A big book is a big misfortune

[Kierkegaurdian]

I like big books and I cannot lie ...

But in all seriousness! The length of the book (or series) is a little inconsequential to me. While I do love immersing myself in some 800+ page epic (or series of 800+ pagers), I can equally enjoy a shorter work by a master like Philip K. Dick. In the non-SFF world, the same holds (as far as my tastes go). The Crying of Lot 49 by Thomas Pynchon and Giovanni's Room by Baldwin are absolutely incredible books, and they both are under 200 pages, if memory serves.

 

[drosdelnoch]

I've not got a problem with a lengthy novel provided its not padded out with a lot of unnecessary material.

 

[J-Sun]

Interesting. Apologies if I'm mischaracterizing (or missing) anyone but the vast majority - Vertigo, Rodders, Luc Valentine, drosdelnoch, Demonomania, Hypnos164, Perpetual Man, thaddeus6th, Heck Tate, Kierkegaurdian - may or may not want a long book in the abstract but, if it's not padded and is good, they'll be happy with it. Only Lucky Lola wants the 1000+ page book and only J Riff and Connavar draw a hard line on the short side, though Connavar's pretty generous with 500 pages (J Riff holds it to 250).

I'll agree with most people if we're talking in the abstract: if a book is tightly packed and interesting and long, it should theoretically be fine. But I tend to side with J Riff and Connavar (and Luc Valentine) in practice: it's a rare writer who can sustain extremely lengthy books.

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?

I certainly found Revelation Space to be overlong, though not ruinously so, and all his other novels seem to be even longer. But, yeah, they're svelte compared to Hamilton's stuff. To take him as an example of why I generally hate long books: Fallen Dragon is not a series, though it contains a trilogy's worth of material. It covers the life of its protagonist and an interstellar conflict in several timelines and settings. It's readable. IOW, it has excuses for its length and even manages to be pretty good. But: I'll never plow through its c.900 pages again and I will eventually forget it completely. And, in its place, I could have read five classics of the field from the 40s and 50s (or any set of five books of about 180pp each). Sorry, dude, but you're just not that good to impose on my time that long and deprive me of the chance to read so many other great books (or re-read beloved favorites) in my short life.

On a statistical angle: IIRC, the most recent SFWA definitions were that a short story was anything up to 7,500 words. A novelette was capped at 17,500, and novellas were capped at 40,000 (approximately 100pp in some arrangements). This follows approximately a 230% increase at each category. So, at that rate, after a proper "novel", we'd need a new word for something longer than 92,000 words, or about 230pp. And something else beyond 212,000 words or about 530pp. Now, these are just word counts and not structural conditions or qualitative considerations but seem like reasonable grouping for how I tend to feel about them: "novels" tend to be as good as their fulfillment of the form. Novel-novels have to overcome their almost inevitable padding and formlessness and my boredom with parts of them. And it's very hard for novel-novel-novels to overcome the crushing burden of their length.

Now: apologies for my overlong post.

 

[Ursa major]

The term for one of those categories books of great length could be novellong, with the next larger having an added 2 to make novel2long.

*cough*

I'm in the camp of wishing some very good books were longer, sometimes because I like being with the characters/concept/setting, a few times because the ending is too rushed (though this may be due to the author becoming tired of his creation, not the editor demanding it be wrapped up before page xxxx). The trouble is, one doesn't know whether one will crave the company of a character (or the BDO**, or the slow sure-footed unwinding of a complex plot) when one is noticing that a book's spine takes up a lot of the shelf in the bookshop.

One answer is to split longer books into volumes, but it is sometimes difficult to conjure up decent endings to the various volumes. (And if the volumes are too short, my "I'm paying a lot for these numerous, thin sub-books" alarm goes off.)


Poor books, naturally, are always too long.



** - Big Dumb Object

 

[jojajihisc]

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.

That's been my experience for the most part as well. My mode, at least for now, seems to be between 280-340 pages. I will go outside that both above (Simmons, Erikson) and below (Silverberg, Heinlein) quite often, that just seems to be a popular and comfortable length for me at present.

