I find long books more difficult

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I've noticed that I'm finding it much harder to start long books these days - and that I do get restless if I don't finish a book within a day or two.

It's almost as if I see every book as a goal these days, and that goal is to get to the end of it, preferably not taking too long to get there. Which really isn't what it should be - surely the goal is to enjoy what I read...

It troubles me. Usually, once I get going and actually enjoy the book, once I've got into it, I'm quite fine with enjoying the process and the progress, no matter how long it takes, and towards the end of a good book (regardless of length) I often find myself wishing there was more to go, but starting long books - keeping my attention on the book without grabbing my iPad to play something, or get to the computer, or distract myself in some other way, is a lot more difficult than it used to be.

Some people say kids these days have shorter attention spans - I'm not sure it's just kids; I have a feeling that the last decade of information barrage and overwhelming amount of available distractions affects quite a few adults, too.

I think I need to make a conscious effort of including more 500+ page books in my reading again, because it's obviously something where I need to get back into the habit. At least this year has so far already included two ~1000 page books in my reading list, after quite some time, I believe, so it's a step in that direction.

I do prefer 300-500 page books in general, but I used to be perfectly happy with longer works as well (I've never been a short story or novella reader, though) and I don't like the idea of ending up rejecting books that I might enjoy just because they look uncomfortably long.

I wonder if you have the same problem I do, that of finding it hard to quit anything I start. I've read far too many books where I've reached the end wondering why I bothered to finish it. That 'waste of time' is worse on longer books so I can see it leading to a reluctance to start one unless you're sure you'll enjoy it. For myself it led to being more willing to quit on longer books. There are several series that I've started, gotten 2-3 books into, decided I didn't enjoy it any more & simply gave away the remaining books. (That's one thing I definitely do now is give away books that I don't intend to re-read. Except ebooks. Since there's no used ebook market I simply archive them, for now. I'll get rid of them when a market develops.)

[Waylander]

I read rather a lot of fantasy, and there a so many long books in fantasy. Lord of the Rings is an obvious one, but I didn't mind that because the story is so good, and it's often split into the three volumes in the UK. It seems to be that most new fantasy authors just write huge, great fat bloated doorstop books, and take forever to get the story going. It seems that most of the time quality seems to have been sacrificed for quantity. I'll give some examples:

The Dwarves series: Markus Heitz
Sword of Truth series: Terry Goodkind
All Trudi Canavan books
A Song of Ice and Fire: George R.R. Martin
Malazan Book of the Fallen: Steven Erikson
Wheel of Time: Robert Jordan

I'm not saying these books are bad, its just that a lot of fantasy books seem to be too long, and seem to be of lower quality. My favourite author, David Gemmell, did not write huge doorstop books his whole writing career, and his only books to pass the 600 page mark were his Troy books. He proves that you don't need over 700 pages to tell a good story.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Waylander

[...] It seems to be that most new fantasy authors just write huge, great fat bloated doorstop books, and take forever to get the story going.

I agree... the one thing I often see is that a story starts out with a company that splits up into three or four smaller groups quite early, just to be able to write three or four books, one about each part. Some parts of the books really feel like filler and padding without contributing anything to the actual story. Therefore I'll be reading less fantasy in 2014.

It seems that most of the time quality seems to have been sacrificed for quantity.

Yes, maybe so.

I'm not saying these books are bad, its just that a lot of fantasy books seem to be too long, and seem to be of lower quality. My favourite author, David Gemmell, did not write huge doorstop books his whole writing career, and his only books to pass the 600 page mark were his Troy books. He proves that you don't need over 700 pages to tell a good story.

I recently picked up the first three books of the Drenai series (in chronological order), just because they weren't too long, and I expect them to be quick reads in the fashion of the Forgotten Reamls fantasy. I've already wondered if your username "Waylander" had something to do with those books. It seems it does

Still, I will be reading less fantasy in 2014, but there will be some (very) long books of over 1200 pages, notably Musashi (re-read), Taiko (first read), and Tai-Pan (first read).

I hope Taiko and Tai-Pan are as good as Musashi and Shogun were.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I wonder if you have the same problem I do, that of finding it hard to quit anything I start. I've read far too many books where I've reached the end wondering why I bothered to finish it.

I don't know if it's a problem, but I *WILL* finish anything I start, even if it takes a restart after 10 years. Computer games are a frequent source of doing this, at least for me.

Example: I acquired Icewind Dale II in 2002, started it, got sidetracked, and never finished it. It's now 2013, but someday, I will restart this game and finish it, even if it takes until 2017 or 2030 and I need to run a 30-year old Windows XP or 98 in a VM to do it.

The same is true with books: if I start one, I will finish it. I might put it on hold for weeks and read other books in between, but it will get finished.

