One Hundred Pages or One Hundred Seconds?

     There are a lot of ways to tell a story. You can write reams and reams of text. You can condense to single lines of crisp copy. You can use slow, sweeping panoramas or quick, flashing images. You can employ breaks in scenes or breaks in audio. There are as many ways to tell a story as there are people telling it.

     That’s one, and just one, of the many, many reasons why it’s so hard for me to answer whether I like writing long prose more than writing broadcast news. It’s an impossible comparison. They are distinct media with different aims, different audiences, and different results.

     Is covering one hundred pages of paper more fulfilling than using one hundred seconds of America’s broadcast spectrum? Have I cheated the story in choosing one medium over another? Is there not merit in both visions? And, if backed into a corner, why must I declare allegiance to only one? Thankfully, I’m not forced to.

     I am blessed with the opportunity to tell people’s real-life stories in more than one way. I am equally blessed regarding my own make-believe stories. For what better opportunities could a writer ask?

     So when answering the question, “One hundred pages or one hundred seconds,” my answer can only be, gratefully, “Yes.”

1 reply
  1. Rebecca Laffar-Smith
    Rebecca Laffar-Smith says:

    I would think you could take advantage of both. You’re forced to condense content into a sharper completeness for verbal media but just because you’ve told it one way in the broadcast doesn’t mean you couldn’t expand that same concept into other mediums and target whole new audiences. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply