44 Comments

Summary:

With so much discussion about how the Internet is changing journalism and media, there’s surprisingly little said about how writing itself has changed. But as more people have spent more time writing on the Internet this past decade, the way we write has changed significantly.

In a famous passage from “Ulysses,” James Joyce recapitulates the development of the English language in 45 pages — from the archaic and formal (“Deshil Holles Eamus”) to the conversationally casual (“Pflaap! Pflaap! Blaze on”). Over the past decade, as more people have spent more time writing on the Internet, that same evolution has not only continued, it feels like it’s accelerated.

With so much discussion about how the Internet is changing journalism and media, there’s surprisingly little said about how writing itself has transformed. But it has changed in a dramatic if subtle way.

Nine years ago, I remember being one of 100 or so journalists gathered to listen to a veteran writer speak. I don’t remember the topic, just that when he asked how many of us enjoy writing, I was surprised that only a few hands went up. Today, so much of the typical day is taken up with writing emails, tweets, updates, text messages, chat sessions, blog posts and the occasional longer form writing. And few complain how onerous it all is.

On balance, all of that practice is making online writing better. Which is not to say that all online writing is good. Much of it’s terrible – see the average YouTube comment for an example of how bad it can be. But it’s been said that excellent writing is a matter of good thinking – if you’ve got the thinking part down, that’s most of the battle. And many of the thoughtful people I know are producing some great stuff on the web.

The Internet isn’t just prompting us to write more, its open structure pressures us to write in a way that’s at once more concise and flexible. One problem newspapers and magazines never could fix is that articles are assigned arbitrary lengths. Pay writers per word and they’ll write as many as they can. Assign a 12,000-word story and you’ll get just that, even if 1,000 are all that’s necessary.

On the web it’s different. Back in 1997, Jakob Nielsen looked at how people read web content (basically, they scan it) and argued web writing should

- highlight keywords (often using hypertext links)
- use straight, clear headlines and subheads
- deliver one idea per paragraph
- cut word count to half that of conventional writing
- employ bulleted lists.

Many web writers, whether they’ve read Nielsen’s advice or not, use these practices because readers respond to them. The impulse to scan is a good thing because readers’ impatience inspires economy among writers.

At the same time, people are mastering more kinds of writing. Other technologies that grew more popular this decade required a different mode of expression: Instant messaging invited a breezy, fast-thinking tone; blog comments (again, the thoughtful ones) sharpened our debate skills; Twitter enforced even more economy onto our words. In all of these, we were nudged toward something all writers aspire to: a strong, distinct voice.

Having a clear voice has grown more important on the web, where writers worry about brand-building, news sites grow interactive and blog posts resemble conversations. Some don’t regard texting and chat as writing, while others argue that they’re killing longer and more formal prose. Both notions are wrong. The informal writing we do on the web doesn’t supplant formal writing, it complements and influences it — and is influenced in return.

Not all of the Internet’s effects on writing have been positive. Many bloggers tailor headlines and posts so that they’ll surface at the top of search results, making them at once easier to find and less enjoyable to read. And this decade, a lot of other bloggers mistook a strong writing voice for caustic irreverence. But most eventually learned that writing with snark is like cooking with salt — a little goes a long way.

On the other hand, concerns about the Internet hurting writing feel overblown. Some educators worry that the Internet is making teenagers way too casual in their writing, so that they never learn more formal composition. I disagree. The best way to learn good writing is to write a lot.

Besides, language is always evolving, and a more conversational English isn’t a bad thing. “Writing, when properly managed…is but a different name for conversation.” Laurence Sterne wrote that in Tristram Shandy 250 years ago. Thanks to the Internet, it’s more true now than ever.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

  1. What a great post! I’ve especially noticed the need to cut words on my noveling blog, Uninvoked. Many of my chapters are 500 words or under, and none of them go over 1,000. That’s a tiny amount for a book, yet when I changed Uninvoked around to that method my readership grew to enormous proportions.

    Share
  2. Kevin – great piece. I’d come to a similar conclusion after reading Gladwell’s Outliers. With so many more people writing, more of us will hit that 10,000 hour mark earlier – I expect that we are actually at the beginning of a writing renaissance (I explored this idea in a blog post in June of 09). One that will get better and stronger over the coming 5 years.

    Nice work!

    Share
  3. [...] Kelleher of the infamous GigaOm tech blog has a very interesting post on how the internet has changed writing in the 2000s. His main insight is that because readers [...]

    Share
  4. Great post! It’s true – I do despair some times when I see the state of some of the commenting on the internet. But at the same time I guess the sheer volume of writing must be seen as a good thing. I wonder if tailoring posts to suit a readers attention span will over time have a wider impact on our ability to read for longer and more demanding pieces.

