Self-Pubbed Books Shorter?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You mean like you did when you said the vast majority of corporation published books were error free, and yet were unable to point to just one example of the ones you have read?

I never said that.

I said (post #59 in the thread "I found an error-free book"):

There is a difference between a book that is proofread by professionals and one that is not.

To which you responded (post #61):

Mistakes are mistakes, it makes no difference whether a professional misses them or an amateur misses them.

But I did ask if anyone knew of any other error-free books published this century, so can you post your list?

And yes, I ignored that request. It's silly.

Please stop making things up.

The links you posted do not support your claim that publishers deliberately bloated their slim books, causing readers to be bored and turn to other entertainment.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Centennial was over 400,000 words-- an epic. Probably 400+ pages in paperback depending on type size.

There have of course always been those who wrote big books, 120,000 words and over. The Victorians loved enormous books, look at Nicholas Nickleby. However, if you scan the bookshelves in the nearest bookstore, you'll find books run to around one inch to one and a half inches thick, roughly the 80,000 to 120,000 word bracket.

Authors who have a lot to say often say it over several books rather than a single vast tome. (Good marketing, too; three books worth of royalties is better than one.) Anthony Powell's Music of Time sequence ran to 12 novels, each quite compact at around 80,000 words, but coming close to 1,000,000 words in total. Or, sticking to printed pages for comparison, around 2,000 pages!

I think one of the things about digital books is that the size is not immediately visible. You can buy an e-book and not know, until you dig in, whether it's a zippy 80,000 words, or a prolix 250,000 words. But a shelf full of paperbacks, spine outward, gives you an instant visual guide.

For myself, I don't mind long books, but if, for instance it's a whodunit, and you can't bring it in under 100,000 words, then you're padding. Ditto straight action thrillers.

Thanks for the numbers Pulpmeister. I can't say I disagree that genre does have an impact on how long a book can be without seeming padded. Certainly there would be more need for more text in a historical fiction than as you said a whodunit. Since we don't live in 18th century Colorado (ala Centennial) I imagine Mr. Michener did feel the need to include a lot of details to flesh the setting out. A whodunit though can be set anywhere and the mystery is more important than the setting. Which isn't to say no details of the setting are needed, but that the mystery is the reason for reading the book. A historical fiction though has to have a lot more detail to help us relate to the story. At least that's my opinion.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by crich70

A historical fiction though has to have a lot more detail to help us relate to the story.

Absolutely, however, that 500+ pages trad pub book 1 of a trilogy that I couldn't finish was historical fiction. When you get various bits of background repeated several times throughout, nearly word for word (I'm talking about half a page worth each time) it just becomes irritating padding. Either the publishers/author were a tad greedy (hey, how about we stretch this to a trilogy instead of having just one book) or they assumed that readers are too stupid to remember what was explained previously I guess it could just be sloppy editing but the repeats were so obvious that I really doubt it.

I really couldn't care less how long or short a book is as long as I enjoy it I read mostly what is categorised as literary fiction and the majority of my books are under 300 pages; when I do read stuff from other genres, everything seems to be 500 pages or thereabout.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Yolina

Absolutely, however, that 500+ pages trad pub book 1 of a trilogy that I couldn't finish was historical fiction. When you get various bits of background repeated several times throughout, nearly word for word (I'm talking about half a page worth each time) it just becomes irritating padding. Either the publishers/author were a tad greedy (hey, how about we stretch this to a trilogy instead of having just one book) or they assumed that readers are too stupid to remember what was explained previously I guess it could just be sloppy editing but the repeats were so obvious that I really doubt it.

I really couldn't care less how long or short a book is as long as I enjoy it I read mostly what is categorised as literary fiction and the majority of my books are under 300 pages; when I do read stuff from other genres, everything seems to be 500 pages or thereabout.

I agree if there is going to be stuff thrown it it shouldn't slow or stall the storyline. I started Jean Auel's "Valley of Horses" but as yet have never finished it. One minute we're reading about her heroine and the next it's all this stuff about the geological features of the landscape. A little bit of that goes a long way. Hollywood used to say "if you want to send a message use Western Union." And I understand Sinclair Lewis once told a young author that if he wanted to read about the Azores he'd pick up National Geographic not a novel.

