How many pages makes an epic novel epic?

[The_Warrior]

This might sound really dull, but how many pages should an epic novel have? It seems like eight to nine hundread, but I don't know. Maby it is not the pages that makes it epic, but it's contents within it. That's what I'm confused on. i'm reading a A Game of Thrones and know that it's epic and I like it so far.

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

Don't you mean, how many pounds does it take to make an epic novel?

Seriously though, this is an interesting question and one that isn't answered by page count alone. I believe that the contents, depth, themes and scope are what give a book its epic qualities. By logical extension, that means size doesn't necessarily dictate the richness of imagination, sweep and majesty that defines this particular genre.

As a prime example, look at what H.P. Lovecraft achieved with his stories, At the Mountains of Madness or The Shadow Out of Time. Both unquestionably have an epic sweep that is thoroughly contained within the limitations of the novella format.

 

[Culhwch]

In short, I agree with Curt. Was really going to say the very same thing - that the tag 'epic' has less to do with the page count and more to do with the content. It's a thing I mostly associate with what would best be termed scope - the breadth of a story and the depth of a world, the thematic resonances. It just so happens that for the most part, these novels of epic scope are also usually of epic length.

 

[potters_pimp]

I don't know about pages, though according to the Wikipedia, an epic is 200,000 words and up.
I suppose that's what you mean. Some are just epic in story rather than in word length.

 

[Rider]

Indeed. H. Hesse's books (some of them) are rather short but their content isn't measured in words. So, let's expand the same to fantasy...

EDIT: I could write 200,000 words of totally rubbish things too (a list of what to do for example). Does that mean I've written something 'epic'?

 

[j d worthington]

I'd say the problem comes from the confusion of different things. Look at the origin of the word "epic" first, and then the type of tale it applied to.

NOUN:

1. An extended narrative poem in elevated or dignified language, celebrating the feats of a legendary or traditional hero.
2. A literary or dramatic composition that resembles an extended narrative poem celebrating heroic feats.
3. A series of events considered appropriate to an epic: [SIZE=+0]the epic of the Old West.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]ADJECTIVE: [/SIZE]

1. Of, constituting, having to do with, or suggestive of a literary epic: [SIZE=+0]an epic poem.[/SIZE]
2. Surpassing the usual or ordinary, particularly in scope or size: [SIZE=+0]"A vast musical panorama . . . it requires an epic musical understanding to do it justice"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0](Tim Page).[/SIZE]
3. Heroic and impressive in quality: [SIZE=+0]"Here in the courtroom . . . there was more of that epic atmosphere, the extra amperage of a special moment"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0](Scott Turow).[/SIZE]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ETYMOLOGY:[/SIZE][/FONT]
From Latin epicus, from Greek epikos, from epos, word, song; see wekw- in Indo-European roots

from the American Heritage Dictionary (online).

Hence, as it is something that tended to take a lot of narration, or covered great spans of incident or time, it came to also be associated -- incorrectly -- with length. Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, really, is an epic of a more informal sort (heroism is rather lacking, but the vast scope and the grandeur of the vision is certainly there) and you can't get a much briefer novel than that.

However, as "epic" has come to be associated (in the average mind) with "lengthy", it has been picked up on by marketing... hence the 200,000+ word count figure....

And, of course, there's also the "comic epic" (Don Quixote, for example).....

 

[woodsman]

Don Quixote is a favourite of mine JD!!
Um although I agree it's more about quality, I generally wouln't refer to a really good book as epic unless it has a bit of weight, Perchance thats just me and my lack of thought/education.

 

[j d worthington]

Don Quixote is a favourite of mine JD!!
Um although I agree it's more about quality, I generally wouln't refer to a really good book as epic unless it has a bit of weight, Perchance thats just me and my lack of thought/education.

