Books are Getting Significantly Longer Every Year

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by ApK

Does your reader not have various methods of displaying location/percentage information to communicate that to you? All mine do.

Kindles have something like location, percentages, and page numbers, but they can't be used to compare books. Therefore, I'm using Count Pages in Calibre, so it becomes possible to estimate the size of one book relative to another. If one book is 300 'pages' and another is 400, the latter is 1/3rd longer.

On the length of books, I can only say that I have become impatient with some of the fantasy I'm reading. Splitting up a party in more than 2 parts without a VERY good reason or having more than 3-4 story parts at once now often bores me if the main plot isn't advanced. Then I'll start to feel as if the book is longer than it should have been.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Kindles have something like location, percentages, and page numbers, but they can't be used to compare books.

Sure they can. As long as you're comparing apples to apples. Two books with a similar number of locations are similar in "size." A book with more locations than another is "bigger." The comparisons still hold, even if the paradigms our brains are locked into don't allow us to instantly visualize how much bigger/smaller various books are (yet). But future humans won't have that problem.

Just like we have our own "page" paradigms, there's nothing stopping people from developing their own "average" location-count-per-book statistics. In fact, a locations-based comparison would give just as accurate a picture of the relative "size" of two books, as a comparison made based on a computed "page" count would (more so, actually, if one or more of the ebooks' page-count numbers is tied to a physical book's page-count--which is affected by font-size and margins and line-height and page dimensions). It's just that the scale of a location-based system isn't as intuitive to us as the one that has had a lifetime to become ingrained is. But when it boils down to the numbers, locations give us everything (regarding book-length comparisons) that pages do. If we let them.

If one book is 300 'pages' and another is 400, the latter is 1/3rd longer.

If one book is 10000 locations and another is 7500, the former is 1/4th smaller.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong; I understand people not wanting to make adjustments (or not being willing to change their mindsets), but don't confuse "don't want to" with "can't."

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sure they can. As long as you're comparing apples to apples. Two books with a similar number of locations are similar in "size." A book with more locations than another is "bigger." The comparisons still hold, even if the paradigms our brains are locked into don't allow us to instantly visualize how much bigger/smaller various books are (yet). But future humans won't have that problem.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. Obviously, you can use Kindle locations of one book to compare its length to another book, as long as it is a Kindle book. It's not possible to compare book sizes between different e-readers.

OK, I know, 400 pages is not 400 pages, due to font sizes and white space and such, but you'd still be in the ballpark regarding book size if font sizes and white space are not excessively large or small.

I use Count Pages, and I have calibre put the page count into the title, in brackets, when side-loading. That way, I would be able to compare the book sizes regardless of the e-reader I'm using.

[Cinisajoy]

Here is the problem with page count. Not all paper books have the same font. I like locations better. I know Atlas Shrugged is roughly 1168 pages or 27496 locations. I am at 47%. Knowing those two parameters on one book, the formula should follow with most books.
That is roughly 23.5 locations per page.
So this other book I picked up at random should top out at 65 pages.

[JSWolf]

ADE uses a page numbers based on the every 1024 bytes of compressed data. Once you get use to it, you get to know roughly the size of the eBook vs another. I'm so used to ADE page numbers that I get a sense of size. % is OK, but not nearly as useful as the ADE page numbers.

Kindle page numbers are not so useful because page numbers are trying to simulate the page numbering in pBooks. So in book A, the pages can be that different from book B.

[Atunah]

After reading kindle books since 2008 pretty much exclusively, I have gotten very used to the locations. I can tell right away how "long" a book is now. I like the pages too that we have now on many books. Not all kindle books have the pages though.

And for me, if its 20-30 pages here and there and off between the versions, that isn't a big deal when you read full length books like I do.

But most of all after many years of reading I have an inner clock. I know how long it takes me to read an average sized book of lets say 350 pages. I just know. So if I suddenly only take half the time with a book that says its 400 pages, then I know it was actually only 200 and I'd wonder at the author/publisher. There have been a few self published books that were shorter than the page count said. I haven't really encountered this from trade publishers that I can recall and only a few time with SP's. I just won't read those authors again.

So overall locations and page numbers and my inner clock are doing just fine for my reading. I like full length books as I don't really read shorts/novellas so as long as I get what I want, I am happy. Don't care if the book is 340 pages in one version and 360 in another. Its still a full length book and its still close enough to not be jarring.
Its very different when you pick up a book thinking its 250 pages and it reads and feels like its only 130 pages, which happened to me.

