3 ms·

> For example, instead of writing one long post per month, you write one small one each week. > The long monthly post is more difficult to pull off because the

> For example, instead of writing one long post per month, you write one small one each week. > The long monthly post is more difficult to pull off because the payoff is so far off, and requires so much more. It isn't the writing that is difficult, but persisting in writing. That's interesting, because in this case, I would actually recommend the opposite: instead of trying to put out an article a week, write an article a month. He said: > the writing style is in-consistent and poor, the points are not strong, research is shallow — most of which come when I see how others write and inevitably start comparing them with mine. I did end up finishing the post but I just don't value what I did. Quality research and writing takes time. With experience comes skill, and that can reduce the time it takes, but if you're not there yet, going faster won't make the product better. And if you're discouraged because of lack of quality, putting out equal or worse quality won't help motivation. Instead, slow down. Pick a topic you're really interested in, that you think will help others in a significant way, and spend a whole month on it. Work on it for 30-60 minutes a day; if you average 45 minutes a day for a month, that's around 20 hours. You can research and write something worth reading in 20 hours, and you can give yourself enough time to do it well, with proofreading and even gathering feedback. In other words, take the time to do work you can be proud of. If your only deadline is self-imposed, why rush? There is a never-ending supply of fluff on the Internet, and adding your own fluff won't make any difference in the end. As an amateur writer--one who does it for the love of writing--take the time to do it right; it's a luxury many writers would envy.

Bartweiss 10y ago
This feels like a better answer. I'm increasingly of the opinion that any piece taking on a rich, challenging topic needs to be a few thousand words at least. Anything less means that important rebuttals go unaddressed and evidence gets cherry-picked. If you can fit your prescription for Syria into a 500 word column, you can't possibly have included enough information to lead your readers to an informed conclusion. At best you've offered an idea without claiming to prove it, at worst you've tossed off a handful of facts and pretended to rigor. If you want good small, frequent posts, you'd better keep your scope similarly small. Tell me about a campaign speech and its significance, but don't diagnose the entire election. Or pick a settled technical topic and just be didactic, but be prepared to research every sentence. It's fun to write bold, strident essays on a topic, but it doesn't do very much. The value-added part is the fact-finding and fact-checking slog, and I think a lot of people (myself included) underestimate just how much more time goes into researching a good essay than actually writing it. Just as you said, a good work on a big topic takes tens of hours, even to address one aspect. For me, this means that I abandon a lot of work - I care enough to write about it (fun), but not enough to firmly ground that writing (exhausting). So I try to either escape the problem with speculative writing, or judge my interest early on and decide whether to follow through before wasting time. So when I hear someone say that the analysis in their writing is weak, and their research is shallow, I'm hopeful! It means that they're writing with enough self-awareness to actually seek the truth.

Bartweiss 10y ago

This feels like a better answer. I'm increasingly of the opinion that any piece taking on a rich, challenging topic needs to be a few thousand words at least. Anything less means that important rebuttals go unaddressed and evidence gets cherry-picked. If you can fit your prescription for Syria into a 500 word column, you can't possibly have included enough information to lead your readers to an informed conclusion. At best you've offered an idea without claiming to prove it, at worst you've tossed off a handful of facts and pretended to rigor. If you want good small, frequent posts, you'd better keep your scope similarly small. Tell me about a campaign speech and its significance, but don't diagnose the entire election. Or pick a settled technical topic and just be didactic, but be prepared to research every sentence. It's fun to write bold, strident essays on a topic, but it doesn't do very much. The value-added part is the fact-finding and fact-checking slog, and I think a lot of people (myself included) underestimate just how much more time goes into researching a good essay than actually writing it. Just as you said, a good work on a big topic takes tens of hours, even to address one aspect. For me, this means that I abandon a lot of work - I care enough to write about it (fun), but not enough to firmly ground that writing (exhausting). So I try to either escape the problem with speculative writing, or judge my interest early on and decide whether to follow through before wasting time. So when I hear someone say that the analysis in their writing is weak, and their research is shallow, I'm hopeful! It means that they're writing with enough self-awareness to actually seek the truth.