Publishing research · Five author case studies
Writing a book
with readers.
How five authors use Substack to share developing books, hear from readers, and strengthen their work—plus a practical approach you can adapt.
The evidence at a glance
A shortlist for studying the process, not a sales ranking.
These authors were selected for their relevance to a specific idea: publish portions of a developing book on Substack, invite readers into the process, and use what they reveal to improve the work. Their experiences show several different forms of success.
The central distinction: feedback, manuscript completion, a publishing contract, and commercial success are different outcomes. The evidence below identifies what each author actually reports. It does not assume that an engaged comments section guarantees book sales—or that every revision was caused by a reader’s suggestion.
| Author | Work / genre | Best evidence | Most useful for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah Fay | Cured Memoir | Reports rewriting nearly 80% of her manuscript after subscriber dialogue. | Testing meaning, clarity, and a book’s central argument. |
| Simon K Jones | Tales from the Triverse Science fiction | Identifies a character storyline prompted by repeated reader interest. | Understanding character attachment and narrative curiosity. |
| John Pistelli | Major Arcana Literary fiction | Reader questions clarified his choices; the serial later reached a traditional publisher. | Combining public development with a future book edition. |
| Matty Dalrymple | At Sea campaign Suspense fiction | A defined chapter-feedback campaign followed by a planned revision period. | Organizing a structured reader review of a late draft. |
| Liz Horsman | Marsh Women of the Godless Florin Fantasy | A completed rewrite, engaged readers, and a reported full-manuscript request. | Learning both the benefits and the pressures of serialization. |
On smaller screens, swipe the comparison table horizontally. Select an author’s name to jump to the case study.
The five case studies
Sarah Fay
Cured · Memoir · Published on her author Substack
Documented substantial revisionWhat she did
Fay serialized Cured, a memoir about mental-health recovery, and engaged with subscribers’ questions and comments. Their responses gave her a way to examine how readers understood the subject while the manuscript was still developing.
What the evidence shows
In an account published by Substack, she connects that dialogue to a major rewrite and a changed central thesis. This is unusually direct evidence that the platform served as a place to develop a book, rather than simply distribute or promote it. Her memoir is available through her Substack.
Application to Suzy’s project
After a passage, ask what readers believe it is really about. If their interpretation differs from your intention, investigate the gap. A scene may need more context, a clearer emotional turning point, or a different place in the book—not merely better wording.
Simon K Jones
Tales from the Triverse · Science fiction · Write More with Simon K Jones
Documented reader influence on storyWhat he did
Jones published his serial while maintaining an ongoing conversation with readers. One longtime reader repeatedly asked what had happened to Sally, a character introduced in the opening prologue.
What the evidence shows
Jones later wrote a three-part account of Sally’s subsequent life. In a published interview with that reader, he acknowledges that the storyline might never have happened without the repeated interest. The conversation also examines how reader predictions can reveal whether foreshadowing and misdirection are working.
Jones emphasizes retaining authorship: reader interest can supply a starting point without determining how the story must unfold.
Application to Suzy’s project
Watch for recurring questions about a character, relationship, or unresolved event. Record the underlying curiosity before deciding whether to act on it. A useful response might be a small clarification, a deeper scene, or a separate companion piece rather than a new subplot.
John Pistelli
Major Arcana · Literary fiction · Grand Hotel Abyss
Reader dialogue + traditional publicationWhat he did
Pistelli serialized Major Arcana on Substack while still writing it. A small, dedicated audience asked questions and offered observations as the novel unfolded.
What the evidence shows
In an interview with Belt Publishing, he says those exchanges pushed him to clarify his choices and emphases. The project became a self-published print edition and later a Belt title.
The route matters: Pistelli says novelist and journalist Ross Barkan read the self-published print edition and wrote about it on Substack. That attention brought the novel to publisher Anne Trubek. The publishing outcome therefore involved both serialization and subsequent advocacy.
Application to Suzy’s project
Use the serial to learn where readers need greater clarity, then evaluate the finished book as a complete experience. Maintain a separate master manuscript so the eventual book can have its own pacing, transitions, and structure.
Matty Dalrymple
Seventh Ann Kinnear suspense novel · Serialized through the At Sea campaign
Structured feedback model · outcome developingWhat she did
Dalrymple designed a limited campaign to deliver a late draft in daily installments, with author’s notes and comments. Her FAQ sets out 42 chapters over approximately six weeks, followed by time to revise before the book’s publication.
What the evidence shows
She explicitly invites reactions to character behavior, confusing motivations, and slow scenes. The FAQ explains that comments may influence the final manuscript, without promising to implement every suggestion. A July 2026 podcast interview discusses her experience after 52 days and her use of specific questions for selected chapters.
This is the most clearly structured example of the proposed workflow, although the reviewed sources do not establish the final revision results or commercial performance.
Application to Suzy’s project
Explain the reading arrangement before the first installment: what stage the draft is in, what feedback is useful, how frequently posts will arrive, and when revisions will happen. Ask focused questions and leave breathing room between the last post and the final book.
