I like where you are going with this, but as an aside I'm not sure I'd take Hemingway's "Iceberg Theory" too seriously, or perhaps out of context. I think he was trying to make words count, a poetic impulse, in a time when much writing was flowery in the worst sense. Lots of words can be made to count, can create mood and ambiance like orchestration in music or spices in food, but similarly can be abused, sloppy. So he said things about icebergs. O.k., sure. I've also given lots of people lots of advice, well meant, but also meant to be what (I thought) they needed. Such statements make less sense out of the context of advice.
Those things said, what I remember most about Hemingway is descriptive. I still see his Paris, his Gulf, still have moments that feel Hemingwayesque somehow. That is, making the words count can, on good days, mean the words count for more. So even though the normative advice was pare down, the actual practice was far more complex, evocative. And sometimes the sentences were long. If I recall the opening to Moveable Feast was a paragraph long sentence . . .
Whatever that's worth, bravo re urging people to go for it, in fiction and non-fiction. My big sprawling book ships Monday . . . Keep up the good work!
I really liked this on a number of levels. For one, it makes sense of a few cultural formations which I hadn't been able to put together yet; one of them being what the implications are for writing now that, for years, podcasts of 2 or 3 (+) hours have become increasingly popular, increasingly the norm; indeed often proving to be the most popular episodes of a podcast.
This first became apparent to me listening to Geoff Shullenberger's seminal podcast Outsider Theory (as well as Emmet Penney's consistently excellent Exhaust) back closer to the time of the heart of the pandemic. There, as elsewhere, episodes went on at length and yet it never seemed dull or boring. I think Barkan is exactly right that there is an appetite for length and depth today that somehow wasn't "there" a decade or whatever ago. Part of this may be the way that pieces of such scope (whether auditory podcasts or long written pieces) serve as a kind of temporary reprieve from loneliness and fragmentation (intellectual, spiritual, social and otherwise). You can kind of crawl inside these longer works and kind of live there for a while. Perhaps in the way musicians talk about "living inside" the albums (of others) which had the most influence on them. Phenomenologically, when you lose track of the world (and yourself) reading a lengthy piece (or listening to a long episode) you often find a kind of balm, respite, or repose. And while one is engaging, one tends to feel less lonely because one is somehow "with" the writer and their voice (or the podcast guest or host and their voice). I don't mean to imply, btw, that there are not real differences between writing and podcasts (or that all writing and podcasting at length can each be seen as monolithic). Nevertheless I find it fascinating there seems to be such a considerable appetite for length, depth, and as Barkan puts it, "investment."
This is a really thoughtful piece which I hope gets a lot of traffic, and sparks further discussion.
Great piece. I hope you’re right about this being the era of audience investment. We’re due for it. Fwiw, the two millennial novels that had the greatest impact in Spain last year, one by David Uclés and the other by Sara Barquinero, were both 600+ pages. I’ve read a bit of both and I don’t love them. But perhaps a sign of the return of the big social novel at the international level. Looking forward to digging into Glass Century when I’m stateside.
Substack is what is because there are so many writers who dare to go long and offer an alternative to all the orthodoxies of web writing. And I would argue that going long and going deeper in one's writing is more fun and rewarding, and ultimately, as you hint at, results in pieces that have way more staying power than listicle #3,435 on the Beach Boys.
I'm definitely a fellow bloviator, and I'm with you on the virtues of digression, on more over less. I wrote about the importance of editors in a recent essay (https://www.soulmaking.xyz/p/we-need-editors-not-algorithms) but one of my complaints about writing that I come across often on Substack is that it's too short—I see an interesting title and a bunch of interesting ideas, but just when it seems like the author is going to really get into the argument, the piece ends too soon, and I wish that they had taken the time to really flesh out their ideas and given them the space to expand.
When a reader seeks the full experience, there is a natural desire for writing that is long, detailed, and carefully developed. Within that space, the pleasure comes from building one’s own images and films in the mind, letting imagination and creativity unfold as the writer leads the way. Reading then becomes more than information, it becomes an inner world that grows alongside the words on the page. At the same time, when the mood leans toward quick insights or concise wisdom, the short form has its own value and place. Yet it can never replace the richness of what the long form offers. Perhaps this need for different kinds of reading is itself a reminder that length is not about form, but about the depth of experience we are looking for.