 

[PrinceAshitaka]

Personally I relish the challenge of a big read, and what I mean by that is the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Soon to be 10 books, all around the 600-700 page mark. And that's something I re-read every couple of years.
I'd rather start a series that's going to keep me busy for a month or two than a book I can read in a day or two. But there's always exceptions. The fact is very few authors can write as well as Donaldson, and can't keep you interested and mesmeried for so long, they just can't create worlds and characters of sufficient depth.
But ultimately I'll give everything a go. I don't exclusively like such lengthy reads, and my other favourite authors (Le Guin and P. K. Dick) usually keep their books pretty short. But because they're so good, I'll forgive 'em for their berevity.

 

[Connavar]

it's a rare writer who can sustain extremely lengthy books.

Thats the problem that happens too oten. I had also problem with Revelation Space because in the middle it was way too long. Always in those kind of books you get to a place where the pages,the story doesnt mean anything but padding for the last 200 pages....

It takes much more skill,confidence to write quality SF in 200-300 pages.

Its a challenge to read a 200 page novel that said something in fewer pages. Like J-Sun said why waste time on a book while on the same you could have read 4-5 classic SF books....

Not only there are many modern SF writers who can write shorter but quality SF!

Shame there are many readers who see Space Opera type books like fat epic fantasy series that must be 800-1000 page for fun fat challenge.....

Me i stay the hell away and go to part of the SF shelfs where books are about the writing.

 

[elvet]

If I'm enjoying a book, it can never be too long. The only thing is the weight. It's much harder to read these in bed .

 

[Toby Frost]

It's not so much the length of SFF (especially F) books that bothers me as much as what the effect of the need for a long book has on the way a story is written. Such a requirement, to my mind, makes it harder to write a mission-based story (how we did X) with only one or two POV characters and seems to push the writer towards a multi-handed, sprawling narrative that will probably end up being about the Fate of the World on account of being so big.

The problem with such stories, apart from the inevitable similarity, is that they can easily end up as soap opera. Clear ending points become harder to find, and the whole thing can just drag on and on. It also makes stories much harder to use as a way of discussing a single idea or to give a single impression (John Wyndham, PK Dick etc), although this probably happens more in SF than fantasy.

But I suspect I'm in a minority here.

 

[soulsinging]

I consider even 500 or so pages big. Every now and again a huge epic like that will hook me and become a fav (American Tabloid, Lonesome Dove), but more often than not they just feel like a chore (Underworld). I've read some epic fantasy series too (GRRM) and find that huge novels, if they aren't blowing me away, feel like homework. So it's very hit or miss for me. I'm a big fan of mystery and hard-boiled detective novels, so the 200-300 range is ideal for me. Much beyond that and it starts to feel like a slog.

Oddly enough though, I don't like short stories. Go figure.

 

[Connavar]

It's not so much the length of SFF (especially F) books that bothers me as much as what the effect of the need for a long book has on the way a story is written. Such a requirement, to my mind, makes it harder to write a mission-based story (how we did X) with only one or two POV characters and seems to push the writer towards a multi-handed, sprawling narrative that will probably end up being about the Fate of the World on account of being so big.

The problem with such stories, apart from the inevitable similarity, is that they can easily end up as soap opera. Clear ending points become harder to find, and the whole thing can just drag on and on. It also makes stories much harder to use as a way of discussing a single idea or to give a single impression (John Wyndham, PK Dick etc), although this probably happens more in SF than fantasy.

But I suspect I'm in a minority here.

Thats the problem i see in those books more than the too long lengtht. Too big of a scope,narrative makes them so similar that i almost see Space Opera like a curse word. Single ideas,character stories are so rare. Thats why i like Richard Morgan type authors, that dont write world on the line kind of stories. The problem is that SF series has become like fantasy epics where you expect and avoid the kind of stories you mentioned.

We must be in minority since more of SF shelf look is looking more and more like big fat epic fantasy shelfs....

 

[Toby Frost]

We are in a minority, no doubt about it. What goes on shelves is what sells, and big books sell. In a way it's hard to say that's wrong, if people are getting what they want, but it surely must make certain types of good (comparatively) short novel harder to sell. Would The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch or even The War of the Worlds be better with six viewpoint protagonists, three times the length?

