A big book is a big misfortune

[J-Sun]

Thought this was hilarious:

the unit of space opera is the hamilton. One page = 1 millihamilton.

I was going to post this on a PKD thread which complained about contemporary novel lengths but that thread seems like it ought to be more general. So I figured I'd just post it here and, if people wanted to, they could argue for and against bug crushers. If not, hopefully at least the quote's worth a read and a grin.

The thread title comes from Callimachus and I have my own (strong) opinions on it, but only have the time/energy to post this much right now.

 

[J Riff]

Bug.Crushers..?
No contest. 250 pages unless it's something special. A second book if it's great. No trilogies without a federal election, no exceptions, enforced by LitCop units worldwide.

 

[chopper]

in which case i have ten hamiltons to go on a nine hamilton road....

i like it....

 

[Vertigo]

I confess I like big books (so long as they are good!!!!) - I like to get immersed in the world of the story and frequently feel a little disappointed when a really good book is short and I get to the end too soon.

I do recall Justina Robson referring once to controlling herself from making her books too long by grabbing the nearest Hamilton book and bashing herself over the head with it (actually it may have been a Reynolds book - it was a while back).

 

[Rodders]

LOL. How dare she mock Reynolds.

I've got no objection to a good, long book as long as the characterisation is right.

 

[Luc Valentine]

'Tis the rare writer who can sustain and nurture the reader through a thousand pages. David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest is one such. Don't really know how to classify it, it was written in the 90s and set just a few years in the future around the turn of the century and involves a futuristic DVD-type entertainment device. DFW is not a SF writer per se, though this jumbo novel has seemingly SF elements. But this is the exception, from an exceptional writer.

 

[Lucky_Lola]

The bigger the better!

... within reason of course. If I can sit down and devour it over the course of a day it's too short. As a penny-pinching reader who purchases her paperbacks the old-fashioned way, I often find I won't buy a new author if I don't feel like I'm getting value for money. My entertainment budget has taken a serious hit over the past couple of years, and the difference between an AUD$22 purchase lasting 1-2 days or 1-2 weeks is a pretty big factor in my decision making. For example, Fiest's Flight of the Night Hawks is around 380 pages, whereas Kate Elliot's The Gathering Storm weighs in at a hefty 1030... and they both cost me the same at Borders. But I'm getting sidetracked.

Big books don't scare me, I love spending long enough with a story that I don't know what to do with myself when I finish the last page

 

[Demonomania]

I do like a long, in-depth story but feel it's best to read these over a few books rather than one mighty volume. Otherwise I get too immersed and nothing else gets read. The only downside I can see to these big series is the cost. One thing that does help me is the fact that I only buy my books from second hand places and charity shops; this way I don't have to worry about the amount of money I'd spend in a massive ten book series as I usually get them cheap.

In response to the quote Vertigo posted earlier; I've never found Reynolds' books to be over long and was a bit stumped by this (Hamilton, I will admit pushes the boundary of what can keep my interest in one volume) Is this the general consensus on his work?

 

[Hypnos164]

However many pages it takes to tell the story in the way the author wants is the right number.

Where it can wrong is when it turns out that the story doesn't actually have enough substance to fill a 1000 pages and starts to feel "padded".

Though I'd rather that than deal with a short book that feels like an abridged version of the novel it should have been...

When picking up something to read I tend to favour the massive epics when I have time to devote to them and the shorter books when I'm only going to have an hour or so per day with them.

 

[Demonomania]

Though I'd rather that than deal with a short book that feels like an abridged version of the novel it should have been...

This is a statement I agree with wholeheartedly! It's a problem I've come across mainly in fantasy though. I'm not sure if it's because I started reading fantasy with series' or if I just have a problem with shorter fantasy novels. It can sometimes make me hold back from buying standalone F-novels and I hate that.

 

[Hypnos164]

(Hamilton, I will admit pushes the boundary of what can keep my interest in one volume) Is this the general consensus on his work?

Hamilton's books are way above the average for page count in science fiction (based on the sample on my bookshelve at least) but way under the typical page and volume count for epic fantasy.

His books tend to be fairly action-packed and eventful so the pages fly by (for me).

I have certainly read a few 300 page novels that have felt much, much longer than one of Hamiltons 1000 page bug crushers...

