[jamestc]

>I want to read what you have to say

That's interesting because after reading and participating in a number of blogs and message boards over the years, I am really tired of what people have to say. Only because so much of it, at least within the realm of opinion and debate, is so predictable.

A lot of it is rubbish. But I'm willing to accept that such predictability and rubbish is to be expected in argumentative contexts and that perhaps writing more could lead to improved rhetoric and less repetition. Being more widely read couldn't hurt, either.

[raganwald]

"90% of Everything is crud"--Ted Sturgeon

Much of it is rubbish. So is almost every painting, almost every book of fiction, almost every poem, and for that matter, nearly every person you meet of the appropriate gender. Like grains of sand. But when you find the rare nugget of gold... It makes up for all the time you spend panning dirty water.

[sliverstorm]

Long-form can avoid this problem, because to put together a cohesive piece, you have to do a little reflection and possibly research. Plus, it is considerably higher investment on the part of the author, so if it has been said before, they'll be more likely to write about something else.

[danso]

"possibly" research? Sorry, but the attitude that research -- i.e. the consideration of history and the big picture -- might "possibly" be a part of longform writing is like saying math might be a part of good physics theories

[simon]

I see where you are coming from, but some long-form writing is itself the research. Paul Graham (IIRC) said that his essays were a way of exploring ideas. In some of my writing, I have this to be the case also. And then, of course, there are writings where the actual banging words out is a tiny sliver of the total time taken, when compared to the research component.