How Long Do You Think a Sci-fi Novel Should Be?

[DNSB]

For me, the perfect length is as long as the author needs to tell the story without adding unnecessary wordage. I suspect everyone has read at least one book where the comment about Edward Bulwer-Lytton's Paul Clifford leaving the reader feeling on a first name basis with every raindrop after the first pages felt applicable.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

The problem there, though, is that cutting it to the proper length of quality writing would result in a book that consisted of nothing but covers, title page, and copyright page.

Hard to sell something like that even at $0.50 in the bargain bin.

[Sats]

Originally Posted by JWT

I know there are many outstanding science fiction novels that run to 500 pages or more, and plenty of readers love immersing themselves in those worlds. Personally, I find myself gravitating towards shorter, tighter novels of around 225 to 300 pages that get to the point without sacrificing the story.

I admit, I mostly read Fantasy and Serialized/web fiction these days. That being said, it it really a novel if it is under 250k words (about 800 pages?) I call that more of a "brochure" :P If the book/flow is decent, I usually prefer more book...

Originally Posted by JWT

When you’re choosing a new sci-fi novel, do you have a preferred length? Does a very long book make you more or less likely to buy it, or does the page count not matter if the story is good?

When I buy a new book, the length only matters if it is really short, like under 100k words. Not like I can force author to make longer books or to combine several books in series into one. I do prefer series though, like Honorverse and Wheel of Time, to hopefully get more book.

Originally Posted by JWT

Does your answer change depending on whether you’re reading on a Kindle or reading a paperback? For example, I sometimes wonder whether people are happier tackling a 500-page novel on a Kindle than they would be carrying around the same book in paperback.

Hardcover over paperback, usually, and not really? For books I like (mostly Brandon Sanderson these days) that have physical equivalent, I have hardcover for home reading and epub for phone anyway.

[theducks]

I prefer 350-500.
But tell a good tale with what it take and don't pad to meet some word count goal.

[nana77]

To me, if your purpose is to write a novel (as if that would be your meaning, just while you've posted before in the writers' corner), I'd stuck on the others' reccomandations that a novel has to be as long as it needs to be, no cuts nor lengthenings.
Personally, there are some short novels (25 pages) that struck me, and I still recall of those, as an impressed image; some others or a collection of shorts thought can land to no-serious plottings.
I like the challenge a long narrative takes, including the "boring" moments, that - imho - can be fit to give it a cadence.
Thought that the difference between a low rythm part, and a page fulfilled because the authors wasn't to know what to write to prolong the pages: it doesn't "fluttery" hides to the reader.

[Readirect]

Novel length used to be a big deal, back when the only way to get published was through a publishing house AND that was (mostly) because of the costs involved for longer works; (mostly) not because of reader concerns.

In this age of indie publishing, it doesn't really matter except (of course) you go through a traditional publisher.

Rule of Thumb: Find a popular first-time novel -- published in the way you intend to get published -- and keep yours within plus/minus 25% of that.

[nana77]

Originally Posted by Readirect

Rule of Thumb: Find a popular first-time novel -- published in the way you intend to get published -- and keep yours within plus/minus 25% of that.

wtf eh.

[DJUNGELSKOG]

500-1000 pages, *insert Peter F Hamilton joke*

[bluepeter]

I'm not bothered. It should be as long as the subject requires, and no longer. I'll read as long as it keeps me engaged.

I remember reading Stranger in a Strange Land in 1975. That was the version as originally published, with about 400 pages. When the unedited version (about 650 pages) was published (late '80s? early '90s?), of course I read it. In my view, the extra length added nothing but more words. Sadly, my copy of the original, shorter, version was lent to a friend and destroyed in a house fire. And it is, as far as I know, no longer available and is therefore irreplaceable.

[Adam Scribentis]

Originally Posted by rjwse@aol.com

I went to school in Waco. One of the city's claim to fame was Madison Cooper who had written The World's Longest Novel, "Sironia, Texas." It turns out it was actually not the longest, that in the 19th century it was common to have triple-decker stories, books so long that it was expedient to bind them into 3 covers. Star Wars has turned into endless blather, so has Star Trek and Dune. When you encounter a good thing it is natural to want more. And what happens? The good original story gets watered down, diluted, eventually destroyed. I think a good story finds its own length. If well-written and self-encompassing, that could mean extra-short to extra-long. When you finish it, guess what? You want more and don't want it to end, but if you do get more, guess what? It's too long and ruined.

The same considerations should make authors wary about sequels. I would only write one if I were sure that it could at least hold its own next to the original.

[Sirtel]

I've read plenty of series where the subsequent volumes were as good or better than the first (and I don't mean mystery series where each book has its own story).

BTW I'm reading Peter Hamilton right now. Yeah, his books are wordy and long-winded, and they will never be in my top 50 or even top 100 list, but I'm enjoying them, they're good entertainment. And that's mostly all I want from books these days.

[Adam Scribentis]

[QUOTE=Sirtel;4601470]I've read plenty of series where the subsequent volumes were as good or better than the first (and I don't mean mystery series where each book has its own story).


I would say the same about Evelyn Waugh's WWII trilogy ("Men at Arms"/"Officers and Gentlemen"/"Unconditional Surrender"; one-volumed as "Sword of Honour"). When a series progresses like that, it's most certainly worth it.

[Pajamaman]

I'd say about 300 pages / 100000ish words is _generally_ the sweet spot. There are exceptions. Take Iain Banks. He wrote a lot of vast books, but his tightest book, and _generally_ most readable, and the first published, is Player of Games. It's probably a bit over 100000 words / 300 pages.

There are a few SF authors who do write longer novels that are good. David Brin's longer stuff doesn't feel overlong. The Postman, for example. But overall, I'd say 100000ish words is about right. Robert Charles Wilson's book are all about that, and they read well. Clarke, Asimov, Dick, Strugatsky. It's all mostly short, and when they go longer, it's not so good, it veers, it's indulgent. I can't think of many very long books that don't feel like they couldn't be shortened.

[Apache]

Asking how long a book should be is like asking how long your legs should be.
Apache

[DNSB]

Long enough to reach the ground was one reply to that question.