Writing Lesson #1: Not “all in one chunk”
Okay, Reader-student (that moniker means I’ve got something important to teach you, FYI), roll up your mental sleeves and brace yourself for your first step upon the path of transforming – not just improving, but transforming – how you express yourself in writing.
I have promised to lead you to both greater precision, which implies grammatical correctness, and a more-genuine authenticity, which implies openness of heart and mind.
After you read, consider, and, at best, practice (even for one day) this very-first lesson, your writing will promptly (actually, immediately) display noticeable improvement. You owe it to your reader to maximize your clarity. This lesson will help a lot, and it’s not only important, it’s super easy.
The easiest way to immediately improve your writing
Please note, toward the very bottom of this post, you can find a revealing “before and after” example that I’ve worked up for you, to markedly illustrate the lesson detailed below. If you want to “cheat” and go right to the example, feel free.
Or just keep reading right here. I hope you will enjoy and learn from the following write-up of the easiest way to immediately improve your writing.
Need reader-friendly bites, not large chunks
Yes, some messages work fine coming in just one “chunk,” especially if too short to benefit from dividing up. Take, for example, a text that simply acknowledges, “Got it.” Sometimes a quick affirmation means a lot to the recipient.
Just make sure (and many people don’t) that you’ve “got all of it!” It’s oh, so easy (and quick) to say “got it,” when we’ve “got” about half of it! We try to keep our communications super-brief. Lots of times, that leads to problems. But when things seem crystal clear, “got it” is plenty — and, yes, in just one chunk — my point.
But how long is too long, for one chunk? Well, I prefer to be safe rather than sorry. So I say that messages composed of no more than two or three short sentences, can work okay in one “chunk,” aka paragraph. You can consider this present paragraph about the max, for one chunk of text!
Today’s “skinny screens” make this even more important
Please note, I have taught this lesson — “Don’t write all in one chunk” — in years long before people carried cell phones. Even on full-sized screens, not to mention regular typing paper, this rule applies, for the reasons I will explain below. But nowadays, “thanks” to the present dominance of small screens (phones), this lesson takes on much greater importance.
Consider this dramatic reshaping of how we very often read text nowadays. We’ve gone from a full-sized computer screen — a standard, for decades that’s not far from the size and shape of a letter-sized sheet of paper, to scrolling along a narrow column of type, barely four or five words per line.
I just tested this fact with a couple paragraphs from this post, and my experiment showed about a 3:1 ratio – at least between my laptop and my phone, given fairly typical device sizes and settings. So a paragraph (aka “chunk of text”) that stretches across a full-sized screen or page might measure only three inches in height on the screen. At a 3-1 ratio, this text just enlongated to a skinny column nine inches long. I’m not a “brain expert” (they come in many forms, these days), but I suspect some hardships in textual reception and comprehension due to those long, skinny columns of text.
You could compare these skinny screens to the columns in a newspaper — but there’s a critical difference. When our eyes look at a page printed in columns, we can see the whole page. We get some perspective and can immediately scan above or below what we’re reading. We can see a lot at once, even as we focus along the lines we’re reading.
In major contrast, as cell-phone readers, we get to view only a tiny amount of text at a time. That’s fine for a brief message of one or two brief sentences. Sadly (to me), many texters and posters never send a message longer than that. If that’s you, I’m glad you’re here. On many occasions, You have more to say than that, and I want to help you say it, with clarity and your own style.
But we don’t want any added perceptions and helpful details (as you might provide) to get lost, in a long “chunk of text” that may have worked on a regular screen (or sheet of paper) but get lost when stretched out long and skinny and, worsening the problem, can be viewed only in small segments, never more than a small puzzle piece at a time.
I’m not advising you to keep your texts, e-mails, posts, and other writing short and “to the point.” That’s fine in many instances, but in others, “short and to the point” can lead to catastrophe. We needed certain details, but we got “short and to the point.” I’m not saying keep your messages short — I’m saying keep your paragraphs short!
In search of “buried treasure” – inside poor paragraphing
“Buried Treasure”: That’s what I call important info that gets “lost” or “buried” inside long “chunks” of text, because the paragraphs run too long, especially on a small screen. Even on paper, “one-chunk” messages can bury important info, but long, skinny screen columns (as on a phone) greatly worsen the problem.
In other words, inside any detailed message that comes in as one long paragraph, certain important things run a high risk of “disappearing” in the middle. When that happens, we say that the important point “got buried” in the text.
Ironically, the writer cared enough to provide extra details in a longish e-mail or text but did not know enough to put each important detail its own paragraph, to make it stand out, not disappear “somewhere in there.” Take the time and add info that you believe will likely prove useful to your reader — but don’t “bury” these details inside big ol’ nasty chunks of text!
