. This creates an unhealthy atmosphere that stifles genuine debate and diminishes the collaborative spirit that digital humanities aims to foster. In this sense, Substack falls short of its potential to be a truly open and inclusive space for literary discourse.

The digital literature above can encompass Substack, but I think it has a long way to go.

Digital literature enables us to think, question, and create differently. It doesn’t just preserve the past—it shapes the future. Don’t close the door on it so quickly please!

I of course will write more detailed articles on different aspects of digital literature including data visualisation and literature networks in the future.

For further reading on digital humanities please see the bibliography below:

Books and Edited Volumes

Burdick, Anne, et al., editors. Digital Humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.

Burnard, Lou, Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe, and John Unsworth, editors. Electronic Textual Editing. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2006.

Cohen, Daniel J., and Roy Rosenzweig. Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

Earhart, Amy E. Traces of the Old, Uses of the New: The Emergence of Digital Literary Studies. E-book, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2015.

Finneran, Richard J., editor. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.

Gold, Matthew K., editor. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.

Hockey, Susan. Electronic Texts in the Humanities: Principles and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Jockers, Matthew L. Macroanalysis: Digital Methods and Literary History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013.

Liu, Alan. Where Is Cultural Criticism in the Digital Humanities? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

McCarty, Willard. Humanities Computing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

McGann, Jerome. Radiant Textuality: Literature after the World Wide Web. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.

Price, Kenneth M., and Ray Siemens, editors. Literary Studies in the Digital Age: An Evolving Anthology. Modern Language Association of America, 2013.

Ramsay, Stephen E. The Emergence of Digital Humanities. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011.

Essays and Articles

Hockey, Susan. “The History of Humanities Computing.” In A Companion to Digital Humanities, edited by Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth, 3–19. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew. "What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?" ADE Bulletin 150 (2010): 55–61.

Liu, Alan. "Where Is Cultural Criticism in the Digital Humanities?" Modern Language Quarterly 74, no. 3 (2013): 401–21.

Digital Projects and Blog Posts

Nowviskie, Bethany. "Eternal September of the Digital Humanities." Blog Post, 2010.

Unsworth, John. "What Is Humanities Computing and What Is Not?" Early Online Essay, 2000.

---