Thread by @ZFleischmann, Almost a full year after taking Write of Passage by @david

Almost a full year after taking Write of Passage by @david_perell I'm still struggling with one of the core principles of the course

As a Type A, former A+ student, I honestly can't believe this is true

And I intend to prove it

If David's thesis is true (which it isn't), then we should be able to look at another prolific author, analyze their writing, and see this pattern

I chose @ShaneAParrish of @farnamstreet as my case study

I really admire Shane's work and the space he's carved out for himself

To prove David wrong, I downloaded the contents of Farnam Street (getting my IP blocked in the process) so that I could measure and analyze Shane's writing

I specifically wanted to prove the following:

I don't actually have to publish all the time (Post Frequency)

My articles have to be long and in-depth (Post Length)

Everything I write has to be completely original (Post Originality)

I'll start with Post Frequency

The first thing I did was look at posts-per-month and posts-per-year for the 12 years Farnam Street has been around

Here's the graph of posts-per-year:

Incredible, no? Shane started off at 2-4 posts per month

Then between 2012 and 2017, Shane kicks it into overdrive. 145 to 190 articles per year is a lot of writing!

The pace mellowed back out in 2018 and for the last 3 years, Farnam Street has published 40-47 posts per year

What about posts per month?

Here is Shane's publishing frequency for 2011

The high variance is what immediately jumps out to me

May, 2011: 1 post
August, 2011: 9 posts

Here is the publishing frequency for 2013 (Shane's most prolific year)

There's still a high amount of variance (27 posts in the highest month, 10 in the lowest)

But the average is also a lot higher

2013: 15.25 posts per month on avg
2011: 4.6 posts per month on avg

What about last year?

An average of 3.9 posts per month, but notice how little it varies from month to month?

I don't have access to Farnam Street's analytics, so I can't tell you during which period it saw the most growth

However, we do know Shane's reach now and consistency is part of Shane's publishing history

So I have to admit that David is right on this point

David: 1
Zakk: 0

It's not about publishing a Great™ article every couple months (or whenever you finally finish)

You want high consistency and high frequency

Publish something every couple of days and do that consistently for years

Okay so here is where we currently stand

I don't have to post all the time (Post Frequency)

My articles have to be long and in-depth (Post Length)

Everything I write has to be completely original (Post Originality)

We'll give David that one and look at Post Length next

Surely, being a successful writer requires writing long, in-depth and nuanced articles

Leave no stone unturned! Explore every nook and cranny and any possible edge case!

Here is how the articles on Farnam Street break down by word count:

There is a very clear trend here: posts tend to be short

~51% are less than 1,000 words
~85% are less than 2,000 words

Only about 15% of the posts on Farnam Street are longer than 2,000 words

I'm not even going to try and defend myself on this one

David: 2
Zakk 0

An assumption that many new writers have is: long is equivalent to valuable

If you think about it though, if that were true no one would know who Set Godin is and Farnam Street probably wouldn't have the reach that it does today

I went back through the site and found that many of my favorite articles from Farnam Street were on the longer side

That said, the *first* articles I read on Farnam Street (the ones that introduced me to Shane's writing) were all on the shorter side

Here's where we currently stand:

I don't have to post all the time (Post Frequency)

My articles have to be long and in-depth (Post Length)

Everything I write has to be completely original (Post Originality)

Surely your posts have to be completely original

Let's see

I really thought that this is where I would I would get a win

The Platonic idea of a great writer is one who shares completely original work. You know, as part of their greatness

But that didn’t really hold up in the data either:

As you can see from the graph above, Farnam Street makes pretty liberal use of quotes

Though articles do span the whole spectrum, the two biggest categories are:

1. Posts that are mostly original (<25% quoted text)
2. Posts that are mostly quoted (>75% quoted text)

After looking more closely, I think what is important is that posts are useful

One post that is mostly quoted text is the transcript of David Foster Wallace's commencement speech, This is Water

The article is 99% quoted text but I've read it on Farnam Street at least 3 times

Another post I've read multiple times is The Value of Probabilistic Thinking. It's 2,671 words long and doesn't have a single quote in it

These articles are on opposite ends of the originality spectrum

Both are good

Both are useful

After looking closely at the data on Farnam Street, I have to admit that David is right:

Becoming a successful writer is about publishing good, useful articles consistently for years

David: 3
Zakk 0

David: I'm sorry I ever doubted you

Shane, if you're reading this, would you mind unblocking my IP? Otherwise, I may have to move

Everyone else: if you liked this, give it a

and read the whole piece here: https://zkf.io/write-like-farnam-street/

When you finish, think about this:

It's great to get advice from people who have accomplished something similar to what you want to accomplish

But you have to put that advice in to practice

So if you want to be a writer, start publishing B+ content with A+ consistency

Latest Threads Unrolled: