Dinesh Mamaji and I had a brief disagreement over the appropriateness of long blog posts. The discussion was cut short, because we were in the midst of a game of Pool; so I thought I’d at least offer my opinion here. I hope Mamaji finds a few minutes to clarify his position in the comments.

Why blog posts can be long, short, fat, red-haired, lisped, or whatever else the author decides:

1. Good writing loses value when the writer compromises authenticity for sellability.

   Advances in any industry depend on deviation from the norm. Otherwise, producers will continue to release material with histories of success. Innovation – disrupting the market – is an accepted risk: People might not like your cool, new approach.

   This is just as true in blogging as it is in any other field. Pushing writers into a form that is comfortable stifles their expression, which is a key component of innovation. The length of a post is merely one more factor in a writer’s personal style.

2. People will read good writing – whatever its length might be.

   I won’t read a blog post that goes on and on and never really gets to the point. I also won’t sit through a movie which introduces a fourth act just to add 45 minutes to the film time. Good content is to be appreciated – regardless of its size – and bad content is to be ignored (or worse) – regardless of its size.

   Personally, I try to get to my point quickly; and I appreciate when other writers do the same. But if there is valuable information – or a compelling story – being told in many words, I’ll invest in it.

To sum it up, the appropriateness of a blog post is directly related to the interest in the information or story that the writer creates. There are countless successful writers whose styles incorporate verbosity. And then there’s Hemingway. Who’s to say one style is better than another?