    Share
  5. jonathangheller Sunday, January 3, 2010

    Of course, this in turns changes the way we read. The internet is consumed by scanning and skimming content. For example, Twitter 140 character limit thrives on this newly acquired habit of quickly jumping from small pieces of info to the other.
    I invite you all to check “Is Google making us stupid?”; a classic written by Nicholas Carr and published on The Atlantic that addresses this issue from a very unique and interesting perspective:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

    Share
    1. That article was too long for me to read, I skimmed it:)

      Share
  6. isabellapprpse treasure Sunday, January 3, 2010

    My lit teacher once said: keep it succinct, interesting and above all descriptive. Your wondeful blog brought that back to me today. Thanks

    Share
  7. At the link to Jakob Nielsen s’ “How Users Read on the Web”, in the experiment that showed ‘usability’ increased on web pages that used “concise, scannable, and objective.” style – I was thinking this will also create better search results. Concise writing is far likelier to bring the ‘right’ eyes to your page. The words that catch the eye in ad writing, don’t catch the google bot. :)

    The searcher doesn’t search in ad speak! A lesson perhaps for copyrighters to scan, especially Twitter for keywords people Really use (if they don’t already).

    Michael Holloway

    Share
  8. You are so wrong. As there are no restrictions by paper anymore, blog posts have become longer and longer, more boring and less relevant. Not necessarily on Gigaom, but on other websites. After 15 years of daily Internet use I have come to this conclusion.

    Google rewards longer texts and frequent blog posts with more pageviews because they contain more search words. I whish all these authors had to write on paper. But more and more microserfs have to compete for Google’s attention and blog for their life. So if they find something about Twitter, Foursquare or Facebook or other hot topic they write whatever they can because they know it brings pageviews.

    It will be worse as soon as AOL introduces its algorithm-generated news stories and topics. I see a big wave of junk stories coming up that makes the web unusable. That’s the disadvantage of people writing for machines instead of people.

    Share
    1. “the disadvantage of people writing for machines instead of people.”

      What constitutes writing for the people? Every well-employed reporter/editor I ever met at major publications I worked for were implicitly directed to regurgitate press releases – especially the ones that represented the products or services of their bread-and-butter advertisers ( Press means pay for play ). I believe it’s at the heart of the problem of journalism: the hidden motives of the old publishing model have been uncovered by way of the new (blogging) cannibalizing it. That seems a positive development.

      But your point is interesting. Search engine popularity and generated news is perhaps the same issue realized in a new medium, since those mechanized agents are entirely monetized via advertising as well…

      How to incentivize real investigative journalism?

      Share
    2. Reply to Markus

      I’m not sure if you were referring to my comment, but what I was getting at was the Relevance of search enquiries returned.

      SEO is important for selling things – but Google specifically changes the algorithm to prevent people from top listing cynical posts. Coincidently that allows Google to top-list specific keywords as part of a pay relationship they have with an entity.

      A million pages come back on any search; is what your looking for on the first page or the second? When I’m at a loss in finding a specific thread I find myself just typing a whole sentence/question into my browser, it often does the trick! That’s a function of the way the algorithm connects links that WE make relevant when we choose links.

      The human finger print is all over the technology. Google is constantly enabling a good understanding of how the three-word-search algorithm works. It’s key to the success of their business model.

      Making it easier to find content we want.

      Michael Holloway

      Share
    3. I am not so sure it IS a problem. If people use those news filters then yes, they’ll find crap. If they find other type of semi-editorialized aggregators for discovery then it’s less of a problem. If they aggregate themselves they can even be more selective.

      In other words: as the onslaught of data grows there will be more and more sophisticated applications that filter for you either human based or algorithm based or both. Whether’s its some variation of google wave where friends I trust share relevant news or if it’s a new application I run on my desktop that filters correctly.

      Share
      1. That sort of thing is exactly what I, as a reader, a writer, and a citizen of a more-or-less democratic society, am deathly afraid of. For if our only exposure to outside information is filtered to our specifications, then it will be highly unlikely that any significant number of people will learn about anything they don’t already know. This has disturbing implications for the defense of any form of liberty.

        Share
  9. restriction by paper is gone, information float around wirelessly and google try to find its way around fat lands

    Share
  10. Kevin, add me to the ‘Attaboy!’ contingent. I’ve read Nielsen before; I’ve worked in both print and online; you’d think I’d remember. Looking back on my early blogging in particular, I’m not sure that I always have. A good New Year’s resolution – write more effectively.

