Posts from — August 2009

Kitchen Timer by LynGi

Why does length of story indicate whether something is a feature, or conversely a pedantic blurb?

Why does frequency of publication matter?

When we set out to write, shouldn’t we write about the things that matter to us?

At that point, shouldn’t we write for however long it takes to cover the story?

My concerns stem from several sources: experts on blogging say that you have to continually publish something to maintain an audience, Dan Lyons (a.k.a. Fake Steve Jobs) whining about having to write a hundred-word feature, and reading about the 13,000 word megastory on the Health Care Crisis that will probably only get read by people who are already acolytes for the cause.

However on the other side of the issue is the web’s creativity guru Merlin Mann telling us that it doesn’t take much to tell a compelling story (so long as that’s the goal), or web standard savant Jeffery Zeldman challenging us to combat the blogosphere’s noise by writing when we’re inspired.

The great thing about media in an on-demand world, is that it’s just that: on demand. We don’t need to write to fill space or talk to fill time. We tell our stories when it’s time for them to be told, with the intent to give them the focus they need.

I guess we could think about it this way– which is more compelling: a poem that alludes to emotion and the specific, or a 5-page paper that stumbles over itself in an attempt to fill space. If we want to get more practical and less academic, try this on for size again: a politician who is unequivocal in his answer of “Yes, No, or Maybe” to a direct question, or a candidate who distracts from the issue and rambles on for three minutes until the timer changes color.

I feel that I write best when I have something to say, or I’m addressing an issue that went unaddressed. I communicate at my worst when I ramble to fill 5 minutes, or because I need to post “something” to maintain consistent web traffic, or because a columnist didn’t submit their article leading me to use unsound logic while relying on polemic arguments or ad hominem attacks.

However, deadlines and constraints are mostly good. They force leaders to answer the question. They make designers, writers, creators, craftsmen churn out usable products or unexpected solutions. Garr Reynolds and Nancy Duarte, “presentation” experts, have often said that more managers need to think like designers because they can think best within constraints, communicate at the audience’s level, and focus on the essentials of the idea (making them concrete).

As with most things, it comes down to the spirit vs. the letter of the principle or law. Deadlines become misused when writers who have nothing to write about end up writing about nothing in order to meet the monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly deadline. Constraints become abused by students, teachers, debate moderators, anchors, and producers when we write to fill space, talk to fill time (or don’t talk long enough), resulting in rambling papers or vague and abstract soundbites that are essentially hot air.

I could offer a conclusion because that’s the expected format, or let you draw your own conclusion.

• What are other examples of how we abuse or misuse constraints?
• How can we combat meaningless noise, and give quality the legs needed to stand?