Quote:
Originally Posted by simonroyle
One of the things I have been pondering on is whether the idea of the "ideal" length of a novel has been determined by our culture or the "risk" cost of paper.
I like a "good" thick, door-stopper, something that really grips for ages. Of course the story is what matters, but I think there's enough evidence to say the business of publishing books has established "risk standards" that have led to an overall shortening of the length of the average novel.
What do you think?
|
I have avoided "doorstoppers" since I can remember (even in teenage years.) I like to read books in a single sitting or perhaps two, at most three settings unless I am traveling. A doorstopper just looks like work to me, while a good book at about 80 to maybe 95 or so--that's a few hours by the pool, a lounge day with cakes and tea...it's a day off. Anything that takes me more than about 6 hours just isn't my cuppa.
(I have read and enjoyed a few doorstoppers such as LOTR, but they are exceptions that I read when much younger. Time is even more critical to me now and I do check the number of locations. I simply don't want a book that is too long for my time allotment.)