Books are Getting Significantly Longer Every Year

[SteveEisenberg]

http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...very-year.html

There’s some disagreement about why this is happening. According to Vervesearch’s James Finlayson, who conducted the survey, the emergence of digital books has played a critical role.

“When you pick up a large book in a shop,” he says, “you can sometimes be intimidated, whereas on Amazon the size of a book is just a footnote that you don’t really pay all that much attention to…I always hold off buying really big books until I’m going on holiday, because I don’t want to lug them around in my bag. But if you have a big book on a Kindle, that’s not a consideration.”

[JSWolf]

I always have bigger books on my H2O than anyone using any of the current model Kindles.

Sometimes when I am reading a rather large book, I do take a break, read a smaller book and return to the large book I was reading.

The advantage to a large book is you don't finish it as soon as you would a smaller book so if you are enjoying the large book, all the better that it is large.

[Cinisajoy]

I love that you can get big books, small books and many books at once.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I always have bigger books on my H2O than anyone using any of the current model Kindles.

My Kindle has bigger books than your Kobo.

[cromag]

Honestly, my ideal book length is in the 50,000 to 70,000 word length. I don't like making a commitment to a longer book that I might not enjoy.

Also, I tend to be suspicious of really long books -- many of which could stand to have their word length reduced through judicious (and much needed) editing. I can't support that with any industry studies -- it's just my impression.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by cromag

Honestly, my ideal book length is in the 50,000 to 70,000 word length. I don't like making a commitment to a longer book that I might not enjoy.

Also, I tend to be suspicious of really long books -- many of which could stand to have their word length reduced through judicious (and much needed) editing. I can't support that with any industry studies -- it's just my impression.

That's my feeling exactly. More often than not, I end up gnashing my teeth reading stuff that should have been pruned out. If I want a story to last, I'll put the book down from time to time and savour the feeling. I don't need useless padding.

[Zetmolm]

Nice clickbait. The survey is completely meaningless as long as it does not take word count into consideration. The conclusion that books are getting longer is unfounded. All that the survey says is that they are getting fatter.

My own impression, not supported by any research, is that the number of words per page in the average book has gone down a lot over the last few decades. Average reading time per book may even have gone down rather than up.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by cromag

Also, I tend to be suspicious of really long books -- many of which could stand to have their word length reduced through judicious (and much needed) editing. I can't support that with any industry studies -- it's just my impression.

Same here. I also dislike the current fad for trilogies, where in many cases it could all easily be condensed into one good book instead of 3 full of repetitions and irrelevant padding.

[Apache]

It all comes down to the book. If the book is well written and enjoyable then I get to spend more time with the characters. If the book is terribly written then I will put it down just as soon as I would if it was shorter. A win win situation.
And I agree that overall books have been getting longer. I seem to remember that most publishers, especially trade pub, wanted the books to be approximately 120 pages.
Apache

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Zetmolm

The conclusion that books are getting longer is unfounded. All that the survey says is that they are getting fatter.

My own impression, not supported by any research, is that the number of words per page in the average book has gone down a lot over the last few decades.

I mostly read major publisher eBooks. But I think I would have noticed if the typical hardcover font size had increased by 20 percent. Then, thinking isn't proving. Here's someone on your side:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...nya-yanagihara

“I suspect they’re chunkier on the page than in their word count,” Bowler continues. By altering the spacing on the page, increasing the leading or using a slightly larger font, publishers can choose to give a novel some additional weight. “It may be that a genre audience wants a chunkier feel to the books they’re buying.”

With the kind of major publisher non-fiction I tend to read, the notes and bibliography may be increasing rather than the core text. I can't remember right now which is which, but in the last month I got to the end of one book when the Kindle hit 56 percent, and another at 55 percent.

My gut feeling is that the narrative text of these kinds of books increased between the 1950's and 1970's but may be gone down since then. If so, this is a good example of the peak:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Brok.../dp/0394720245

Still no eBook

[Ravensknight]

Well, with all the indies and no editors for them, what is to be expected? They're in love with their own words so of course they're going write more of them.

[DiapDealer]

I read new short books all the time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Apache

And I agree that overall books have been getting longer. I seem to remember that most publishers, especially trade pub, wanted the books to be approximately 120 pages.
Apache

Getting longer since when, though?

I very much enjoy reading 19th century literature, and 19th century novels were, on average, much, much longer than the typical modern novel, typically being published in three volumes so that three people could borrow the book from the library (the average person's main source of books in 19th century Britain) at the same time. Eight out of Dickens's fifteen novels are over 300,000 words, for example.

Clearly, therefore, novels became considerably shorter before they started getting longer again (eg the typical Agatha Christie novel is around 50,000 words), and even today a 300,000-word novel would be regarded as something of a "blockbuster".

It would seem, therefore, to be something of a cyclic phenomenon, perhaps?

[cvkemp]

To me it does not matter the length of the book as long as it is something I am interested in.

[Cinisajoy]

Hey,
If you want a standard size hardback that is a short story, try Betty White's latest autobiography. Every chapter is a maximum of 2 printed pages, 1 page of a picture and one blank page.

Books are all sizes.
Some authors write short, some authors write long and some write just right.

Now I am confused by a statement I read on here, someone said they didn't like to invest in long books for fear of disappointment. What is the difference? You don't have to finish a book you don't like unless it is for a class. I once started a traditionally-published book that I threw across the room. It had way to many useless words. I couldn't figure out if I was reading a travel guide on Charlotte, NC, a dissertation on ricin or maybe an actual murder mystery. I think the author was so scared someone might miss a very little detail that she belabored the point and repeated herself.
Note: this particular author has been in the academic world for years.

Now on the self-published authors, I have found the two worst groups are the ones that are barely literate, and those with English degrees.
The first ones don't think they need anyone because and I quote "I don't notice errors so other readers won't notice errors."
The second ones are "I have a degree so my books are perfectly written."

Personal opinion on those two is the first one is probably right because they won't get readers.
The second one, yes each sentence is grammatically perfect but do they make sense together.

Those are usually the ones that say 50 shades is badly written. It is not badly written, it is just simplistic writing.