[Atunah]

I am starting to feel sorry for all those that seem to find these "padded" books. I have been reading for a long time and I could count on one hand the books I thought had what might be considered padding. I just don't see those in trade published books and the books I read are regular sized average of 300-450 pages. Word count means squat to me and it doesn't matter what the type font size and all that is, I know how long it takes me to read a book and its pretty spot on each time.

Maybe its genre, I don't read Fantasy. But like I said, in the genre I love, romance, self published books do tend to run shorter than regular sized books. And I find that often the story suffers for it. That is just my personal experience in the genres I read. Fully fleshed characters are not padding. Vivid worlds are not padding. Great stories with layers are not padding.

I'll just consider myself lucky then to read the genres I do and not have to worry about this elusive thing called padding.

[rkomar]

The thing is, you can get fully fleshed characters and environments in novels under 200 pages. Sometimes the author has to be efficient in their use of words to get it that short, and that takes effort and skill. Good novels are supposed to "show, not tell", and that's where the skill comes in.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The thing is, you can get fully fleshed characters and environments in novels under 200 pages. Sometimes the author has to be efficient in their use of words to get it that short, and that takes effort and skill. Good novels are supposed to "show, not tell", and that's where the skill comes in.

In an article I have as part of a collection of such about writing stories (the article is written like an author and a questioner are talking) the author character demonstrates how the author and reader collaborate in the telling of a story. The author provides clues like mentioning how a character enters a run down cafe and the reader supplies details like half empty sugar dispensers, worn linoleum flooring, greasy menus, checkered table cloths etc. from their own idea of what a run down cafe actually looks like. So I can agree with you that there is some artistry involved. Choosing just the right details and the right words to describe them so that the reader can fill in the blanks themselves is a large part of what I think the magic of reading is all about.

[Pulpmeister]

When I use the word padding, I don't mean intentionally padding out a story with stuff to make a suitable length, but rather the inability of some writers to achieve concision. Those who can't escape the practice of writing down everything, even when it does nothing at all to advance the story.

For instance...

Guy leaves his office so go and see Harry Bloggs at a different office elsewhere in town. Takes lift to basement, gets car, drives across town, finds somewhere to park, finds building, takes lift upstairs, asks reception for Harry Bloggs...

or: Guy leaves office to see Harry Bloggs. Skip a line, new scene.

At Harry Bloggs' office, reception tells him Harry Bloggs is in.

Or better, open the scene with Harry Bloggs saying something, or maybe "Harry Bloggs was fiftyish, overweight, and bald as an egg. He said..."

In movies, this is known as a jump cut, and speeds up the action dramatically. The only possible reason for describing the journey itself would be to establish an ominous atmosphere perhaps, or looming bad weather, the seediness or glamour of the locale; in other words, it needs to advance the story.

In full-blown fantasy, if you have a character going from A to B, it may be essential to include the detail of the trip, but only if it too advances the story, and isn't just a pause for irrelevant sightseeing. A skilled author will get all that's necessary in the story-telling itself, in the dialogue, in the main scenes themselves, rather than pauses for sightseeing.

Self pubbing means that as a rule no experienced editor has gone over the book to identify superfluous material, and these days with trad pub slashing its editing staff willy-nilly, major printed books are going that way too.

For those who think in pages rather than words, here are a few examples to clarify:

Arthur C Clarke, Rendezvous With Rama, 70,000 words, 252 pages (UK Pan paperback 1974).
Erle Stanley Gardner, The Case of the Perjured Parrot, 56,000 words, 170 pages (Penguin UK 1959)
Isaac Asimov, Forward the Foundation, 150,000 words, 420 pages, Doubleday UK hardback 1993
Terry Pratchett, Making Money, 113,000 words, 350 pages, Doubleday UK hardback

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by crich70

In an article I have as part of a collection of such about writing stories (the article is written like an author and a questioner are talking) the author character demonstrates how the author and reader collaborate in the telling of a story. The author provides clues like mentioning how a character enters a run down cafe and the reader supplies details like half empty sugar dispensers, worn linoleum flooring, greasy menus, checkered table cloths etc. from their own idea of what a run down cafe actually looks like. So I can agree with you that there is some artistry involved. Choosing just the right details and the right words to describe them so that the reader can fill in the blanks themselves is a large part of what I think the magic of reading is all about.

Yes, and this can extend beyond environmental details to characters' personalities, and even plot details. Personally, I get bored by stories where the author explains the motivation behind each event and every bit of dialogue. I need room for my imagination to work.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

When I use the word padding, I don't mean intentionally padding out a story with stuff to make a suitable length, but rather the inability of some writers to achieve concision. Those who can't escape the practice of writing down everything, even when it does nothing at all to advance the story.

