Creative nonfiction is a relatively young genre. People have been writing true stories in a fun way for a while, as noted in an article on Creative Nonfiction that traces the genre's origins through Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, and the New Journalism movement, all the way back to classical writers like Herodotus and Plutarch. But as far as the genre as it's understood and defined today, that really started in 1969, when editor Norman Podhoretz was said to have coined the term. That's not very long in literary movement terms, so it's understandable that a lot of people still seem to be a bit fuzzy on exactly what creative nonfiction is.
Partly this is because there are several types of writing included under the broader umbrella of creative nonfiction—and, making things more complicated, not everybody agrees exactly which should belong to the club. Most definitions exclude criticism and scholarly writings but there are gray areas when these are paired with a narrative, and there's an even blurrier line separating creative nonfiction from journalism.
I completely understand why writers might find the process of submitting overwhelming. It's not a lack of resources. I'd say it's the opposite problem. There are so many newsletters and online listings for finding publishers that it can be hard to even figure out where to start.
Currently, I’d say there’s three clear top publisher databases: Duotrope, Submission Grinder, and Chill Subs. All three have built-in submission trackers, which means they provide user-reported stats along with info on submission guidelines and other relevant details. I've used all of these sites at various points but I wouldn't say that any one of them is perfect, or even the definitive best option for every writer. Here are my thoughts on the pros and cons of each site and which situations, genres, or types of writers it's the best for.
My copywriting clients have split into two pretty defined camps when it comes to their stance on AI. Most of them explicitly do not want AI involved at any stage in the process (this is the largest group in part because this is the kind of stuff I prefer to write, so these are the clients I purposefully seek out). There are a few that take the opposite approach, though—where I'm either hired to edit AI-generated text and make it sound “human” or I'm given a topic and/or prompt and asked to create copy and refine it to make it publication-ready.
Because of this, I get a lot of first-hand experience with AI writing. I also regularly use AI checkers, and have found that they vary dramatically in the accuracy of their results. I would say that a well-honed human reader is going to be better at spotting AI text, because it definitely has a distinctive tone unless it's prompted very well. I've also noticed some specific phrasings, punctuation, and sentence structures that often come up in AI-generated content. All that said, the difficulty that AI checkers often have separating human from AI text is a sign of how tricky it can be to identify exactly what gives writing that AI vibe.
There are some types of creatures that seem to pop up all over world mythology and folklore. I've written about a few of them before, like dragons and little folk. One of the most intriguing categories of pervasive monsters for me as a cryptid nerd is the hairy apeman archetype, exemplified in current pop culture most often as the enigmatic Bigfoot.
Even moreso than other well-known cryptids like Nessie or Mothman, Bigfoot exists in the liminal space between folklore and reality. The sheer number of reported encounters with Sasquatch/Yeti type creatures over the years is its own fascinating phenomenon, even for those who don't personally believe the creature could exist. It's also the cryptid that people are most likely to believe in. A 2022 poll from Civic Science showed that 13% of U.S. adults believe Sasquatch is a real, living creature, which is lower than the percentage who believe aliens have visited Earth (31%) but higher than those who believe in Nessie (9%). A poll from the Association of Religion Data Archives has slightly higher figures, with 13% responding that Bigfoot probably exists, and an additional 3% responding that it absolutely exists.
And these statistics are just within the United States. There are iterations of this creature archetype that go by various names in pretty much every corner of the world. In some places, it's seen as a purely fictional folklore monster, while in others it's accepted broadly as a real creature that lives in the more wild parts of the landscape.
I've resisted the idea of self-publishing a book-length manuscript for many years. Not out of any sense that traditional publishing is “better”—it's more that the process of self-publishing has always felt a bit overwhelming. What I've realized recently, though, is that I already use a lot of the same skills for my other projects, like producing the issues for After Happy Hour and publishing the prompt journals for Scribble House. This has brought me around to a new outlook on self-publishing my fiction. Yes, the process is a lot of work, but I'm slowly gaining confidence in my ability to do it, and am tentatively building toward self-publishing a book in the first half of 2026.
With this new goal on my radar, I've been doing a lot of research lately into all of those skills beyond just writing well that you need to be a successful self-published author, and figured it might be helpful for other folks contemplating this question. As I see it, there are four big-picture steps beyond the writing stage that each require their own sets of skills.
One of my biggest literary pet peeves is the mindset that genre and literary fiction are completely separate entities. What bugs me about this division most is that there's an implied hierarchy, where literary fiction is a higher form of art and all genre fiction is inherently worse—which simply isn't true. There are tons of sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and mystery stories that pay the same attention to craft and language as the works in the literary canon. On the other side, I'd also say that I've read my fair share of poorly written realistic stories.
The reality is that writing quality and plot-driven narratives are not mutually exclusive, and how literary something is has nothing to do with whether the story it tells is realistic or not. I think part of the problem here is that “literary” has become a kind of catch-all term, often used to refer to any realistic fiction that doesn't fit neatly into another category. A story isn't automatically literary just because it's a realistic story with low action, any more than a story is automatically not literary just because it has supernatural elements.
“Don't judge a book by its cover” is a nice thought, especially as it's applicable to, say, other people. When it comes to actual books, though, readers absolutely do judge books by their cover, and while this might be a hot take, I don't think that's a problem. I would argue it's the whole reason the cover exists in the first place. Not just to entice readers (though that's part of it) but also to inform them about the kind of story they're getting into and help them decide if it's something they'd enjoy reading.
This has become especially important in the modern era of publishing. It's a great thing that self-publishing has taken down some barriers that used to stop writers from sharing their work. That said, it also means readers can't count on a book being well-written or telling a complete, interesting story just because it's been put out into the world. These days, readers can't be sure whether a human even wrote the damn thing. If your book's cover is pixelated and grainy, or looks obviously AI generated, that doesn't inspire confidence in readers that what's inside will be worth their time.
