[lukepalmVA]

Yes agreed, the idea of getting better "value" bc an author spent more time on a book is dumb, its based on a labor theory of value, when it is completely irrelevant. I think books are highly redundant especially non-fiction ones,when most often their contents (of average 250 pg book) could be summed up in a 10 page paper (at most). so it would make more sense to re read a cliff notes summary, but maybe books are like a built in study tool, forcing you to connect examples and stuff with each concept so it becomes memorable.

[rperez333]

I spent about 4 years creating educational videos and posts, and it's not irrelevant: it takes a ton of time, especially writing and editing, to make a video short and dense in information. That said, I created videos because I could charge way more for them — even if it for myself, I would rather have the content in the written/illustrated form.

Maybe the problem today is the lack of financial incentives to create good, but short written content?

From the point of view of the consumer, “short content” has a big problem: a short summary from a 250-page non-fiction book rarely creates a profound effect on the person reading it. I'm not surely why, but my guess is, without the anecdotes and examples, the hero journey, and the more complex narrative, we don't take the content as seriously and even approachable for ourselves.