    Share
  11. good stuff. thanks for taking the time to write it. although i feel bad for dashing this sentence off without cap letters… smile.

    Share
  12. Wendell Cochran Sunday, January 3, 2010

    Surprise & consternation.

    In nearly all my reading, in ink on paper or pixels on screen, I find a strong tendency to use long words rather than short — & needless words where economy would serve better.

    Wendell Cochran
    West Seattle

    Share
  13. [...] Lists need more than one item to be a list. [...]

    Share
  14. My concern is that practice makes permanence, not perfection.

    Share
  15. Well, for sure the internet has changed writing in the last decade. And Kevin, like always, not all change is for the better.

    Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that there are a number of positive changes in writing – thanks to the internet.

    But then again there are a number of negatives that have crept in – due only to the internet in the last decade. And it is not only the youtube comments you refer to. There is more and several other kinds of trash on the internet. And a lot of it passes as “good” content. Think of SEO driven writing. Think of the majority of the blogs that would never have been “written”, let alone published, if not for the ease of blogging.

    In summary – there has been a lot of new writing that emerged, thanks to the internet. This obviously implies that there is a lot of new, good quality content that has emerged. However, the percentage of good quality writing to trash remains the same as in the pre-internet days.

    Share
  16. lovely post! I think the internet has opened doors for a lot of people who want to write their own stuff.

    Share
  17. Johnnythedetective Monday, January 4, 2010

    Nice article. In fact I believe all the economised texting has triggered confidence in the ones who were insecure about their writing. Now the thinking ones not only text but have started setting up their own blogs as well. Pushing them to focus on their language skills too.

    Share
  18. [...] added to the English dictionary in 2009. How much impact has the Internet had on the way we write. This GigaOm blog post cites many instances, for instance the way people write online articles, blog posts, comments, Facebook updates, Tweets, [...]

    Share
  19. Thought-provoking article! For writers with a newspaper background, the transition has not been so great. News desk copywriters and reporters are masters at slam-banging their stories out. When that byline brands their work, being concise is imperative and becomes second nature.

    In regard to SEO and copy: a seasoned writer knows how to work with the subtleties of incorporating key words with key ideas. And if the writer isn’t able to perfect that technique, then a savvy editor should be able to mentor.

    In the end, effective communication is an art–and most folks are not wordsmiths. That’s a good thing. Those professionals amongst us will stay employed, lol.

    Ani

    Share
  20. Unfortunately I tend to agree that reading has become more than occasionally superficial [and web writers tend to adapt to that, sadly].

    Well, we did it to ourselves, we democratized publishing and now we’re getting hit by the tornado of junk and mediocre writing. Let’s see you work this out now, humankind!

    Share
  21. This is a good piece. I agree with most sentiments here, although I do question one in particular.

    The second to last paragraph ends with the statement: “The best way to learn good writing is to write a lot.” I suppose there is a some truth to that statement. However, I have been told numerous times throughout my life that the best writers don’t just write a lot, they also READ a lot. Of course, learning to write well through reading more assumes that what is being read is in fact written well. So much of what is out there on the web is written so poorly, I am inclined, personally, to say that most writing on the web is actually making us worse writers.

    Then again, a good chunk of the sentiment in this article seems to echo the old adage that writing on the web might not be worse, just different.

    I’m not so sure.

    Share
  22. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s – GigaOM (tags: writing) [...]

    Share
  23. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s – GigaOM (tags: internet article online blogging blogs culture trends writing language journalism reading content change literacy) [...]

    Share
  24. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s – GigaOM (tags: writing internet scan style) Leave a Comment [...]

    Share
  25. well said, sir. see my rant on the need for a new word for reading on screens i call it “screening” since it really is NOT reading per se, and maybe writing needs a new term too? why does the email screen say COMPOSE our enail messages reather than WRITE?

    Share
  26. [...] Besser kann ich es auch nicht sagen Jan 5th, 2010 by Philipp. The best way to learn good writing is to write a lot. via How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s – GigaOM. [...]

    Share
  27. Thank you for posting this excellent article. I plan to tweet it so others can read this. I like to use bullet points and lists to call attention to important sections of Web copy. They are visually appealing and make it easy to quickly find pertinent information.

    Share
  28. [...] some additional reading on the topic, Kevin Kelleher’s post “How the Internet Changed Writing in 2000s” is [...]

