undefined | Better HN

0 pointsVeen5y ago0 comments

> In any case, a “wall of text” approach is disastrous in digital media.

I hear this a lot, but it seems to me true only in a limited context. "Walls of text" are disastrous in marketing and some technical content, but these should not be the standard to which all writers aspire, even if they publish exclusively online.

For example, the London Review of Books[0] is famed for its long paragraphs, but they suit the topics and discursive, nuanced argument. Chopping them into smaller chunks would not make the arguments easier to follow for the educated readers who subscribe to the LRB.

[0]: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n23/james-butler/failed-...

0 comments

ChrisMarshallNY5y ago

That’s not a “wall of text.” The typography, layout and paragraphs are done in a fashion that makes them quite readable in digital format.

Note that the paragraphs are not indented, space-separated, and the text is left-justified.

The use of a serif font is somewhat unusual for a digital medium, but it’s a very crisp, “light” font, presented with maximum contrast, on a pure white background.

That is a concession to digital media.

Also, the writing is excellent, which helps a lot.

VeenOP5y ago

Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. You said "I still believe in short paragraphs," which I did not understand to mean "I believe in excellent typography".

ChrisMarshallNY5y ago

They are not mutually exclusive. I think that I could have phrased the "wall of text" comment a bit better.

Basically, I think we've all encountered sites that have huge blocks of text that could be broken into discrete sections (AKA "paragraphs").

Paragraphing is a bit of an "artform." All of the rules are heuristics, not "hard and fast." I feel that it helps my prose to be more readable, if I break it up.

One reason is that, even though I am fairly prolific, I am not a "top notch" writer, so I need all the help I can get.

rchaud5y ago

You said the magic word: "Subscribers", i.e. people who are paying for content. LRB's reputation and audience is such that it does not need to obsess about SEO or social shares attracting the widest possible audience to show ads to.

As a result, they can stick to providing long-form writing instead of chasing whatever the new "maximize engagement/conversions" trick is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsVeen5y ago0 comments

> In any case, a “wall of text” approach is disastrous in digital media.

[0]: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n23/james-butler/failed-...

0 comments

ChrisMarshallNY5y ago

That’s not a “wall of text.” The typography, layout and paragraphs are done in a fashion that makes them quite readable in digital format.

Note that the paragraphs are not indented, space-separated, and the text is left-justified.

The use of a serif font is somewhat unusual for a digital medium, but it’s a very crisp, “light” font, presented with maximum contrast, on a pure white background.

That is a concession to digital media.

Also, the writing is excellent, which helps a lot.

VeenOP5y ago

Ah, perhaps I misunderstood. You said "I still believe in short paragraphs," which I did not understand to mean "I believe in excellent typography".

ChrisMarshallNY5y ago

They are not mutually exclusive. I think that I could have phrased the "wall of text" comment a bit better.

Basically, I think we've all encountered sites that have huge blocks of text that could be broken into discrete sections (AKA "paragraphs").

Paragraphing is a bit of an "artform." All of the rules are heuristics, not "hard and fast." I feel that it helps my prose to be more readable, if I break it up.

One reason is that, even though I am fairly prolific, I am not a "top notch" writer, so I need all the help I can get.

rchaud5y ago

As a result, they can stick to providing long-form writing instead of chasing whatever the new "maximize engagement/conversions" trick is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse