A long long time ago, before the Internet and the wide availability of electronic content, I used to read books and would even send physical letters.
Once I entered the corporate world and email, I had people telling me that I have to change my writing style. Pre-modern world and me included would use what I would call the "epistolary" style (long, detailed text). I was taught it by the literature I read or enforced in school by the style of writing I was expected to write. Essentially a bottom-up approach where you start with the premises and gradually build up your conclusion, presented at the end of the "novel".
Well problem's in the modern world nobody has the time to read your novel. I think reformulating "Nobody cares about your blog" to "Nobody has time to read your novel" would be closer to the truth.
It's not that people don't read novels anymore, it's that the quantity of content has increased 100x. Literally there's no time to go in depth over each and every wall of text you are confronted with.
So better adjust your writing style to modernity and use a top-down approach. Start with the conclusion and gradually build up the premises that led you there. Some people might read the whole content if it captures their interest but 99% will just read your summary and skim through the high level part of your content (assuming you stick to the top-down, so it gradually breaks into more and more complex parts).
I'd say there's nothing wrong with the approach and gotta keep up with the times we're living.
> Some people might read the whole content if it captures their interest but 99% will just read your summary and skim through the high level part of your content
If people don't want to read everything you wrote, that's not inherently a problem.
The problem is that people want to comment on things they haven't read, and that's a problem the writer can't solve. Lazy, superficial commenters are a pox on all writing, and the internet has enabled them. It's a feature of modern times because the internet has given superficial, super lazy commenters a platform they never had before. Anyone in the world can sign up for a social media platform and start spewing text with practically no effort or ability.
This reads like a cheap shot at people don't have the patience to deal with walls of text that can be summarised in a couple of well constructed sentences.
Long form speakers often do so to obfuscate the content. It's a hiding place.
> This reads like a cheap shot at people don't have the patience to deal with walls of text that can be summarised in a couple of well constructed sentences.
No, it's a criticism of people who make cheap shots in comments.
Again, if one doesn't have the patience for reading something, that's fine. But just walk away from the article, don't proceed to comment on something one doesn't have the patience to read. That's a disservice both to the author and to the people who did read the text.
"There's too much stuff to read on the internet" is a reason to walk away. It's not a good reason to stick around and comment.
Compared to a few decades ago, far fewer people "contemplate" issues - and instead immediately go into "knee-jerk reaction" mode. Gone is the subtle art of "thinking things over."
Sure - times have changed - but not necessarily for the better.
I had a similar awakening as I got older. Mine was mostly driven by reading non-fiction books, where the author drags a concept that could be adaquitly explained in 10 pages into a 350 page book. It just feels disrespectful of the reader: learn how to make your point in the fewest words possible.
Another "con" against the blog then: there'll be people who only flash scan the blog then pick out a bunch of fairly incorrect conclusions they jump to without considering. Which supposedly is a wide number of time starved people in the world.
And the "pro": you don't care what modern times are like. This is a blog. You get to pick who you write for. If time-short people who only want maximally-concise hand_holding business text are not your target, that's fine. You get to pick how you want to write. You can pick to ensure only better classes of readers.
A long long time ago, before the Internet and the wide availability of electronic content, I used to read books and would even send physical letters.
Once I entered the corporate world and email, I had people telling me that I have to change my writing style. Pre-modern world and me included would use what I would call the "epistolary" style (long, detailed text). I was taught it by the literature I read or enforced in school by the style of writing I was expected to write. Essentially a bottom-up approach where you start with the premises and gradually build up your conclusion, presented at the end of the "novel".
Well problem's in the modern world nobody has the time to read your novel. I think reformulating "Nobody cares about your blog" to "Nobody has time to read your novel" would be closer to the truth.
It's not that people don't read novels anymore, it's that the quantity of content has increased 100x. Literally there's no time to go in depth over each and every wall of text you are confronted with.
So better adjust your writing style to modernity and use a top-down approach. Start with the conclusion and gradually build up the premises that led you there. Some people might read the whole content if it captures their interest but 99% will just read your summary and skim through the high level part of your content (assuming you stick to the top-down, so it gradually breaks into more and more complex parts).
I'd say there's nothing wrong with the approach and gotta keep up with the times we're living.