I've employed this technique for the past year and I have found it effective and efficient.
It has forced me to write more concisely and directly the same point in which I was "wordy". There are always times when deeper/richer context is necessary, but that should be the exception to the rule - less is more. When I'm receiving 100s of work emails per day, I would rather read an email written like it was from Ernest Hemingway than Kurt Vonnegut.
You can convey a lot in 5 sentences, as I just did.
I think you're trying to make a 'smart' reference but are confused. Overall, Vonnegut was generally at least as, or more concise; there is an entire page in _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ dwelling on the sweat on someone's brow.
I think you managed to demonstrate precisely why concision is overrated. In your quest for concision you used an obscure reference to a facet of an author's literary career most of us were unaware of, thus completely obscuring your point and requiring further clarification.
I think _delirium's point may be that writing longer emails with higher information density may preclude the need for you to receive 100s of work emails per day.
That's part of my goal at least. I use emails for things closer to design proposals, roadmaps, whitepaper outlines, etc., which need rationales, examples, etc. Ideally, an email should be something I'd like to archive and refer to in the future, at least until it's been superseded by something more authoritative (like an actual whitepaper). I think of them a little more like technical blog posts directed at specific readers; and it's hard to write a 5-sentence blog post that's worth reading. If it's just a quick ephemeral note or question, I'll use IM or my group's IRC channel.
An exception is emailing people I don't regularly work with, e.g. a professor at a university who I've never met. Those I do try to keep short and to the point, to maximize the likelihood I'll get a reply.
I like the idea. In practice, I encounter the contradiction of people who complain that I "write too much" but then make mistakes -- ad nauseum -- because they don't read what I actually wrote.
There are second, and third, paragraphs for a reason. Take two minutes to read them, so that I don't end up telling you [rhetorical] the same thing five times.
It's a pleasure to encounter the person who doesn't respond for a day or three, but then actually addresses the points in my email. The end result tends to be a much more efficient and thorough process.
I think the reason that this sub-thread always comes up in these discussions, is that for some people, "emailing people I don't regularly work with" is the only thing they use email for.
It has forced me to write more concisely and directly the same point in which I was "wordy". There are always times when deeper/richer context is necessary, but that should be the exception to the rule - less is more. When I'm receiving 100s of work emails per day, I would rather read an email written like it was from Ernest Hemingway than Kurt Vonnegut.
You can convey a lot in 5 sentences, as I just did.