 

[Connavar]

We are in a minority, no doubt about it. What goes on shelves is what sells, and big books sell. In a way it's hard to say that's wrong, if people are getting what they want, but it surely must make certain types of good (comparatively) short novel harder to sell. Would The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch or even The War of the Worlds be better with six viewpoint protagonists, three times the length?

Just like there is a market for smaller fantasy books we just have to buy and make sure there is a limited bookshelf for other than the big,multi viewpoints books.

Impossible to imagine focused,planned classic shorter SF books being bigger,more viewpoints. The more isnt always the merrier.

 

[clovis-man]

Just like there is a market for smaller fantasy books we just have to buy and make sure there is a limited bookshelf for other than the big,multi viewpoints books.

Well, I'll do my part. I jumped off the Peter Hamilton bandwagon some time back.

 

[eclectic_dragon0253]

I think it's a bit much to say all thick sci fi/fantasy books are 'misfortunate', take 'The Once and Future King' it was thick only because it had a lot to say, and if it was shorter then it would have been too rushed and confusing.

 

[eclectic_dragon0253]

Then again, there are a lot of boring thick sci fi books which are just dull and wordy, so I can see your point

 

[Metryq]

I remember a high school classmate asking the teacher how long a term paper had to be — as though word count was all that mattered. This science teacher was very popular with the students and prone to pithy remarks: "Like a girl's skirt — short enough to be interesting, but long enough to cover the subject."

If one is looking for escapism, then one is more likely to stick with fat volumes or gravitate towards a series. I prefer the more concept-driven stories. I'm not afraid of a long novel, but I will drop out if I see the author packing on a lot of filler that has nothing to do with telling the story. To use the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation as an example, the writers wasted too much screen time with useless filler, like discussing how to build a better shaver, or playing poker with Einstein and Hawking. These scenes could be cut out and dropped into any other episode without changing the story — or left out altogether.

Much of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was geared toward showing audiences what spaceflight in the next century would look like. Although most of the technology depicted is still beyond what mankind has achieved in reality, one might also argue that long tracts of that film are now "old hat." I still would not cut the film down — well, maybe I'd shorten the stargate "drug trip" a little — because the lengthy spaceflight sequences serve another purpose: giving the audience time to ponder the deeper concepts being presented.

So stories need not be stripped to skin and bones to satisfy, but authors should not mistake voluminous description with good storytelling. Everything should have an aesthetic and literary purpose. There are no hard and fast "rules" for this because writing is an art, not a science.

 

[Vertigo]

I was thinking about this recently and I think it is wrong to criticize/reject a book based purely on its length. I know not everyone is doing so but there are quite a few posts here along those lines. What we are dealing with is essentially a different canvas.

Back in the forties/fifties the vast majority of books were shorter and the majority of readers simply wouldn't buy anything longer. It is like moves; back then nobody would have believed that audiences would sit through 3 hour long movies. Times have changed and audiences regularly do just that. This gives the movie makers a much bigger canvas if they choose to use it. Whether they do a good job is a totally different story.

And then there are paintings; you can't really compare Da Vinci's Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's Sistine chapel. They are simply both different beasts, both are masterpieces even though ones is a comparatively small canvas and the other a mere 12,000 square feet of ceiling.

The same is true of music; would you condemn Wagner's ring cycle just because it is so long (well, maybe I would but then I'm not a great Wagner lover ). There are brilliant peices of music both long and short, on the other hand something like Ravel's Bolero is around 15 minutes long and really does little apart from repeating itself and getting steadily louder (a little harsh maybe but I always love the first few minutes of it and then get progressively more bored).

Surely what matters is the quality of the content not the length.

 

[Perpetual Man]

I agree with Vertigo, and add that the big book becomes subjective to an individual:

One person's unnecessary filler is another's detail and enhanced world building.

I think it's a bit much to say all thick sci fi/fantasy books are 'misfortunate', take 'The Once and Future King' it was thick only because it had a lot to say, and if it was shorter then it would have been too rushed and confusing.

But then the Once and Future King is the omnibus edition, it was originally released as four books - The Sword in the Stone, The Queen of Air and Darkness (originally The Witch in the Woods), The Ill-Made Knight and The Candle in the Wind - with a fifth book, released forty years later, The Book of Merlyn

So an argument could be made that it is only a large book as a combined edition, much like Lord of the Rings is only truly huge when it's the three volumes combined.