Short or Long-Form Writing?
October 22, 2009 at 9:15 am by Chris
If it is about content, will snippets trump books and will we all be dumber for it? As someone who has never mastered the art of the snippet, let me proudly count myself as one who still sees profound value in the long form where texture and nuance can be teased out and explored... Snippets of information, loosely coupled, have enormous value in enhancing peripheral awareness and provoking new ideas. At the same time, snippets of information alone are deeply dangerous. They distract us with never-ending waves of surface events, spreading us ever thinner and obscuring the deeper structures and dynamics that ultimately are shaping these surface events. Those of us who stay only on the surface, swimming in a sea of snippets, will ultimately lose sight of land. We need books, or whatever the digital long forms of content are that will replace the book, to help us penetrate the surface and explore the deeper structures and dynamics that make sense of the changes around us.
Don't Panic! We're in the thick of it, but all is not lost.
There is a place for both short and long-form writing.
Short-Form (Blogs)
Long-Form (Newsletter Articles)
Patience No matter what format you choose to write with, you must be patient and let your voice develop over time. Writing is an art that takes years of repetitive practice to do even passingly well. Again, I'm not sure where I am with that, but I know by reading things I wrote even last year that any improvement from then I owe to the commitment to regular writing. |
Tags: blogging writing content-strategy social-media marketing
EmailComments 
|
|
October 25, 2009 1:27 PM Totally disagree about long-format writing. A few years from now, nobody will write that way. Why? Because nobody will read it. It's that simple. |
|
|
October 25, 2009 3:50 PM I disagree with you Allenra. Plenty of people still read long formats. If you spend too much time on the web, then you start to loose sight of that, but working in libraries has shown me that people of all ages still read long formats, despite the somewhat lopsided perspective a lot of web-centric folks have. |
|
|
October 25, 2009 6:30 PM I'm with Joe on this. People have been worrying about whether and what and how much the public reads for about as long as there's been a mass culture, and the internet is not the first change in technology to be fretted over as the death of reading. Yet somehow people keep reading. If anything, internet culture provides more ways for long-form writing to engage with audiences than before. The corollary of Lunsford's work--which shows that exposure to the internet and related technologies is making students more frequent, adept, and audience-focused writers than students in previous recent generations--is that the increased amount of writing is being received by an increasing number of readers. I don't see any reason why it should be one or the other, short form or long form; it seems like cultivating a culture of reading in general should only increase its importance all around. |
|
|
October 29, 2009 8:51 AM Thank you for this post. It's a topic of great interest to me. Perhaps the guiltiest in leading us down the path of short-format supremacy is the online news website. We must be honest with ourselves; we live in the Information Age, where the populus is gripped by a swollen appetite for facts. Figures. Names. Places- concise things of the short order. Most want to cast as broad a net over the internet as possible, as to drag in as many ankle depth tadpoles, if you will, as possible. Perhaps you'll bring up a salamander, but only on an awfully good day. Everyday, I look at the New York Times online, and acknowledge how people wish to perceive the news: The latest crisis notice that straddles front page is juxtaposed with more bad news to the left, a twelve inch string of countless categories further west, to the east rest further headlines, ready to be supplanted by...more headlines. The trend continues below. I believe this not only to be a cumbersome and overwhelming arrangement, but also indicative of the lack of depth- highly contrary to this paper's legacy as a printed edition. For she has always been an effortlessly graceful tactile assemblage of current events and colorful insight- our beloved Grey Lady. The online edition is then, however, an awkward, braces-clad, bumbling younger sister. Hagel may be on to something. In the modern combat between breadth and depth, breadth does appear to be having his way. But for those of us who wish to see Marsha recover, and put Jan into her place once more, there is hope. Certain news websites are less constipated than the Times. For instance, when I opt to visit the Christian Science Monitor online, I am greeted by a more diluted and yet more sincere form of news- stories; stories to be read in detail, that are both informative and provocative. I think News should be considered more for its long-format, as it is the role of the journalist to interpret current events, and make sense of the humanity behind them. Any thoughts? Keep up the great work, Chris. |
|
|
October 29, 2009 3:56 PM Check out Peter Block's book "Community: The Structure of Belonging." The book is structured in a way that can allow a quick read or a full read, or combination. This, I think, is the solution: to allow one to get the gist, but offer more depth for later reading and reflection. |
|
|
October 29, 2009 4:04 PM @Allenra, I agree with Joe and Sarah- I read lots of long form content and will continue to do so. @Joe Grobelny, Thanks for vouching for the long form! What library do you work for? @Sarah Dooley, That's what was a surprise to me about Lunsford's study. I didn't expect positive results, but she has a pretty strong case for the web increasing students' exposure to written content. @Martin, You wrote, "For she has always been an effortlessly graceful tactile assemblage of current events and colorful insight- our beloved Grey Lady. The online edition is then, however, an awkward, braces-clad, bumbling younger sister." I'm not sure I could have put it any better myself, or any stranger, for that matter ;-) Thanks for the comment! @Joe Keenan, Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely check out the book. |
|
|
October 30, 2009 10:32 PM According to my research, marketing sites focused on blogs say to write a succinct post at least once a day to generate the most traffic. But I like to write in the long form. It's nearly impossible for me to create a well researched and informative 5-10 page essay every day. I average 1 of those a month. Unfortunately I find that most people do not stick around for the long form explorative essays on my blog. The blog is to help promote a non-fiction book, which is also (by it's nature) long form. But the internet and book's are two different medium, and to compete on the web may require a different strategy. At least if the amount of visitors to your site that actually read your content is important to you. To me it certainly is, so more posts with shorter content is the direction I'll follow. |
|
|
November 16, 2009 3:02 PM Derek, I hear what you're saying. I used to write much longer blog posts, but don't as often now for similar reasons. Some people are definitely not going to have the ability to read them in full, so I try to write posts of varying length. Also, because I write our newsletters once a month, which are much longer, I don't have the time to write a ton of long posts, so it works out for me and the readers (I assume). Chris |












Share
DIIGO