How long is too long?

24 inches for the Second Coming.

Scale appropriately downward from there.

 

Love to see some guys show enough self-restraint to produce 500 words that earn the space.
Any dipshit can write a 25-inch football story.

 

That's a tough one. I have gotten heaps of praise from parents over 11-inch stories. I try to hold gamers to 16-18 inches. Features 25-30.

 

I have thoughts on this.
I'm the SE of a Big 12 daily.

This may not work TONIGHT ON DEADLINE.
But, as a philosophy, I want every single word that adds to the story, but not one more.

Frequently, in the past, I've cut 850 word stories to 600, or 650 to 475, etc.
And that happened because they had 600 or 475 good words in their story.

I'm pretty happy with my writers now, but I remain reticent about asking somebody for 500 words, because sometimes they'll give me 500 for a story that, for all they really have to say, should have been 350.

The way you present your editor, it sounds like he or she has hard and fast rules. But that's ridiculous. A good story is a good story, and a story will always be the best when it's complete, and limiting that to 15 inches is crazy. On the other hand, a mid-season high school basketball game against a non-rival when the game was over by the half, well, the best that can be may be 12 inches and anything more is just beating a dead horse.

Moral of the story?
I hate hard and fast rules for stuff like this.
It ALWAYS depends on the story.

Just because I'm commenting, here's my best tips on making it "not a word longer than it's supposed to be."

- minimize prepositional phrases
(typically, they create wordiness)
- cut the quotes down to what works best in your story
(just because the coach kept talking, doesn't mean your readers have to listen)
(or, don't let somebody's bad quote get in the way of your good story)
- delete any paragraph that begins "In the first quarter, …"
(Try to write NO play-by-play; what you can't avoid is probably necessary)
- be off and running from the start
(if history's part of the angle, get it in between commas; don't get bogged down)

 

The Washington Post lets its writers go long. Too long. I often found myself only reading half of even a great Harlan (or Adam Kilgore) gamer. There's no reason a regular-season baseball game needs 800 words. Give that same level of caring and craftsmanship to 500-600 words.

 

I've noticed a big change in that over the last 20 years or so. People today have shorter attention spans and many of them have seen the game in person or on TV before they pick up a paper or click on the website. Unless it's a really good feature or enterprise piece, I don't think many people will read through 25-inch stories anymore.

Plus, we all know that newsholes have gotten smaller in recent years. So it pays to write tight.

As a writer, I prefered to write tight and control what was printed rather than the desk hacking away and cutting a quote or transition I happened to like. As a desk editor, I preferred the writer cut his/her own copy rather than making me do it on deadline when I have 20 other things to do in the next 20 minutes.

As a desk editor, I would tell reporters "get in, say what you need to say and get out". Sometimes, if it was a really busy night or tight newshole, I would give them a specific length. I've had guys send in a 50-inch gamer and I sent it back with instructions to cut it in half or I would.

 

That's a good point, too. If you want to emphasize something --- and have the space to do so --- I would prefer to have 2 or 3 separate items rather than one giant game story. Again, I just think people are likely to read shorter stuff. When I see large, long blocks of copy something in my mind asks "Can I read all of this before the light turns green?" If not, I usually don't begin.

 

If you can't write it in 12 inches don't write it. That's what was told to me once by an editor and I found that to be true in many cases.
But give the story the length it deserves. Check with your desk and your editors to see what they have room for. Good luck.

 

This same explanation was given to me once, almost exactly word-for-word. In 1986. It's not "the last 20 years," by any means.

 

I think this is an appropriate approach. I argue that it takes time and polish to be good at 400 words, and if you give people 10-12 inches as a max, they will either turn in a AP recap with little color or they'll go over the mark sloppily and force you to cut. The better one gets, the <i>more</i> succinct one should be, not less.

Brevity is a virtue, but these days, it's one of the last lessons you learn. Or, if you're really talented, you may not learn it at all. In our current sportswriting culture, it's like the best writers are expected to blow past brevity with the force a dumptruck unloading words while work-a-day guys are cut to the bone before they ever get much better. This is perfectly fine for ESPN, which subsidizes all of its writers on the back of live events on TV. It seems like a curious approach for newspapers.

 

When I was an intern, they'd send us out to cover a game and write 15 inches on it. As soon as we were done, they would tell us, "Now cut it to 12." Sometimes they would make us then cut to 10.

I hated it at the time, but it was such an awesome thing to learn to do. I wish more places did that...

 

Exactly. You learned how to write tight and how to write what's important. The good ones can use that space wisely and at the same time, incorporate their style.