 

[Connavar]

If you dont want fat books that waste half of their 800-1000 pages its almost always better the shorter the better in SFF genres.

In my experience few SFF books are worth to be longer than 500 pages other than to cater for fans that want the bigger the better feel.

Thats why i dont plan to read Hamilton type authors. I can read adventure,action that is much better in less than 500 pages.

The reason 80% of my SF reads are 200-400 pages is i follow the code quality over quantity alwyas. SF isnt brain dead action genre for me. There is hollywood for that....

 

[Perpetual Man]

I don't know, I don't think page count really matters.

For me it is a lot simpler than that. If I enjoy a book, short and long. If I don't know matter what the size you can always stop.

As Hamilton seems to be an easy one to note (let's face it no matter what his books ARE huge), he is one of my current favourite authors, and I would not change anything about the way he writes them. They are superb epic books and I enjoy them.

Of course long chapters.... now that's a totally different kettle of fish....

 

[Connavar]

I don't know, I don't think page count really matters.

For me it is a lot simpler than that. If I enjoy a book, short and long. If I don't know matter what the size you can always stop.

As Hamilton seems to be an easy one to note (let's face it no matter what his books ARE huge), he is one of my current favourite authors, and I would not change anything about the way he writes them. They are superb epic books and I enjoy them.

Of course long chapters.... now that's a totally different kettle of fish....

I was using Hamilton only as example, i have read authors like him in both genres. I have not read him.

I agree page numbers shouldnt matter thats why im suprised people say i like huge books, the bigger the better. Sure if its a good read but how fun is it to read a novel that make you go i enjoyed the first 100 and the last 100 pages but not the 500 pages in between.....

 

[Perpetual Man]

I agree page numbers shouldnt matter thats why im suprised people say i like huge books, the bigger the better. Sure if its a good read but how fun is it to read a novel that make you go i enjoyed the first 100 and the last 100 pages but not the 500 pages in between.....

I think, knowing what I'm like, I'd give before reaching the last 100 pages....

 

[thaddeus6th]

Depends how good the writer is and the nature of the book.

One of the things I like about Chris Wooding's Tales of the Ketty Jay is that they're nice and fast-paced, and he doesn't dick about with pointless padding.

 

[Connavar]

I think, knowing what I'm like, I'd give before reaching the last 100 pages....

Me too thats why im very suspicious against fat books because experience has shown they are rarely worth the effort. Sure if its a Dune or a LOTR or a an interesting SF with huge world that needs many pages of world building.

Lucky enough my taste in SFF leads me to medium size books that feels much longer than they are because of their quality.

 

[Rodders]

1000 Plus page books are pretty rare though.

Stephen Kings The Stand and IT were definately great books despite their size and still rank as a peronal favourite of mine. Carrion Comfort by Dan Simmonds could've probably lost a couple of hundred pages. Same with Anne Rice's The Witching Hour. Still, i did enjot them. Perhaps i'm one of the individuals taht enjoys the character and world building of these large tomes.

 

[Connavar]

1000 Plus page books are pretty rare though.

Stephen Kings The Stand and IT were definately great books despite their size and still rank as a peronal favourite of mine. Carrion Comfort by Dan Simmonds could've probably lost a couple of hundred pages. Same with Anne Rice's The Witching Hour. Still, i did enjot them. Perhaps i'm one of the individuals taht enjoys the character and world building of these large tomes.

Doesnt have to be a 1000 pages to be fat book, often they are 600-800 when the story don't warrant the length.

Stephen King is best example in thriller,horror of a writer whose books are often too long. Sometimes his storytelling saves him and sometimes it doesnt. Not that some of his big books cant be enjoying from page 1 to the last.

 

[Heck Tate]

As someone who consistently reads series of books, I'd have to say that it all depends on the author and what mood I'm in when I pick up the first book. There are even cases when I don't have the patience for under 200 page novels and I end up just reading a series of short stories. I've read the entire Wheel of Time series to date, and sometimes find myself thinking "Get on with it!" when he feels the need to describe everything in as much detail as possible, but at the same time, my own writing style is often wordy, though I try to use it to enhance the characters instead of the scenery. Regardless, brevity is normally better. Zelazny is my all time favorite author partially because of his straight to business writing style, while on the other hand, I felt that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged could have been reduced to a short story without losing any of its meaning.