No, I think it's just a case of (as with so many other things) we no longer understand the roots of terms, and therefore we come to have a misconception of what those words mean. For example, the earliest epic -- Gilgamesh -- is anything but long... at least as we have it now. Yet an epic it most definitely is. Cat's Cradle is about the end of the world... again, handled in a humorous vein, so it's a "comic epic"... funny, but based (as all great humor is) on tragedy. Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser tales become epic, as they sprawl all around their world (and into ours), they go up against all sorts of things (including gods from both worlds), and they blend heroism, humor, tragedy, deep insight, and all the other elements of true epic in them... though the heroes are by no means sans peur et sans reproche.... At any rate, none of those books were particularly lengthy (at least, as Leiber published them originally).

But we've come so strongly to associate "epic" with "large, sprawling" (in the sense of heft) that I'm not sure we can get away from that one -- at least not without considerable effort. Should we? Well, my feeling is that we shouldn't see epic as necessarily lengthy, though it may be so; otherwise we do something of a disservice to both types of (genuine) epic tales.

(We also run the risk -- as we are seeing today -- of associating "epic" with "length" in another fashion... if it is one of these doorstops, then it's "epic"... whether it be golden or pure crap.....)

 

[chrispenycate]

I rather like a relative epicity scale, measured in sheer mass of verbiage: "Ooh , my series is much epicker than yours; my publisher had to hire a fork lift just to get the manuscript through the door."

Just a minute; are we sure some authors aren't using this technique?

 

[dustinzgirl]

Its not pages, its scope.

 

[Allegra]

I have to say I totally agree with Curt's notion.

Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, really, is an epic of a more informal sort (heroism is rather lacking, but the vast scope and the grandeur of the vision is certainly there) and you can't get a much briefer novel than that.

J.D., you are so right about Cat's Cradle.

 

[tangaloomababe]

I don't think its the size that counts, however many really great books are on the large size, thats because the author has had the time to develop the plot and characters of the book.
Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth is a class example of an epic book. Its very very big, has a marvellous story and well developed characters.

In a smaller book you don't have the pages or words to fully develop the book, not that this makes smaller books less of a story, but its hard to loose yourself in the book if you have finished it almost before you have begun it, so to speak...

 

[Lord Mureth]

I'd agree that it's more based on content than quantity; just choosing an easy example... you can't get more 'epic' than The Silmarillion, and that was what, only about 400 pages? Not too sure on the word count for it though!

 

[j d worthington]

I don't think its the size that counts, however many really great books are on the large size, thats because the author has had the time to develop the plot and characters of the book.
Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth is a class example of an epic book. Its very very big, has a marvellous story and well developed characters.

In a smaller book you don't have the pages or words to fully develop the book, not that this makes smaller books less of a story, but its hard to loose yourself in the book if you have finished it almost before you have begun it, so to speak...

Some good points there. Yes, it does allow the writer more room for developing themes, characters, etc. (the reason why Lovecraft's work grew longer in his later years... he needed that extra space to develop his ideas properly).

However... the style of the writing can make a huge difference there, too. A very dense writing style can make such use of every word that even a very brief story can have an epic quality to it (think of some of Lord Dunsany's stories, for example); and the denser the writing in such a case, the more carefully one must read it, and the more it allows the writer to develop these things even within a very short space.

However, to reiterate... there's nothing inherently wrong with huge books (in fact, quite a few of my favorites are quite lengthy... especially among the Gothics -- Melmoth and Udolpho, for instance). My concern is the identification of "epic" with "length", when the connection is actually more often apparent or fortuitous than real....

 

[Ursa major]

However... the style of the writing can make a huge difference there, too. A very dense writing style can make such use of every word that even a very brief story can have an epic quality to it (think of some of Lord Dunsany's stories, for example); and the denser the writing in such a case, the more carefully one must read it, and the more it allows the writer to develop these things even within a very short space.

It's rather like in music where you can have a short piece that can wring the last drop of emotion out of every phrase or a long piece where the same few notes recur again and again to little purpose. While I find it hard to write (text, not music, I mean) without threatening the existence of the planet's forests, even I realise that the length should have some relation to the heft of the content.