As a reader, I'm suspicious of very long novels unless they are recognized classics. That's above all because of the time factor. My reading time is limited, and if I'm going to take a chance on a new novel, it makes more sense to pick up a short one than a long one. In either case though, I subject it to the 50-page test. If it doesn't grab me by page 50, I usually give up on it.
As a writer, I follow two basic principles: make every word count, and cut out the boring bits.
This is all true as long as you’re dealing with very good writers. But most aren’t. I’m a news editor for a magazine in a small city far from the coasts, and most people who want to write for us need a lot of help. It’s a wonderful thing when we get a writer we can just let loose and do what they will. That is very rare for a publication like ours, though. And unfortunately, too many would-be writers have internalized the idea that their words *are* darlings to be protected, even if it's a dispatch from a legislative committee hearing or a restaurant review.
Our own @NealStephenson is one writer who can get away with 1,000 page fiction. I just finished his cliff-hanging page-flipper REAMDE, which is that long.
I don’t think this part — “the 2000s and 2010s, in media, were a bounty for the bitesized” — is accurate, but there’s no way for anyone your age to go find out, because much of it is simply missing or inaccessible.
I worked in the media beginning in 2011 so I've got a fair amount of firsthand experience. I'm thankful the Gawker ethos is gone - a meaty piece here every 2 weeks is worth more than 7 blog posts a day
Longer can be great if people will read it…but if no one is reading a great long work than the writer is screwed.
When I think of writers influenced by Hemingway, the one who come to mind is Raymond Carver— in particular the version of Carver edited by Gordon Lish.
But regardless of length, nearly every writer can be helped by a good editor. The lack of editing is a problem with a lot of what I read on Substack from even very good writers. Although you Ross, somehow mangage to edit yourself very well.
I find, always, your intellect and intellectualism extremely engaging. I tried to do Facebook, Twitter, just couldn’t and didn’t worry about why. I want to be challenged by in depth writing regardless of the genre.
I only wish that I could afford my tastes. NYT? Want to, can’t. Subscribe to everyone or even most of those I like to read on Substack, can’t. It’s tough for the little guy, the limited income, seniors and perhaps the young who still need to be encouraged to READ!
TLDR. :)
I like where you are going with this, but as an aside I'm not sure I'd take Hemingway's "Iceberg Theory" too seriously, or perhaps out of context. I think he was trying to make words count, a poetic impulse, in a time when much writing was flowery in the worst sense. Lots of words can be made to count, can create mood and ambiance like orchestration in music or spices in food, but similarly can be abused, sloppy. So he said things about icebergs. O.k., sure. I've also given lots of people lots of advice, well meant, but also meant to be what (I thought) they needed. Such statements make less sense out of the context of advice.
Those things said, what I remember most about Hemingway is descriptive. I still see his Paris, his Gulf, still have moments that feel Hemingwayesque somehow. That is, making the words count can, on good days, mean the words count for more. So even though the normative advice was pare down, the actual practice was far more complex, evocative. And sometimes the sentences were long. If I recall the opening to Moveable Feast was a paragraph long sentence . . .
Whatever that's worth, bravo re urging people to go for it, in fiction and non-fiction. My big sprawling book ships Monday . . . Keep up the good work!
Another great piece of writing, Ross. Congrats on all of your success in the magical year you've been having, and may that become many magical years.
I really liked this on a number of levels. For one, it makes sense of a few cultural formations which I hadn't been able to put together yet; one of them being what the implications are for writing now that, for years, podcasts of 2 or 3 (+) hours have become increasingly popular, increasingly the norm; indeed often proving to be the most popular episodes of a podcast.
This first became apparent to me listening to Geoff Shullenberger's seminal podcast Outsider Theory (as well as Emmet Penney's consistently excellent Exhaust) back closer to the time of the heart of the pandemic. There, as elsewhere, episodes went on at length and yet it never seemed dull or boring. I think Barkan is exactly right that there is an appetite for length and depth today that somehow wasn't "there" a decade or whatever ago. Part of this may be the way that pieces of such scope (whether auditory podcasts or long written pieces) serve as a kind of temporary reprieve from loneliness and fragmentation (intellectual, spiritual, social and otherwise). You can kind of crawl inside these longer works and kind of live there for a while. Perhaps in the way musicians talk about "living inside" the albums (of others) which had the most influence on them. Phenomenologically, when you lose track of the world (and yourself) reading a lengthy piece (or listening to a long episode) you often find a kind of balm, respite, or repose. And while one is engaging, one tends to feel less lonely because one is somehow "with" the writer and their voice (or the podcast guest or host and their voice). I don't mean to imply, btw, that there are not real differences between writing and podcasts (or that all writing and podcasting at length can each be seen as monolithic). Nevertheless I find it fascinating there seems to be such a considerable appetite for length, depth, and as Barkan puts it, "investment."