    Share
  29. Nate, above, in his comments, makes a very important point: that writers learn to write by reading a lot in their childhood years and as teenagers and college students. Reading makes writers. And with a new generation now doing most of their “reading” (I call it “screening” since it is absolutely NOT reading, Google me), it will turn out a generation of people who do not know how to write, the language of wordsmithing. This is what you missed in an otherwise great article, Kevin. If we lose readers, ie, people who read deeply and probingly on paper surfaces, then the culture will lose its people who know the power of words to touch people. Reading on a screen will never teach future artists how to write. Screening is just for scanning, skimming, emails, comments. It’s good. I love all this. But to turn out writers in the future, we need to preserve the paper book and the paper newspaper and paper magazines. Ask any writer how she or he learned to love the power of words, and they will tell you: their teachers were books, paper books and magazine articles. This is vital to preserve. But I fear the worst.

    nate said : “However, I have been told numerous times throughout my life that the best writers don’t just write a lot, they also READ a lot. Of course, learning to write well through reading more assumes that what is being read is in fact written well. So much of what is out there on the web is written so poorly, I am inclined, personally, to say that most writing on the web is actually making us worse writers.”

    Share
  30. [...] Paano nga ba nabago ang pagsusulat pagdating sa internet? 14.601033 120.976160 [...]

    Share
  31. TL;DR

    Share
  32. Good brief article on how the Internet has approached the topic of writing. In truth however this topic could be a whole university course rather than a 1000 word article.

    I’d like to think that the Internet has brought better literacy to people but I’m concerned with how the balance between short topics (tweets and articles like this) and long topics (novels) is highly skewed. The average 20-something likely reads (“scans” is a better word) tons of short Internet stuff such as this article, instant messages, text messages, RSS and wikipedia snippets but how much time do those same individuals spend reading a novel without distraction. Like all things there is a balance to be had between the two but I think today it is highly, and unhealthily, skewed.

    Share
  33. [...] when that meant a sizable pile of books with passages bookmarked. There’s no doubt that the Internet has changed the way I do things, [...]

    Share
  34. The only real negative part of this article is that it is only an article, and not the all-out book I’d like it to be…

    Share
  35. [...] Gigaom examines How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s. [...]

    Share
  36. [...] Gigaom examines How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s. [...]

    Share
  37. Much truth to this article, Kevin.

    For writers such as myself, the internet has created a segue from the post-post-modern (or whatever the hell it’s called in literary circles nowadays) to the here & now.

    In the past, writing was a waiting game. It still is when it comes to print publishing. That’s fine. It should be that way in my opinion mostly. If you’re good, you’re good. You’ll get your due. The internet provides the “meantime.” While you’re waiting, boom, show others your talent. Your ability. Your unique style in constructing prose.

    Words constructed in concise, clever, and intelligent ways.

    Always? No.

    Sometimes sloppy, yes.

    But there are some excellent humorists on the web today. And the web is what it is, a web, an interconnected highway. What is going on now between writers and readers and the ability to easily communicate with one another has never happened before.

    It should be applauded if only for that.

    Share
  38. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s – GigaOM (tags: internet writing) [...]

    Share
  39. [...] about how writing itself has transformed. But it has changed in a dramatic if subtle way.Source:http://gigaom.com/2010/01/03/how-the-internet-changed-writing-in-the-2000s/?rss ( Leave a comment [...]

    Share
  40. Despite all the technology the fundamentals remain the same. People learn to write well with practice. The more they practice, the better the writing gets.

    Share
  41. Yes, practice helps. But what helps much, much more is practice that receives constructive criticism. It seems to me as though those bloggers who create the most interesting blog posts are generally those who’ve had some experience writing for (at least potential) publication offline. The skills you pick up there – concise, clear writing within limits of space and time for reporters, a different but no less imperative view of structure for most other prose – improve your writing more than a hundred blog posts with a half-dozen thoughtful responses. Most bloggers don’t get THAT much feedback.

    Share
  42. [...] GigaOM: “How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s” [...]

    Share
  43. Fantastic post! And we’re just at the beginning, really. As the internet evolves, the way we read and the way it reflects our language will only improve.

    Share
  44. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s by Kevin Kelleher [...]

    Share
  45. [...] Kelleher over at GigaOm has an interesting look at how the Internet has changed the way we write. With so much discussion [...]

    Share
  46. The impact I’ve seen is how much less handwriting I’m doing these days… and when I do pick up a pen it’s like a foreign object I have to get comfortable with again!

    Share
    1. I’m much worse than that…. after thirty years of banging away on often-dodgy keyboards, I’ve got RSI badly enough that I can’t hold a pen or pencil for more than a couple of minutes without needing to flex and unlock my hand. Makes me wonder what I’m going to do for the next 20 years – or what my hands will be like after that time. Ugh.

      Share
  47. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s [...]