Eureka! Buried treasure found – via the “F&L Rule”
To “unearth” and, better yet, shine a light on (highlight) the “treasure” (the most important info) in your message, you should put to good use what I call the “First and Last Rule” of information arrangement. I don’t mean, by that name, that it’s the only rule. I mean that it calls attention to the parts of a message that come first – or last.
I should note that many sources present this well-known (or at least often-mentioned) principle as the “recency effect” and/or the “primacy effect.” It’s got other names, too, including serial-position effect. But, for my system, I like the name First and Last Rule, for important reasons.
The “F & L Rule”: We best retain the message elements we read or hear first and last in any “message” – including within message parts, such as sentences and paragraphs.
That’s one feature of my rule, as opposed to typical “recency-primacy” understandings. I apply it not just to the whole message (say, an essay or a speech), but, importantly, to all significant sub-parts of the whole, including major “sections” (as headings might announce), the paragraphs that comprise the sections, and even the sentences inside the paragraphs. Yes, even sentences benefit from care taken regarding what comes first — and last.
Applying the rule in your writing
If you present all of your information in one chunk, you get only one first and one “last”! Get it? Per the rule, by any name, those are your strongest allies. Why write all in one chunk and limit your “F&L” resources to the smallest possible number?
If you broke up your longish chunk (with all its important info, aka treasure) into, say, six little paragraphs, you’d gain firsts and lasts for each paragraph, even if it’s just one sentence long, since my rule applies also to sentences, as I’ve noted. It’s just so easy, and now you’d have not just a measly two “hot spots” but 12.
As detailed elsewhere, I love to write communication theory, especially as regards language. You won’t read anywhere else about my “F&L Rule” (until it goes viral, ha ha), especially not its specific writing application, updated, even, for the dominance of e-mails, texts and posts. It’s my theory, especially as used, and I present it authenticity, to you, as I strive to practice what I preach.
These days, almost every message you read, especially on your phone, violates this simple rule. By taking care to rise above that pretty-low high bar, starting with this easy method, you will distinguish yourself as one of those who care about their writing. It’s a good feeling. And it shows respect.
So now you have the short version of why to always write in separate and brief paragraphs (especially if it might be read on a phone) instead of the very common form that I detest and revile as “all in one chunk.” The first time you apply this rule, you have already shown yourself a better writer! Word.
Lesson #1: Narrative: Don’t send it “all in one chunk”!
Imagine this: You check your texts on your phone. You see this longish one that came in. Please note that I, as your resident expert, do not automatically judge a longish text or e-mail as any kind of “problem,” as do lesser-trained communication “authorities” (the quote marks to cast doubt on the validity of the enclosed), including abundant lame advice coming from AI, itself.
Indeed, many e-mails are “properly” kept short (“just the essential facts!”) – so short, in fact, that they make work for the reader to track down relevant details that should have been there and would have helped. Anyway, you get this detailed text, and you can live with that. But, yuck – it’s not only longish (or just, plain long!) and quite detailed, it comes all in one (long) chunk.
What a pain. So you start skimming. And stuff gets skipped over. I hope it’s not the most important stuff. As a theorist, teacher, and critic of communication, I don’t place the blame on you for skimming, even if real-world, material problems occur because you missed important information. I blame the person who sent the message “all in one chunk.”
What a recipe for futility, considering that the writer must have cared about the matter at hand, to be writing at all. But most people just type (or speak-to-text) away, all in one chunk, and the various information chunks “land” in the message wherever they might happen to come out during the writing or speaking. And key information thusly gets buried, as the long, single chunk wanders along – and then gets hastily sent.
Newspapers use columns, about four to six per page, for many logistical reasons. That works fine on a large printed page, which readers can hold in their hands, able to scan the whole page at once.
But skinny columns with only three or four inches ever viewable at once (“scroll, scroll, scroll your phone”) present serious challenges to reader comprehension. It’s like watching a parade go by through a hole in a fence. You see everything that goes by, but never more than one float at a time. It’s not the same.
An example to show (and prove) my point
For some example text, I just now scrolled a bit on a social media site, looking for a post that seemed well-detailed, with several points made – but all in one chunk. In about one minute, I came to a decent example. By two minutes, I found a great example.
These are public posts, not texts nor e-mails, but the principle applies the same way to all three modes of “sending a message.” I won’t name the site, and I have changed a few key words to assure “de-identification” of the author (name deleted), while being careful not to change the word count.