This is a really thoughtful piece which I hope gets a lot of traffic, and sparks further discussion.
Great piece. I hope you’re right about this being the era of audience investment. We’re due for it. Fwiw, the two millennial novels that had the greatest impact in Spain last year, one by David Uclés and the other by Sara Barquinero, were both 600+ pages. I’ve read a bit of both and I don’t love them. But perhaps a sign of the return of the big social novel at the international level. Looking forward to digging into Glass Century when I’m stateside.
Substack is what is because there are so many writers who dare to go long and offer an alternative to all the orthodoxies of web writing. And I would argue that going long and going deeper in one's writing is more fun and rewarding, and ultimately, as you hint at, results in pieces that have way more staying power than listicle #3,435 on the Beach Boys.
I'm definitely a fellow bloviator, and I'm with you on the virtues of digression, on more over less. I wrote about the importance of editors in a recent essay (https://www.soulmaking.xyz/p/we-need-editors-not-algorithms) but one of my complaints about writing that I come across often on Substack is that it's too short—I see an interesting title and a bunch of interesting ideas, but just when it seems like the author is going to really get into the argument, the piece ends too soon, and I wish that they had taken the time to really flesh out their ideas and given them the space to expand.
Phenomenal as always, Ross
I abide byJimmy Breslin’s dictum: a piece of writing is too long only when it starts to get boring.
When a reader seeks the full experience, there is a natural desire for writing that is long, detailed, and carefully developed. Within that space, the pleasure comes from building one’s own images and films in the mind, letting imagination and creativity unfold as the writer leads the way. Reading then becomes more than information, it becomes an inner world that grows alongside the words on the page. At the same time, when the mood leans toward quick insights or concise wisdom, the short form has its own value and place. Yet it can never replace the richness of what the long form offers. Perhaps this need for different kinds of reading is itself a reminder that length is not about form, but about the depth of experience we are looking for.
As a reader, I'm suspicious of very long novels unless they are recognized classics. That's above all because of the time factor. My reading time is limited, and if I'm going to take a chance on a new novel, it makes more sense to pick up a short one than a long one. In either case though, I subject it to the 50-page test. If it doesn't grab me by page 50, I usually give up on it.
As a writer, I follow two basic principles: make every word count, and cut out the boring bits.
This is all true as long as you’re dealing with very good writers. But most aren’t. I’m a news editor for a magazine in a small city far from the coasts, and most people who want to write for us need a lot of help. It’s a wonderful thing when we get a writer we can just let loose and do what they will. That is very rare for a publication like ours, though. And unfortunately, too many would-be writers have internalized the idea that their words *are* darlings to be protected, even if it's a dispatch from a legislative committee hearing or a restaurant review.
Too many notes, Mozart.
Our own @NealStephenson is one writer who can get away with 1,000 page fiction. I just finished his cliff-hanging page-flipper REAMDE, which is that long.
This is what I like about you, Ross. Earnest and proud.
I don’t think this part — “the 2000s and 2010s, in media, were a bounty for the bitesized” — is accurate, but there’s no way for anyone your age to go find out, because much of it is simply missing or inaccessible.
I worked in the media beginning in 2011 so I've got a fair amount of firsthand experience. I'm thankful the Gawker ethos is gone - a meaty piece here every 2 weeks is worth more than 7 blog posts a day
Longer can be great if people will read it…but if no one is reading a great long work than the writer is screwed.
When I think of writers influenced by Hemingway, the one who come to mind is Raymond Carver— in particular the version of Carver edited by Gordon Lish.
But regardless of length, nearly every writer can be helped by a good editor. The lack of editing is a problem with a lot of what I read on Substack from even very good writers. Although you Ross, somehow mangage to edit yourself very well.
I find, always, your intellect and intellectualism extremely engaging. I tried to do Facebook, Twitter, just couldn’t and didn’t worry about why. I want to be challenged by in depth writing regardless of the genre.
I only wish that I could afford my tastes. NYT? Want to, can’t. Subscribe to everyone or even most of those I like to read on Substack, can’t. It’s tough for the little guy, the limited income, seniors and perhaps the young who still need to be encouraged to READ!