    Share
  48. Good stuff, i’d love to read more on this. Jacques Derrida has something in Paper Machine. I’ve wondered the impact of modern day text processing on text formulation. I mean the actual process of authoring. It seems that old-school writing has to be planned out beforehand, and modern text editing makes us build our texts from the inside out. I’m imagining some sort of a steaming soup, where more mature passages eventually of bubble up. Something tasty, some good (udon) ramen at a small stall in Tokyo, preferably :-P”’ :)

    On a larger scale, in a society where all sorts of texts, both public and private are absolutely everywhere, things get nicely complicated. I mean, what has been the effect of the ability to insert and re-arrange words on our politics, f.ex.?

    I’m sure there’s been research on this. Pointers to literature, anyone?

    Share
  49. [...] How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s [...]

    Share
  50. Great post there Kevin. I’m amazed how the Web or Internet have changed so many lives across the country.

    Share
  51. Great article. The net has also allowed many of us to have mini audiences.

    Share
  52. Yes, Pankaj, but don’t forget the print editions that got us all started with writing: see and hear my SNAILPAPER SONG VIDEO on YoTUbe now: a friendly critic says: “I love this song Danny. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnZKIk1Krp8] A. J. Liebling would love it — it sports with all the personality that the local press largely used to have, even with the corruptions, too, of local owners.
    I love it more because it zings to the facts of personality that buoyed all America’s press — even in the face of the corporate ooze.
    And I love it most for the singing — hommage to Arlo Guthrie, hommage to all the folkies who kept America a decent place, back in those days when it was still a republic. ” — [thanks Phil, well said!]

    Share
  53. [...] (ringing) ears: New therapy targets tinnitus (Link) How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s (Link) The Technium: 1,000 True Fans (Link) How the iPhone Could Reboot Education (Link) Roots Music [...]

    Share
  54. I really appreciated this blog. It was a very straightforward look at how writing has changed! I agree about claims that the internet is ruining writing. I think it’s just simply another platform and actually a quicker, more “real time” way to share your work with others.

    Keep up the great work!

    Hugs,

    Farrah

    Share
  55. It’s true- sometimes I yearn for the days we actually wrote with paper and pen in full sentences. At least we still remember how to write – It’ll be interesting to see how blogging and the Internet changes the writing of the next few generations.

    Share
  56. Great article. I’m an active user on WordPress, Twitter and Facebook and I believe that maintaining these sites has in fact progressed my writing skills. With Twitter only allowing users to post an update 140 characeters long, I know put more thought than usual into what I have to say, making sure it’s direct and clear. On the other hand, when users are given such a small amount of space to express themselves, they may turn to the “texting slang” to fit more into one post. Facebook has added a new twist to posting updates, though. Now that anyone from your boss to your grandma is using Facebook, there’s added pressure to use correct and formal writing styles when updating. Of course not everyone is going to adapt to internet writing the way that we all hope, but that’s the case with any new style of writing. What we do have here is obvious proof of how progressively writers evolve with each new writing outlet that presents itself.

    Share
  57. I would agree with this post. When people know what their abriviating then it’s almost the same thing as them writing out the full word or not using the slang. Writing is writing whether it’s in slang or in detailed words, as long as people keep doing it, it is a good thing.

    Share
  58. I disagree with one of the points in this article. The author disagreed that the internet has made students way to casual in their writing, but I actually agree with that statement. Even though this is one example, i feel that it’s important to share. Back in high school I was in a government class where we got assigned a three page paper. After everyone turned in their assignments a few days later the teacher addressed the class about a specific paper. Apparently one of the boys in my class had turned in a paper with a lot of derogatory marks directed towards people of the Indian race. The teacher had asked the boy why he thought it was okay to write such a racist paper and he replied that it was because all of his friends on the internet spoke like that every day. The boy thought that it was no big deal. When online, people think that it’s okay to say whatever they want, even if it’s horrible. And unfortunately, i have seen this idea surface more than once.

    Share
  59. How do you think the internet has changed writing? Here’s a few thoughts http://t.co/7wkUHlot #CatVV

    Share
  60. How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s – GigaOM: http://t.co/YYehy3YH

    Share
  61. Kelleher on how the internet has changed the way we write http://t.co/hSAb3VM6

    Share
  62. How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s
    http://t.co/5UTLHEnL

    Share
  63. Thus, changed the way we learn RT @nickgenes: Kelleher on how the internet has changed the way we write http://t.co/jU5Vwh77

    Share
  64. “The best way to learn good writing is to write a lot.” Kevin Kelleher on Om’s blog: http://t.co/KJOLUMHp

    Share
  65. How the Internet Changed Writing in the 2000s — Tech News and Analysis http://t.co/OGdLzbQw (via Instapaper)

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post