Abd wrote:
[400+ words that I didn't read all of and so won't bother to quote]
As a grave sufferer of logorrhea myself, it's tempting to write several hundred words here myself, but I'll settle for fifty.
It doesn't matter how you justify a too-long screed; if its length prevents people from reading it (and it will), your message is lost. It's as simple as that.
At 11:28 AM 6/3/2010, Steve Summit wrote:
It doesn't matter how you justify a too-long screed; if its length prevents people from reading it (and it will), your message is lost. It's as simple as that.
Problems with this concept:
Length will not prevent all from reading it. Rather, those will read it who are interested. Others won't. The message is not lost, it's in the archive, and, in any case, I know for a fact that some read the long posts, and appreciate them. Some comment on list, a few. Others take the trouble of thanking me by email. So, you can blame them!
"Screed" implies an emotional state on the part of the writer. It's a snap judgment, if you don't read the piece. And this is one of the "assumptions" I wrote about that can interfere with understanding.
Basically, length will indeed prevent some from reading, but these are not my target audience, except for a few. (I.e., there are some who don't read simply because they don't have time.)
Underneath all this is a presumption that I have time to write more condensed material. I don't, generally. When I do have the time, and have a point to make, i.e., some message I consider necessary to communicate effectively to a broad audience, I do it.
So, practically speaking, the choice is between writing what I write, or not writing at all, not between writing longer or shorter pieces.