Spoiler:

There is only one thing that I didn't finish which is now impossible to finish, for all intents and purposes. I switched from one study (English/Dutch teacher) to another (Software Engineer). I actually got "asked" to leave, because I couldn't remove my Dutch accent while speaking English, and the teachers thought I would never be able to.

That study can't be finished without restarting from the beginning and going back to uni full time, which is not feasible at my current age. As I have a diploma in Software Engineering, it's also impractical, prohibitively expensive, and I will gain nothing if I should (could) do it.

It *might* happen that I still "sort of finish it" by getting a teaching certificate in the field of Software Engineering one day. I'm actually thinking about doing that.

Actually, I don't really see this as a problem; more like some sort of stubborn perseverance. In the end, it has gotten me several things that many people thought were too hard or impossible to get.

[DrNefario]

I used to seek out longer books, but now I think it's possibly the opposite. I wonder if, with paperbacks, there was a trend to ever-increasing size to try to justify the ever-increasing price. I certainly liked to feel I was getting value for money - getting a lot of entertainment for my buck - when I had greater constraints on the amounts of space and money I could devote to books.

With ebooks, the size is kind of irrelevant, almost invisible. I wonder if people will be able to write short books again, even though it's actually much more convenient to read long works on an ereader.

When I'm looking for classic crime fiction in second-hand bookshops, I look for the thin books.

I don't usually tend to find big thick fantasy novels too difficult to read, though. They seem to get up to a high pace, and carry you along fairly easily. I tend to think of the books that really intimidate me as being dense, rather than merely long. This seems to be feature of the style and the pacing. If suspense is maintained, then the book can fly by, but if the story broken up into distinct sections, or whatever, then it can feel very slow.

[Katsunami]

What do you mean exactly by dense? A lot of text in which not much happens?

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I wonder if you have the same problem I do, that of finding it hard to quit anything I start. I've read far too many books where I've reached the end wondering why I bothered to finish it.

Yes, I think it's a part of it, at least subconsciously.

I have in the last couple of years dropped a few books without finishing them, but my problem is that I remember, vividly, several books from when I was young that took forever to get going - books I even put aside for some time and restarted later, more than once - that turned out to be very much worth the effort in the end.

So unless the book is completely unreadable / awful / it's extremely clear it's not my cup of tea at all, I will persevere - and often enough, end up with a "meh" book (and sometimes, one I definitely didn't regret reading).

So, yes, that sense of "wasted time" is certainly stronger with a 800 page book than a 400 page book. And it probably doesn't help that most doorstoppers seem to belong to genres I don't generally care for all that much (epic fantasy, historical/literary fiction), which rather adds to the reluctance. On the other hand, there are some fantasy, historical and literary works I've enjoyed a great deal, without expecting to, so I don't necessarily want to reject anything just due to the "wrong" genre and size.

One thing I've got a lot better about with the arrival of ebooks is that I feel no compunction at all to finish a series I've started. If the first book is meh (and I haven't bought the next books yet), I have no qualms about dropping the series. It's trickier if I've bought several books (if the blurbs sound potentially right my kind of thing, and there's been a good sale), because that sense of "shouldn't let the money go to waste" is another issue I still need to work on.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've read short-stories that were too long, and massive tomes that were too short. Every story needs to find its own "proper" length--whatever that may be.

[Catlady]

I've had more hesitation in starting a long book since I've been listening to a lot of audiobooks. When you know going in that something is going to need 30+ hours, it's sometimes hard to commit.

[Dr. Drib]

If you're going to include trilogies, tetrologies, etc. as long books...then, yeah, books can be very long. And often very boring.

I don't worry about all that.

I do, however, like to alternate long books with short story collections (and my definition of a long book is not one with endless sequels).

Here is a brief list of what I consider to be long books:


1) Miss Macintosh, My Darling - Marguerite Young
2) JR - William Gaddis
3) Underworld - Don DeLillo
4) The Recognitions - William Gaddis
5) Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Ran
6) Parallel Stories - Péter Nádas
7) Infinite Jest - David Foster Wallace

...to name a few.

Not only will I alternate long novels (and even very ordinary-length novels) with short story collections, but I also like to alternate serious works of Literature (as above) with 'trashy' fun-filled, fun-to-read genre novels. A very short list, to give an example, is listed below:

1) Clive Barker
2) Most indy writers (99.99999999999999999999999%)
3) John Brunner
4) Robert Silverberg
5) Ramsey Campbell
6) Brian Lumley
7) Agatha Christie
8) Stephen King
9) Anne Rice
10) The remaining percentage of indy writers
11) John D. MacDonald
12) Brett Halliday

It should be mentioned that #2 and #10 will sometimes be a form of unrelenting torture, depending upon the skill of the writer to construct sentences that make sense, along with (of course) an ability to proofread and edit.