So first, read the post as it came, in one chunk, and try to fight the urge to skim. The urge may win, but that’s only natural. If the topic already interests you, you’ll be less tempted. Plus, it’s not all that long. I’ve seen them on this site four times as long, but I wanted to keep things realistic.
Then read the same text broken into smaller paragraphs. Even without a research approach (say, recall tests given after the two readings), you will surely see the difference for yourself. And you won’t miss key info, since you will likely not lapse into skimming. See for yourself.
———-
All in one chunk:
It looks like we are going to be seeing mandatory brownouts on a regular basis. With that in mind it seems prudent to invest in either a whole house fixed generator, like Generac, or a quality portable like a 30 or 50 amp unit. The fixed whole house generators are expensive and not for everyone. A quality 30 or 50 amp portable can be purchased form around 800 to 2000, and with a power inlet box and mechanical interlock switch, you can run most everything in your home as well for a lot less than a fixed unit. Only difference is you have to manually hook up the generator every time you need it. Some of these portables are also capable of running on 3 types of fuel, gasoline, natural gas and propane, which gives you more options than the fixed units. So if a fixed unit is not an option, consider a portable setup, this will make the whole ordeal a breeze.
In separate paragraphs:
It looks like we are going to be seeing mandatory brownouts on a regular basis.
With that in mind it seems prudent to invest in either a whole house fixed generator, like Generac, or a quality portable like a 30 or 50 amp unit.
The fixed whole house generators are expensive and not for everyone. A quality 30 or 50 amp portable can be purchased form around 800 to 2000, and with a power inlet box and mechanical interlock switch, you can run most everything in your home as well for a lot less than a fixed unit.
Only difference is you have to manually hook up the generator every time you need it.
Some of these portables are also capable of running on 3 types of fuel, gasoline, natural gas and propane, which gives you more options than the fixed units.
So if a fixed unit is not an option, consider a portable setup, this will make the whole ordeal a breeze.
———-
See what I mean? The message has a few “issues,” and breaking the one chunk into minis can’t fix all of that, but I would think you can see my point about key info not getting missed – not skimmed over, not buried.
I advise that you present any message of more than three sentences in a set of shortish paragraphs. At best, while proofreading (another shocker, to many) consider revising or even rearranging these paragraphs, for best flow and effect, before hitting send.
On that note, I will end this lesson, except that, just today, I chanced upon an even better example of what not to do — but it’s too lengthy for processing. I’ll just present it as a “real life” example (with no personal/identifying info in it) of what people who do not understand my Rule #1 think is just fine and dandy.
If you feel like wading through it, go ahead. Something tells me you won’t — which, all the more, proves my point: Don’t write (and post) things “all in one chunk”!
———————–
Actual social media post (length = 462 words — yes, all in one chunk!) — from just this week (Jan., ’26):
I went though similar with my son. His issues also started when he moved from middle school to high school. There is a great book on the subject but the name escapes me. I have the book somewhere I’ll try to dig it up but the point of the book is that school is so much different than it was when we were kids. Kids today, their anxiety is through the roof. They have to worry about school shootings, we’ve added cyber bullying on top of regular day-to-day bullying, social media often misrepresents real life and kids compare themselves to what they see online. We are experiencing the most politically decisive time of any of our lives. Kids feel that and they experience it as well at school. In high school the clicks are even more pronounced than they were in junior high and kids often echo, without empathy or understanding, their parents politics and beliefs adding to the stressful environment. With my son, I started with the old school approach: you need to roll up your sleeves, buckle down and get it done. All of that BS. Needless to say, that didn’t work. After reading that book I took a more empathetic and compassionate approach. We started seeing doctors and therapists and got him tested revealing very high levels of school anxiety. Then covid happened just as he was making the transition into High School which caused his anxiety to skyrocket. That separation wasn’t healthy. Some kids really withdrew and had a hard time reacclimating to the classroom environment. More and more studies have revealed that our one- size- fits -all method of public education doesn’t really fit “all” and some more creative type kids find it difficult not only to thrive but to simply survive in that environment. After trying to get into remote schooling and finding out that it was filled up (I don’t know how remote School fills up but it does) we opted for the GED. He had a hard time with that at first trying to understand that he would not graduate with some of his friends. However, we came to understand that would be the only way he would graduate. Those are tough decisions to make but on the other side of it he’s in a much better place and I’m in a much better place as a result of his comfort and happiness. To help him with that I shared many examples of people who got their GEDs and have been successful, one of them being a VP at a Fortune 500 company that I know. The stigma of the GED needs to be forgotten. You need to do what’s right for the individual, for the individual’s happiness and for individual definitions of success.