Literary Substack Debate Erupts Over Naomi Kanakia's Little Magazine Critique and Simon During's Response

A recent exchange on literary Substack has illuminated the platform's dynamics. Naomi Kanakia published a review of contemporary American little magazines (n+1, Yale Review, The Drift, The Baffler, Liberties, The Hedgehog Review), criticizing their anti-populist tone as stemming from "the Partisan Review ideology." Simon During, a former University of Melbourne and Johns Hopkins literature academic, responded, arguing that this attitude originated in early eighteenth-century Britain with Grub Street and the satirical responses of Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift. During's brief article, which assumed reader familiarity with this history, was met with pushback from Kanakia and her defenders, including Ross Barkan, who called it "silly," "poor," and "flimsy," and questioned During's credentials and platform presence. The clash highlights a divide between amateur and professional voices on Substack, where amateurs gained first-mover advantage due to initial academic reluctance, building large audiences with heterodox views. As academics join, they find a simulacrum of their field where symbolic capital operates differently—Harold Bloom and Alan Bloom have more cachet than During. Literary Substack's backward-looking appeal, akin to Dark Academia, satisfies demand for deep aesthetic immersion. Despite institutional challenges, both professionals and amateurs must find common ground as the platform evolves.