Still, the 12 above are fun to read - torried and unashamedly bad - but each to his own, aeh?

But do try to alternate the novels with short story collections, and the fun with the serious.




Don

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Yapyap

I have in the last couple of years dropped a few books without finishing them, but my problem is that I remember, vividly, several books from when I was young that took forever to get going - books I even put aside for some time and restarted later, more than once - that turned out to be very much worth the effort in the end...

One thing I've got a lot better about with the arrival of ebooks is that I feel no compunction at all to finish a series I've started. If the first book is meh (and I haven't bought the next books yet), I have no qualms about dropping the series. It's trickier if I've bought several books (if the blurbs sound potentially right my kind of thing, and there's been a good sale), because that sense of "shouldn't let the money go to waste" is another issue I still need to work on.

I learned fairly early from playing poker that the sense of "shouldn't let the money go to waste" simply results in losing more good money than you already have. Or, in this context, wasting good time in addition to money.

As far as books that start slow but are worth the effort, I find many classics to be that way. Reading them requires a very different attitude, one I find less suited for ebooks. For me reading many (most?) classics involves reading a few paragraphs then stopping to think about what I've just read. In the end I enjoy Charles Dickens but he's not something I'll read when I'm tired, he'd just put me to sleep. There's reading for relaxation (for me that means something light, no concentration required-I could almost read those books by skimming) and then there's reading for enjoyment (which takes concentration, either to understand what I've read or in some cases to simply speculate further on it, e.g. "would people really act that way?"). Classics I mostly read for enjoyment.

@Dr Drib, I probably shouldn't have mentioned series as 'long books' but I thought it was relevant to the problem I was describing. I have seen some series where the author has really written just one long book but they are more the exception than the rule. In the same sense there are some series where the author has really written nothing more than multiple versions of the same book-but again they're more the exception than the rule. Most authors do make an effort that each book in a series will 'stand on its own' and those I wouldn't consider a 'long book'.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

What do you mean exactly by dense? A lot of text in which not much happens?

Not necessarily, but partly. It's to do with the language and pacing, and the structure of the story, as much as anything. A dense book is not necessarily bad - not by any means - but it feels like quite hard work to get through. It's maybe like watching an art-house film versus watching a blockbuster. You need to be in the right kind of mood to want to put the effort in.

I'm currently reading the third of three chunky paperbacks I wanted to get out of the way before the end of the year. It is definitely a book that feels dense, for all three of those reasons. Of the other two, the shorter one felt longer than the other.

The three books were:

Traitor's Gate - Kate Elliott. Just short of 800 pages. Part 3 of the Crossroads Trilogy (I think it's called, although I'm not entirely sure why). Epic fantasy. This was quite an easy and fast read, in the end. The language is straightforward. It's all one continuous tale, in which a lot happens but the strand of narrative drive is always there moving things along.

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay - Michael Chabon. This was about 600 pages, I think. The story was broken into several distinct shorter narratives, which chopped up the flow.

The System of the World - Neal Stephenson. Almost 900 pages. Part 3 of the Baroque Trilogy. Another one that's broken up into (three) parts. The language is more verbose and archaic, appropriate to the time in which the novel is set. There can be long stretches with not much happening. This one's not even that easy to hold.

Two of those are the final books in trilogies, and I've had them for years. I think that's fairly telling in itself.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well everyone should read Steinbeck's short novels, particularly Cannery Row!

I refuse to admit that I started that one.

As with most things, quality and quantity are not always correlated. In my recent reading I've shunned longer books for the simple reason that I would rather read two different things instead of one long thing, or in the case of some books, three or four different things. I do tend to read novels and novellas mostly over short stories though.

I agree with the dense comments that have been made. Some books just take longer to read given the same length. Sometimes I really enjoy that and somethings it bugs me, but that is usually because if it isn't interesting than long is not a good thing.

[Anthem]

While I never really pay too much attention to the length of a book (unless I have time constraints for my selection) I think that the longer a book is the less leeway I am willing to give it.

Look, if a book is poor but short, I will often just finish it so I don't feel like I have wasted my money and time. But if a book is poorly written or not working for me and it is hella long, you bet I'm just gonna stop reading it and go read something else, wasted time and money be damned!

And, truth be told, there are a LOT of long books that really probably should be quite a bit shorter. But hey, I'm not a professional editor or writer doing this for a living, so what do I know? But for a story to keep going and going and going it has to be pretty damned good for me to continue investing my time in it.

Conversely, there have been short books I desperately wish would have been longer. Oh well, what are you going to do, right?

[Waylander]

I also think that many long fantasy books should be quite a bit shorter, as usually quite a lot of the stuff in them is just stuff that doesn't add anything to the story.