Do you like Long or Short?

[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?

[HarryT]

Long for me, the longer the better. That's why I create so many omnibus editions here at MR.

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Long for me, the longer the better. That's why I create so many omnibus editions here at MR.

Ditto to both statements. Love the omnibus editions!

I'd have been quite happy reading the 19th century "triple decker" editions.

[simonroyle]

You both forgot to vote. Now come on, I know it's Friday, but there's protocol involved here :-)

[mrscoach]

Ha, voted before posting. I love long books, because it lets the author develop the story so much more. I've read books before where I felt things had been edited out for length.

Besides, a longer book means I don't have to find something else to read as often.

I noticed long ago that most paperbacks were the same length, give or take a small amount. Come on, surely all stories and all authers aren't the same and don't require the same length.

I've read books where it was obvious that 'padding' was added to make the publisher's minimum length. It's like reading a student's paper when it has to be a minimum length and they run out of things to say on the subject.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I noticed long ago that most paperbacks were the same length, give or take a small amount.

Hardly. If, eg you look at the novels of my favourite author, Charles Dickens, "David Copperfield" is 4x the length of "Hard Times".

[ardeegee]

As long as it needs to be to tell the story-- no longer, no shorter.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

As long as it needs to be to tell the story-- no longer, no shorter.

What he said... Size really makes no difference to me. It's the story that counts.

[Pookeysgirl]

The longer the better, but it's what's inside that counts.

[FlorenceArt]

I don't think I care, really. A long book is good for a long journey, a short one may be easier to sneak in between others, or when I take a break from a longer, heavier one. Both are good, maybe in a slightly different way.

I have read some comments suggesting that some people may be intimidated or discouraged in advance by a thick looking book. For my part, it's not something I consider either before or after reading it. I don't really know how long the e-books I read are. Paper books give you an idea, but there are other factors that may make a book appear longer or shorter (big type, thick paper...).

If I feel a book is too long, it's because the book bores me, not because of the number of words in it.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I noticed long ago that most paperbacks were the same length, give or take a small amount. Come on, surely all stories and all authers aren't the same and don't require the same length.

There's an interesting comment by Charles Stross in the afterword of his new collection Wireless:

“Palimpsest” wanted to be a novel. It really, really wanted to be a novel. Maybe it will be, someday. And maybe I could have gotten away with making it a short novel, just to round out this collection with an example of every format of fiction, if it wasn’t for the imaginary voice of my editor nagging at the back of my head (“Do you know how much it costs to print a hardcover once it goes over five hundred pages?”). Part of the reason novels are the length they are is the cost of printing and binding. Binding a fat book is disproportionately more expensive than binding two thinner ones, and there is a downward pressure on the price of hardbacks, which makes it difficult for publishers to show a profit on a fat volume. No surprise, then, that many recent big fat fantasy novels have shown up split into two or more thinner volumes.
Perhaps once publishing moves wholesale onto the Internet, fashions in fiction length and the disappearance of printing and binding costs will lead to more and longer novels: but in the here and now, this short-story collection is pushing the limits of what I can get away with, without any need to add another hundred thousand words!"

I didn't know that one 1,000 page book cost more to print than two 500 page ones. I do know the awkwardness of 1,000+ page MMP copy of a book, though.

[hgwlackey]

I like to mix it up. I'd rather read a short novel then a long novel than two short or two long novels in a row.

[simonroyle]

Originally Posted by hgwlackey

I like to mix it up. I'd rather read a short novel then a long novel than two short or two long novels in a row.

Ah ... a Morse reader

[Quake1028]

400-550 pages is perfect length for me, personally. I do love all ends of the spectrum though, but that midrange is ideal.

[BenG]

A book should be as long as it needs to be and no longer.