Been meaning to argue with Garson and others about their own statements concerning online readability and length of stories, mainly because they seem to be over confident in their digital attention deficiencies. I admit to being attracted to shorter works, but when I inventory my short fiction reading over the past year I can confirm that these are my habits:
1) I only read short fiction online.
2) While I may gravitate toward briefer fictions, I end up reading an even mix of long and short-short.
Online fiction is much more vital, engaging, and exciting to me. I become depressed by the preserved aesthetic that pervades stories appearing in traditional lit magazines. (I hear this is changing, though, so I will endeavor to keep an open mind). As for length, it turns out that I will stick with anything that catches me with the title and opening paragraph, and I am less inclined to read anything, no matter how brief, that plods or is muted/coy.
6 comments:
fair enough, fair enough....
for me it's really true that if a full-length story hooks me enough to read it on the screen, that's a damn good story. I'm more forgiving w/ full-length stories in print. I'll read them even if I'm not all that taken w/ them...
i like the idea of poeople having blogs to confirm habits to people who may or may not be reading their blog. i am glad that you confirmed your habits. i believe in confirmation. i believe in. i believe. i.
scott--important point, yeah I'm a very lazy reader.Unfaithful, even.
barry--sure, you are a good example of things. you are america.
ha ha. im gonna quote you on that.
www.dogzplot.com
i posted it. check it out.
wow, I feel like I won an award or something. seriously.
Post a Comment