Short Articles for Periodicals

It is not a little difficult to account for the prevalence, at particular periods, of certain notions or feelings which seize upon the public mind. Indeed, in many respects, they resemble an epidemic or mania, and in no respect more than this, that they seem to be governed by no law. All classes are affected by them; and there is no such thing as controlling them by reason or uprooting them argument. Run their course they will. What renders them the more remarkable is, that although but a moment’s reflection would seem to be enough to correct them, still they maintain their footing. To this class of singular mental affections certainly belongs the feeling now almost universal, that we must have short articles for all our periodicals. I am far from thinking that I can, by any thing I shall say correct this pernicious notion; still I feel it my duty to call attention to it, in hope that I may thereby contribute something towards checking, at least, its mischievous tendency.

Why, let me ask, should it be thought, even for a moment, that all articles for periodicals ought to be short? No sensible answer can be given. Even where articles are bad, positively bad, it will never to do say they should be short. In that case they should not appear at all. But the shorter the article, we are told, the greater is the number who will read it. Be it so; is the reason good? I hold that it is not only not good, but that it is bad, utterly so. The reason implies either that readers have not the necessary time for reading long articles, or that they have not the necessary inclination. Suppose they have not the necessary time. Why have they not? Is it owing to the multiplicity of their religious duties? We know perfectly that it is not; for the Bible prescribes no such duties. Or is it owing to an overamount of worldly cares. Then readers are wrong, and the Bible condemns them; for it does not allow them to be thus overburthened. Or suppose readers have not the necessary inclination. Here again they are wrong. For the Christian owes it to himself and to his race patiently to cultivate his talents, and thereby prepare himself for the greatest possible extent of usefulness. If he be not thus inclined, this disinclination itself is wrong, and should be resolutely overcome.

But to this it may be replied again, that it is, nevertheless, the fact, no matter from what it springs, that the number who read short articles is, and always will be, greater than the number who read long ones. But does even this prove that all articles should [108] be short? I think not. For he who reads an article ten pages long, provided it is equally as good as an article one page long, has of course derived from his reading ten times more benefit than he who reads the one page, and is consequently that much better qualified for usefulness. Indeed, there is no such thing as defending short articles over long ones, except upon the ground that long articles are necessarily not as good for their length as short ones—a position which is certainly false. For articles have not their character as good or bad from their length, but from the quantity of matter they contain and the manner in which it is treated.

Clearly, the length of an article should be determined by the nature of the subject of which it treats. If the subject be one of great magnitude, the article should have corresponding length. This is so obvious that merely to state it is enough. Again, the length of an article must depend very much upon the manner in which the subject handled in it is to be treated, that is, whether generally or minutely. Ordinarily few subjects can be rendered interesting when treated in a cursory of general way. Perhaps this is one of the very reasons for the existing large demand for short articles. In order to meet this demand, articles have to be so abbreviated, that usually, they contain little else than dry general remarks. Hence few take any interest in them. Indeed, about the only interest such articles possess is their brevity; no wonder, then, when this is the case, that men should demand still greater reductions in length. Yet strange that they should not see that precisely as they attain the end they demand, they fail to attain the end they seek. They seek profit in the articles they read; yet they demand that these shall be short. Hence in obtaining this, they lose that.

Reading short articles, in a few minutes, has several bad effects upon the mind, one or two of which I shall here point out. It helps to form the habit of giving to every subject only a brief superficial view. No habit is more fatal to deep, accurate knowledge than this. To derive the greatest possible benefit from any subject, it must be kept long and steadily before the mind, must be examined in all its parts, and these again viewed in their various relations one to another. This is never done when bestowing upon a subject only a hasty, general glance. Again, what is hastily read, especially if it be some short general view of a subject, is usually soon forgotten. The habit of constantly forgetting soon permanently injures the memory. Its records become dim, and the reading thereof untrustworthy. It hence becomes a chaos rather than the luminous, faithful conservator of the past it was designed to be. [109]

Besides one of the chief ends of reading is wholly lost when a subject is compressed into a short article, abounding only in stale common-place remarks. No pleasure is awakened thereby. The appetite is not whetted by the reading. There are no long narrow defiles of thought to be threaded, with here and there sudden delights starting up. We never find ourselves loitering beside some unfrequented path, or pausing to indulge the luxury of some grand reach of thought. None of the bold gambols of fancy relieve the dull picture, nor is a solitary gush of pure tender sympathy ever met with. All is flat and tasteless. Sound sense and enlightened opinion alike depose that an article of corresponding length with the subject, wealthy in thought and suggestion, is the only true standard.

Again, in attempting to form an estimate of the length of articles, some account should be taken of the character of the publication in which the article is to appear. Weeklies, as a general rule, are both more hastily written, and hastily read than Monthlies. Hence, there is some reason for making the articles of the former shorter than those of the latter. The same relative difference exists between Monthlies and Quarterlies. Hence of all periodicals published, Quarterlies are, and for good reasons, expected to contain articles of the greatest length. To this rule the present work sees no reason for becoming an exception, either in the undue length of its articles or by yielding to an inconsiderate demand to make them all short. Its aim will be to avoid, as far as practicable, both extremes.

But we did not propose a long article in order to prove that all others should not be short. It is deemed enough merely to call attention to the subject without any very elaborate or formal discussion of it. With our brethren, thoughtful as they usually are, we trust the foregoing hints will be sufficient.

SHORT ARTICLES FOR PERIODICALS.