For instance...

Guy leaves his office so go and see Harry Bloggs at a different office elsewhere in town. Takes lift to basement, gets car, drives across town, finds somewhere to park, finds building, takes lift upstairs, asks reception for Harry Bloggs...

or: Guy leaves office to see Harry Bloggs. Skip a line, new scene.

At Harry Bloggs' office, reception tells him Harry Bloggs is in.

Or better, open the scene with Harry Bloggs saying something, or maybe "Harry Bloggs was fiftyish, overweight, and bald as an egg. He said..."

In movies, this is known as a jump cut, and speeds up the action dramatically. The only possible reason for describing the journey itself would be to establish an ominous atmosphere perhaps, or looming bad weather, the seediness or glamour of the locale; in other words, it needs to advance the story.

In full-blown fantasy, if you have a character going from A to B, it may be essential to include the detail of the trip, but only if it too advances the story, and isn't just a pause for irrelevant sightseeing. A skilled author will get all that's necessary in the story-telling itself, in the dialogue, in the main scenes themselves, rather than pauses for sightseeing.

Self pubbing means that as a rule no experienced editor has gone over the book to identify superfluous material, and these days with trad pub slashing its editing staff willy-nilly, major printed books are going that way too.

For those who think in pages rather than words, here are a few examples to clarify:

Arthur C Clarke, Rendezvous With Rama, 70,000 words, 252 pages (UK Pan paperback 1974).
Erle Stanley Gardner, The Case of the Perjured Parrot, 56,000 words, 170 pages (Penguin UK 1959)
Isaac Asimov, Forward the Foundation, 150,000 words, 420 pages, Doubleday UK hardback 1993
Terry Pratchett, Making Money, 113,000 words, 350 pages, Doubleday UK hardback

Nicely said and good examples of various genres/page numbers.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Yes, and this can extend beyond environmental details to characters' personalities, and even plot details. Personally, I get bored by stories where the author explains the motivation behind each event and every bit of dialogue. I need room for my imagination to work.

And we don't need every little thing explained anyway. If something is important to the story then yes explain it, but don't micro-explain everything just to explain it. If the old grandfather clock needs to be wound every two weeks and it's important to setting up or tearing down a characters alibi for the time of the murder, then mention it, but don't mention it just to make sure the room is described in minute detail.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Self pubbing means that as a rule no experienced editor has gone over the book to identify superfluous material, and these days with trad pub slashing its editing staff willy-nilly, major printed books are going that way too.

No, it does not.
Sorry, no such "rule".
Overgeneralizing like that doesn't help your argument. Especially since many, if not most, of the professional editorial staff slashed by the corporate publishers now make their living editing indie books.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I never said that.

I said (post #59 in the thread "I found an error-free book"):



To which you responded (post #61):



And yes, I ignored that request. It's silly.

Why is it silly to ask for a list of error-free books? I would have thought such a list would be very useful to every user of this site. Why keep it to yourself?

Originally Posted by Catlady

The links you posted do not support your claim that publishers deliberately bloated their slim books, causing readers to be bored and turn to other entertainment.

Do you have an alternative theory as to why books became bloated and boring at the same time large quantities of people stopped reading?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Do you have an alternative theory as to why books became bloated and boring at the same time large quantities of people stopped reading?

Well, the most obvious one is that readers stopped reading books causing books to become longer because that was the kind of books the remaining readers wanted.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Why is it silly to ask for a list of error-free books? I would have thought such a list would be very useful to every user of this site. Why keep it to yourself?

Because I NEVER CLAIMED THAT EVEN ONE SUCH BOOK EXISTS!

Love how you still ignore the fact that you completely warped and misrepresented what I said, even when confronted with the black-and-white evidence.

Do you have an alternative theory as to why books became bloated and boring at the same time large quantities of people stopped reading?

Now it's a theory? Originally you presented it as a statement of cause and effect ("bloated and boring" books caused decline in readership). YOU presented the argument, it's up to you to defend it, not to try to turn it around on the person challenging you.

Suppose I were to say, "People who stand on their heads while reading retain more information than those who don't," and you then skeptically ask, "What's the evidence for that?" Would it make any sense whatsoever for me to respond, "Prove that they don't" and put the burden on you?

I'm done.