Comments on: Feedback desired: Through-write or Segment?

By: walt

walt — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:31:22 +0000

Certainly interesting. The single-essay issues have, with some exceptions, done very well in readership. What I’m dealing with here are essays that I think are just too long for an issue–and, particularly given that I still lack sponsorship, “too long” is anything over 20,000 words.

The rough draft of the lead April essay is just under 33,000 words. Unless an edited version drops by a lot, I’ll split it across two issues. For the moment, I am going with “throughwriting” where that’s at all feasible…and watching what happens.

By: laura

laura — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:23:12 +0000

I am tempted to say that I like the big long essay all in one issue issues, but it may be that it’s just that I am more interested in the topics of those issues? I’m not entirely sure. I’ve read both kinds with pleasure in the past (and whether or not I read a piece in C&I is related mostly to 1) am I interested in the topic? 2) how much time do I have to devote to reading the issue when it comes out? 3) how much of the source material am I familiar with (because I am fundamentally lazy and will pretty much never go look up a piece without a hyperlink to it–sometimes I skim the essays where I’ve read most of the source material and sometimes I read them more carefully; the ones where I haven’t read it, I tend to skim more, I think.)

I’m not at all sure that any of this is interesting or useful to you, but there you go.

By: walt

walt — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:06:41 +0000

Thanks–that’s exactly the kind of feedback I’m looking for, although I should clarify: The piecemeal approach still results in fairly long essays (typically 5,000-8,000 words), but shorter and scattered across more issues.

By: bibliotecaria

bibliotecaria — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:32:15 +0000

I would prefer the thoughtwriting approach with consecutive issues. It is easier for me to then follow your thoughts. Piece writing that appears piecemeal feels more disjointed to me. I am NOT one of those who works in short bytes; I prefer deep writing, even if I can’t read it all at once.

This is related to my incredulity whenever someone says that blog writing is meant to be short, or when a blogger apologizes for a long post. Who made that rule?

I know C&I isn’t a blog, but underlying both thoughts is the fact that I LIKE longer writing.

By: walt

walt — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:22:09 +0000

Certainly helpful. Thanks. (As for agreeing with my disagreements: I’ve always said that anyone who agrees with me all the time probably isn’t reading carefully.)

By: Michael Golrick

Michael Golrick — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:25:19 +0000

First, I read every issue, cover to cover (wait, I just skim the movie reviews). There is ALWAYS great content. Because of the thoughtful way they are designed, their length, and where I get to read them (mostly at the Reference Desk in quiet moments), I print each issue out. In some libraries, I routed them to the management team. Currently, I just save them.

Having said that, I am not sure that, as a reader, there is a significant difference for me. There is always good content, and thoughtful cogent remarks about what others have said. (This is true even when you disagree with someone, and sometimes I agree with you, and sometimes not.)

Perhaps it is because much of my reading is in “snippets” that I find this to be true. In reading the longer essay, I try to finish at least a “section” (i.e., the content under an italicized heading) before I put it down. If I am interrupted, I usually have to go back to the beginning of that section to pick up the thread.

I am not sure if my comments are helpful, but they are truthful.