When did "long" become a dirty word?

[Dick Whitman]

Twice here this week, I have seen it stated that a story was "good," but "too long."

That was on the Voros McCracken story and the New Yorker piece on football concussions.

Neither seemed "too long" to me. Both were packed with information and telling anecdotes.

Someone also criticized Chris Jones for writing long takeouts. And I remember a few weeks ago someone, in reference to magazine takeout writers, saying something along the lines of, "Not everyone wants to masturbate for 15 pages." Can't remember what thread that was.

My question: Do people really think that these particular stories were too long? Or that no stories should be that long?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

When Twitter was invented.

 

[dooley_womack1]

A story can be too long, if it wanders, the prose isn't compelling enough, if too many needless facts are put in, etc. I don't know about these pieces, but just saying that a long story isn't automatically bad, but it's not automatically good either. However long a story is, it needs to be tight and concise.

 

[Boom_70]

A story can be too long, if it wanders, the prose isn't compelling enough, if too many needless facts are put in, etc. I don't know about these pieces, but just saying that a long story isn't automatically bad, but it's not automatically good either. However long a story is, it needs to be tight and concise.

Problem is dearth of quality long form writers. I was just reading something about that last week.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Let me be clear: If someone thinks that long pieces, even good long pieces, don't have a place in modern-day journalism because readers don't have the attention span for it and it is an inefficient use of space, that is certainly a reasonable opinion. It saddens me that they may be correct, but it is a reasonable opinion to have.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

I'm a little different. I'll read 10,000 on an obscure Albanian poet if it tells me a great story (a New Yorker specialty). I won't read 500 on baseball if it doesn't. Well, maybe on baseball I would.

 

[Boom_70]

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

I'm willing to read anything the New Yorker puts out even if my level of interest is not high. I figure I will learn something new.

Part of problem may be what some talked about on another thread. Long form is hard to follow on web site.

 

[slappy4428]

Long is a subjective word -- set by the point where the reader starts to get bored. I know of one guy who can't write anything on his area college that isn't overwritten by at least a power of three. I know of another who makes up for writing long by being dry, boring and plodding. I know of another writer at the other end of the state where I usually want to know more.

 

[Versatile]

Let me preface this by saying I try to read at least one 5,000-word article almost every day, along with many shorter ones.

I felt the McCracken piece was too long. Its content was simply not strong enough to carry a story of its length. It came across as an untuned biography.

And I believe the story was hardly unique to Yahoo! or ESPN or many other web-only longform entities. I don't believe there's a lack of longform writers, I do believe that longform stories are not getting edited nearly as strenuously at online ventures as they must at a newspaper or magazine. As a result, no one is combing for inefficiencies.

In one sweep through that McCracken feature, I could have shaved probably 500 words off without even really changing the content. But I suppose the question is, why? There's an infinite amount of space available to a web-only story.

I think that's bad logic, even though I do believe most readers who sit down to read a longer piece don't care much if it's 4,000 words of 5,500 words. Strong editing and intelligent trimming can make a story much stronger.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I have no probelm reading "long" articles (for the reasons previously offered), however, I clicked on the SL Price link, saw it was 10 pages and passed.

 

[FileNotFound]

The problem is not long stories. The problem is long bad stories.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

I'm a little different. I'll read 10,000 on an obscure Albanian poet if it tells me a great story (a New Yorker specialty). I won't read 500 on baseball if it doesn't. Well, maybe on baseball I would.

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

I'm willing to read anything the New Yorker puts out even if my level of interest is not high. I figure I will learn something new.

There's too much good stuff out there to waste any time on something you know you don't like.

I hate onions -- I'm not going to eat the best and biggest one for the hell of it.

 

[silent_h]

I think we all can agree that "long" is a relative term. It's pretty much in the mind of the reader, and depends on interest level in a particular topic, enjoyment of reading in the first place, etc. One man's verbal masturbation is another's engrossing story.

That said, versatile is right: smart, strenuous editing -- before, during, and after writing that first draft -- makes longer pieces sing. I think anyone who has poured their heart and soul into a lengthy piece, and gone a little crazy along the way, would tell you that.

Editors who can do that -- who have the time and experience to do that -- are in short supply, in both the print and online worlds.

I think that's a shame, because it's those very editors who will make current writers of longer pieces better, and it's some of those writers who will become future editors.

I concur that it's a little harder on the eyes to read a long story on a computer screen, and damn near impossible on a mobile device.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

I'm a little different. I'll read 10,000 on an obscure Albanian poet if it tells me a great story (a New Yorker specialty). I won't read 500 on baseball if it doesn't. Well, maybe on baseball I would.

Depends on your interest level. I'm not going to read 2,000 words about golf or auto racing. I'll read 10,000 about baseball.

I'm willing to read anything the New Yorker puts out even if my level of interest is not high. I figure I will learn something new.

There's too much good stuff out there to waste any time on something you know you don't like.

I hate onions -- I'm not going to eat the best and biggest one for the hell of it.

I read a story about bananas in The New Yorker. I hate bananas. But it was an interesting story.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

The McCracken story wasn't all that great. Could have been. Should have been a nice, in-depth character study. Comes across as an article based off a short phone conversation with the guy. Provided little color about the guy, doesn't show him going about his day. Solid article, but probably not written to generate interest from anyone who doesn't already like the topic.

 

[silent_h]

The McCracken story wasn't all that great. Could have been. Should have been a nice, in-depth character study. Comes across as an article based off a short phone conversation with the guy. Provided little color about the guy, doesn't show him going about his day. Solid article, but probably not written to generate interest from anyone who doesn't already like the topic.

This is where the current economics of our business hurt stories. Time and travel will always help a longer piece -- in some ways, they're the backbone of reporting a longer piece, because they're essential to observation and nuanced thought -- but are they really worth the investment? Do they pay off in page clicks and advertising dollars?

I supposed that's for readers to decide.

 

[SF_Express]

I'm one of those -- and understand, I work in this business -- who, when I click on a webpage to start a story and there's "Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12" at the bottom, I'm going to have to have a hell of a good reason to read it.

Example: There was a story in the New York Times in December about how Alberto Salazar was coaching runners and one of his big deals was to remake the strides of several of his guys -- including some top Americans, world-class -- to be even better. Completely remake the strides they had had since they were old enough to run.

I read every word. But how many people were going to page through THAT. Not many. And I think it was only four or five pages.

 

[shockey]

I have no probelm reading "long" articles (for the reasons previously offered), however, I clicked on the SL Price link, saw it was 10 pages and passed.

bingo! i don't entirely understand why, but while i look forward to reading s.l. price's piece in s.i., i had no desire or patience to read 10 pages on-line.

maybe it's the same reason art is essential to papers, whether dressing up short or long stories. is there some psychology at play here?

 

[Boom_70]

I print out the long stories and keep them in file for future reading. I know it's not very green of me but my offset is my Kindle where I get my newspapers.