TV Adaptation of "Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rizla

That will work for a short / medium length book for a debut author. Not for a long work. Even Tolkien had to split his book into three, and he'd already published The Hobbit.

From what I've read, that was due to the practicalities of publishing, not the fact that the publisher didn't want to publish it as a single volume. There was a severe paper shortage in 1950s Britain, and not enough of the high-quality thin paper was available that would have been necessary for a single-volume edition.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Rizla

That will work for a short / medium length book for a debut author. Not for a long work. Even Tolkien had to split his book into three, and he'd already published The Hobbit.

Why do you believe that? From what I hear publisher wants long books since they are easier to sell.

Also it is not so much more expensive publishing a long book so why would they care about the length if they think the book is very good?

[DiapDealer]

There's a huge difference between "doesn't usually publish huge debut novels" and "never publishes one."

I remain unconvinced that a 782 page debut sff hardcover novel needs anything other than "it was really good" to explain its existence. Certainly doesn't warrant any "something strange is going on here" implications.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

From what I've read, that was due to the practicalities of publishing, not the fact that the publisher didn't want to publish it as a single volume. There was a severe paper shortage in 1950s Britain, and not enough of the high-quality thin paper was available that would have been necessary for a single-volume edition.

Yes. To the best of my knowledge it was the post WWII paper shortages that necessitated it being published the way it was.




All it takes is for an editor to really believe in a book no matter the length and they can sell there co-workers/bosses on it. A good agent will know which editors at which houses might be the most receptive to a given work. It's true that 80-120K words seems to be the sweet spot for many novels, but that's just a guideline and not any kind of hard and fast rule.


Some long first novels...

Sarum - Edward Rutherfurd
Gone with the Wind - Margaret Mitchell
Shantaram - Gregory David Roberts

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I keep trying to read that book but I just can't get into it. I had the same experience with Game of Thrones. Obviously other people like those books, but I'm struggling with them. Maybe the TV series will get me over the hump.

Me too. It's been a while, but I don't think I got beyond a quarter of the book before I gave up. I intend to watch the TV series and if I like it, I'll give the book another try after I'm done with the Hugo packet.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you believe that? From what I hear publisher wants long books since they are easier to sell.

Also it is not so much more expensive publishing a long book so why would they care about the length if they think the book is very good?

From what I hear from authors and publishers at conventions, that's only true until you get up near the page limit of the publisher's printer. For example, Charles Stross's Family Trade series was supposed to be a trilogy, and his publisher made him split it into 6 because it would have cost too much to print each volume.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Why do I expect it to be: "Elemental Masters -The Wizard of London" meets "50 Shades of Grey"?

Luck;
Ken

Well, actually, that sounds pretty awesome . . .

[BenG]

About Very Long Novels...
http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/year-...ong-novel.html

[GERGE]

I can't figure out how people can talk as if they are authorities in the matter of long novels. I always liked them, even when I was 6 and recently learned how to read, I used to choose the biggest picture books I could find in our school library (but titles elude my now).

I say that there is nothing wrong with long books, it is just a personal choice. Even now, if I am to choose between two fantasy debuts I know nothing about, I would go for the longer one.

As a unrelated side note, show was awesome =)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GERGE

I can't figure out how people can talk as if they are authorities in the matter of long novels. I always liked them, even when I was 6 and recently learned how to read, I used to choose the biggest picture books I could find in our school library (but titles elude my now).

I say that there is nothing wrong with long books, it is just a personal choice. Even now, if I am to choose between two fantasy debuts I know nothing about, I would go for the longer one.

Me too. Given a choice between a good short novel and a good long one, I'll always go for the long one. Some of my very favourite novels are the really long ones: "The Lord of the Rings", "The Count of Monte Cristo", etc.

[DiapDealer]

I'm fairly book-length agnostic. It depends entirely on the story and the author's skills. I've read huge tomes that felt too short, and some short stories that felt too long. I prefer that books be the perfect length for the story they contain--whatever that length happens to be. As long as I know I'm buying a "novel," I really don't give the page-count much thought in my selection process. Makes no difference to me whether I read two average-sized fantastic books or one huge fantastic book in a certain period of time. *shrug*

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Me too. Given a choice between a good short novel and a good long one, I'll always go for the long one. Some of my very favourite novels are the really long ones: "The Lord of the Rings", "The Count of Monte Cristo", etc.

I love long books as well. I'm a huge LOTR fan. Of course, some long books are long because they have lots and lots of fill (cough, cough WOT ). Actually, I think that lots of people like long books that are good. Some of the Harry Potter books were pretty long. I think that historically, short novels were popular because authors put books in newspapers and magazines in a serialize manner and there was a limit to how long a book magazines were willing to buy.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fairly book-length agnostic. It depends entirely on the story and the author's skills. I've read huge tomes that felt too short, and some short stories that felt too long. I prefer that books be the perfect length for the story they contain--whatever that length happens to be. As long as I know I'm buying a "novel," I really don't give the page-count much thought in my selection process. Makes no difference to me whether I read two average-sized fantastic books or one huge fantastic book in a certain period of time. *shrug*

I have to agree.
Apache

[GERGE]

Actually, if I see a 100 pages book claiming to be new great epic fantasy, I wouldn't touch it without reading some very glowing reviews. Some genres need the long books.

And about fillers, I actually adore them sometimes, especially those with a slice-of-life feeling.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you believe that? From what I hear publisher wants long books since they are easier to sell.

Really? Where did you hear that?