But no one can read that length on a computer screen.
Don't tell my readers!
And in a couple sentences this interchange pretty much sums up what bothers me about this conversation... I don't have any problem with Edward G trying to attract people to "bloveling." I do find that I get annoyed when someone tells me (with apparent total certainty) that a particular thing is true when I know them to be provably wrong.
I looked at my stats today (around noon) and was surprised to find that I'd already had a thousand page views. This was atypical but not unusual. The thing is, while some of my posts are around 500 words, for the most part they're a little shorter than one thousand words.
On average today, most readers read 7.43 pages (roughly 7000 words). Eight readers read more than twenty pages at a sitting (17,000 words?). One actually read 318 pages in one visit (possibly 300,000 words).
While I'm willing to agree that some readers might be put off by seeing 1000 words on a page, the rest seem to be handling it fairly well.
More to the point, I know authors with more readers, higher pageviews per day, and more words per post.
I don't know everything about writing, but I do know this, I've never heard readers complain that my posts are too long when they're longer than average. I have heard them complain when they're shorter.
The funny thing is that aside from post length (1000 words) and update schedule (twice a week), my writing probably fits the characteristics of a blovel that Edward's defined.
I don't think a set of defined rules decides whether a piece of web fiction will work though--especially when, as in this case, it's based on no data whatsoever.
Thus, promoting "blovels" as the form of fiction that will ultimately dominate the web strikes me as somewhat premature.
For now, it's an option, and that's all you can accurately say about it.