The time left to read on my Voyage is also pretty consistent for me and pretty close to how I read. There is also the average time it takes others to read the book which is a feature in the "about this book" on the kindle. That too seems to be consistent, although usually higher than my time it takes to read.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Atunah

After reading kindle books since 2008 pretty much exclusively, I have gotten very used to the locations. I can tell right away how "long" a book is now. I like the pages too that we have now on many books. Not all kindle books have the pages though.

And for me, if its 20-30 pages here and there and off between the versions, that isn't a big deal when you read full length books like I do.

But most of all after many years of reading I have an inner clock. I know how long it takes me to read an average sized book of lets say 350 pages. I just know. So if I suddenly only take half the time with a book that says its 400 pages, then I know it was actually only 200 and I'd wonder at the author/publisher. There have been a few self published books that were shorter than the page count said. I haven't really encountered this from trade publishers that I can recall and only a few time with SP's. I just won't read those authors again.

So overall locations and page numbers and my inner clock are doing just fine for my reading. I like full length books as I don't really read shorts/novellas so as long as I get what I want, I am happy. Don't care if the book is 340 pages in one version and 360 in another. Its still a full length book and its still close enough to not be jarring.
Its very different when you pick up a book thinking its 250 pages and it reads and feels like its only 130 pages, which happened to me.

The time left to read on my Voyage is also pretty consistent for me and pretty close to how I read. There is also the average time it takes others to read the book which is a feature in the "about this book" on the kindle. That too seems to be consistent, although usually higher than my time it takes to read.

If I remember right, you are one of the super fast readers. I am just in the fast category.

[Atunah]

I wish I was super fast, but I think I am just above average. If I was faster I could read even more great books a year.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Atunah

I wish I was super fast, but I think I am just above average. If I was faster I could read even more great books a year.

How long does it take you to read a novel of about 350 pages?

[Apache]

Speed doesn't matter to me. I just want to enjoy the ride.
Apache

[HarryT]

Precisely. Reading should be a pleasure, not a race.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

How long does it take you to read a novel of about 350 pages?

For me it depends on the book. I read 'The Martian' over a couple evenings. 'Fellowship of the Rings' has taken me about 25 years so far and I still haven't finished it....

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

How long does it take you to read a novel of about 350 pages?

A 350-page novel by Henry James or by E.L. James? I think it's a meaningless statistic and useless for comparative purposes.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by issybird

A 350-page novel by Henry James or by E.L. James? I think it's a meaningless statistic and useless for comparative purposes.

I was specifically asking Atunah. She was the only one I was thinking about.
If I remember right she reads at least 2 full length novels a day.
My long term book is Atlas Shrugged.
She had mentioned that average reading times were higher than hers.
So I wasn't suggesting anything just trying to remember hers.

[Atunah]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

How long does it take you to read a novel of about 350 pages?

About 3 hours of comfortable reading time.

Its not about being a race, its about me knowing how long it takes me to read a book. Just by my inner clock. Its just a data point. Its not like I try to read a book in a certain time, it just happens, it just is.

I enjoy the heck out of most books I read, thanks to my vetting process so I don't worry there. I also never skim a book. Never have done that. I would stop reading a book if I had to do that. What is the point otherwise. I read for enjoyment now, to feel, to go on adventures, to laugh, to cry, to make me think.

Only time I didn't enjoy reading was way back in school when we had to read certain books. I am a mood reader and don't like having to read something when I am not the mood for it.

Would it take me longer to read some much older stuff like some classics? Probably. I don't read a lot of them though anymore other than Austen and such and I read Austen just as fast as they are a delight to read. Or Anne Bronte and Gaskell I read was also just as a modern read for me. Don't know Henry James so can't speak for that.

Adding to that is that my reading life is separated into two since I read german in my first part and now english in my second part. It did take me a few years to be able to read and enjoy english books. Now I can't really read german anymore as I can't turn off my brain to get immersed.
I don't even remember a lot of the book I read in german.

eta: Cin, I don't read 2 a day usually. One a day I can manage, although last couple of years I haven't been able too. I do have some binge reading weekends I can read 5 books in 2-3 days. But I think now I am more a book every other day, sometimes every day.