Liz Horsman
Marsh Women of the Godless Florin · Fantasy · Gritty Modern Fiction
Completed rewrite + querying progressWhat she did
Horsman reworked and serialized a novel that had begun as The Last Storium. The serial used the title Marsh Witches of the Godless Florin; she returned to Marsh Women for querying. Along the way, she changed narrative viewpoint, rearranged events, and connected with readers who discussed her characters and details.
What the evidence shows
Her January 2026 retrospective reports finishing the serial and receiving a full-manuscript request after sending ten queries. She credits the process with helping transform the book.
She also describes over-compressing scenes to hold online attention, then restoring emotional and descriptive depth. Her story is valuable precisely because the gains came with mistakes she subsequently corrected.
Application to Suzy’s project
After several installments, reread them together outside Substack. Check whether the book still has room for reflection and emotional development. Treat comments as information about the reading experience, while judging the final prose against the needs of the whole story.
Practical synthesis · Suggested approach
Build a conversation that serves the book.
The following recommendations are an application of the research—not a formula used by all five authors or a promise of similar results.
Define the reader’s role
Explain that readers are helping you understand the experience of the story. Make it clear which kinds of responses are welcome and that you will make the final creative decisions.
Give each excerpt a purpose
Choose scenes that expose a real question: whether a motivation is believable, a transition is clear, or an emotional moment has enough preparation.
Ask fewer, better questions
Use one or two questions per post. Ask for a reader’s experience before explaining your intention, so the explanation does not supply the answer.
Look for patterns
Keep a simple feedback log by scene. Distinguish repeated confusion from one person’s preference, and enthusiastic praise from actionable detail.
Revise in a separate manuscript
Record changes and their purpose. Avoid treating the posted version as the only version; a book may need different transitions and pacing from an email installment.
Close the loop
Tell readers what you learned and, where useful, show a short revision. Recognize their help without promising to follow every suggestion.
Reader questions to adapt
- Where, if anywhere, did you have to reread to understand what was happening?
- What did you believe this character wanted by the end of the scene?
- Which moment stayed with you—and what made it memorable?
- Where did your attention begin to drift?
- What are you now curious about? What feels unresolved in a frustrating way?
A manageable first experiment
Recommendation for Suzy’s project
Start with a six-week pilot.
Begin with selected passages rather than committing immediately to publishing an entire book. This lets you test both reader interest and your own comfort with developing work in public.
- Week 1: Introduce the book’s premise and explain how readers can help.
- Weeks 2–4: Share three connected passages, each with enough context to stand on its own and one focused feedback question.
- Week 5: Review responses, revise in your manuscript, and share a brief example of what you learned.
- Week 6: Ask participating readers about the experience and decide whether to continue, change the format, or recruit a smaller beta-reading group.
This schedule is a proposed starting point, not a research finding about the best posting frequency.
Measure the value of the feedback.
Subscriber totals alone will not tell you whether the experiment is helping the story. Track a few indicators tied directly to your purpose.
- Returning readersAre some of the same people responding thoughtfully across installments?
- Specific observationsCan readers point to a scene, sentence, motivation, or emotional reaction?
- Useful discoveriesDid you find a gap you could not see on your own?
- Changes worth keepingCan you identify revisions that improve the complete manuscript?
- A sustainable routineDoes publishing and responding leave you enough time to write the book?
Source library & research notes
Read the original accounts.
The report prioritizes authors’ explanations of their own methods and outcomes, including interviews published by Substack, an author’s publisher, and writing-focused publications. These are useful first-person accounts, but they are not controlled studies or independently audited business results. Selection favors relevance to reader-assisted development. Several sources may require a subscription for full access.
- How modern thinkers are expanding their ideas on SubstackOn Substack · Sarah Fay’s account of reader dialogue and substantial manuscript revision.
- Welcome to Cured: The MemoirSarah Fay · The memoir’s Substack reading destination.
- The reader connection in serial fictionSimon K Jones · August 19, 2024 · Conversation with a longtime reader, including the Sally storyline.
- Interview with John PistelliBelt Publishing · The author on serialization, reader questions, and the path to a publisher.
- At Sea: Frequently Asked QuestionsMatty Dalrymple · June 1, 2026 · Campaign structure, reader participation, and planned revisions.
- Episode 484: Serializing a Novel on Substack with Matty DalrympleStark Reflections · July 2026 · Interview and show notes discussing the experience of the campaign.
- Serialising my novel on Substack—A Year to Querying SuccessLiz Horsman · January 7, 2026 · Detailed retrospective on rewriting, reader engagement, and querying.
How to interpret this report: “Documented” means that a linked source expressly describes the activity or outcome. It does not mean independently verified causation. Matty Dalrymple’s final publication results and Liz Horsman’s subsequent querying outcomes were not established by the sources reviewed. Practical exercises and the six-week pilot are editorial recommendations developed for this report.