Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Can a book be too long?

For discussions of historical fiction. Threads that do not relate to historical fiction should be started in the Chat forum or elsewhere on the forum, depending on the topic.
User avatar
Rowan
Bibliophile
Posts: 1462
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: I love history, but it's boring in school. Historical fiction brings it alive for me.
Preferred HF: Iron-Age Britain, Roman Britain, Medieval Britain
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Can a book be too long?

Post by Rowan » Fri February 27th, 2009, 3:20 pm

This is something I've had a discussion with Jules about lately and thought I'd ask others about, wondering if I'm alone in my feelings.

She sent me a copy of The Swan Maiden to review for HFO and when I tore open the parcel, I immediately felt a twinge of regret that the book isn't as thick as the Dalriada series. When I mentioned this to Jules, she said that her publisher wanted it cut down. They want shorter, faster moving books. That's all fine and dandy for the reader with the attention span of a gnat, but what about those of us who really want the big thick books? The ones that encompass a sweeping epic tale. Why do we have to suffer for those gnat-people? :confused: I want more book, dammit!!! :p

Having ranted as a reader, though, I can't keep silent my poor little inner editor who is never far when I'm reading. Heck, she's never far when I'm writing either! But I digress. As an editor, I know that a thicker book allows the writer more wandering room. However, a good editor will prevent that wandering from happening. I mean the book I'm reading now has so many chunks in it that don't move the story forward, that I wonder how it got published as it is. Of course that may be entirely due to the name she created for herself and the tendency (in my opinion) for little editing to be done when a writer is "that famous."

So how do you feel about the length of a book?

User avatar
Volgadon
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 654
Joined: September 2008
Location: Israel
Contact:

Post by Volgadon » Fri February 27th, 2009, 3:34 pm

Yes books can be too long. Not too sure I want HUGE sagas that could stop a bullet and nothing wrong with my attention span, thankee.
Books really should only be as long as it takes to tell the story well.

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Misfit » Fri February 27th, 2009, 3:44 pm

I recall we had this discussion at the old board.

I'm with you, I like my books big fat and meaty (kinda like steak, no? :p :o ). It's probably one reason why I haven't always done so well with some of the latest historical fiction releases. Let alone the larger font and double spaced lines - I pick up a 400 page book and realize its more like a 250-300 page book :mad: :mad:

I know some complain about editing, eg Gabaldon, but as long as the story, characters and the writing style is entertaining me the book can go on forever as far as I'm concerned.

User avatar
Richard
Reader
Posts: 96
Joined: February 2009
Location: Albany, NY
Contact:

Post by Richard » Fri February 27th, 2009, 3:55 pm

I like to look at the Harry Potter series together on a shelf. The volumes steadily increase in thickness, from the "Ok, let's take a chance on this unknown lady"-sized Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone to the "It's J.K. f'in Rowling, no way we're going to make her edit this"-sized Deatlhy Hallows.

I think it all has more to do with production cost and risk/reward for the publisher than what the people want. Of course if we like the book we want to read 500 pages of it - but the publisher would rather have a flop at $22.95 than $39.95, and they can't tell a priori how much we're going to like it.
How did an 800-year-old headless corpse transform Venice from a backwater
into the greatest sea-empire of the early Middle Ages? Find out at,
Image

User avatar
LCW
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 756
Joined: August 2008
Location: Southern California

Post by LCW » Fri February 27th, 2009, 3:55 pm

YES! I normally like long-ish books but sometimes a book just goes on and on and on an I get bored and ready to be done with it already! OTOH, I've also had those books that I was so sad it was over and I wanted more. When that happens with a long book, you know it was a good one!
Books to the ceiling,
Books to the sky,
My pile of books is a mile high.
How I love them! How I need them!
I'll have a long beard by the time I read them. --Arnold Lobel

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3066
Joined: August 2008
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by boswellbaxter » Fri February 27th, 2009, 4:00 pm

All depends on the book. I wouldn't have minded at all if Devil's Brood had gone on for a couple of more hundred pages. On the other hand, the book I'm reading now could have easily been cut by a third or more without losing anything.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

User avatar
Rowan
Bibliophile
Posts: 1462
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: I love history, but it's boring in school. Historical fiction brings it alive for me.
Preferred HF: Iron-Age Britain, Roman Britain, Medieval Britain
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Post by Rowan » Fri February 27th, 2009, 5:12 pm

[quote=""Richard""]I like to look at the Harry Potter series together on a shelf. The volumes steadily increase in thickness, from the "Ok, let's take a chance on this unknown lady"-sized Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone to the "It's J.K. f'in Rowling, no way we're going to make her edit this"-sized Deatlhy Hallows.[/quote]

You know, Richard, when I think of the Harry Potter series, the first book I have a problem with as an editor was The Goblet of Fire. In my opinion that whole first part at the game could've been done as a stand alone novella. But the book I'm currently reading is Katharine of Aragon by Jean Plaidy and there's too much side-tracking to talk about her sister Juana, for my tastes. At least in the first third of the book. Hopefully now that Katherine has married Henry the book will stay on course.

Carla
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 965
Joined: August 2008
Contact:

Post by Carla » Fri February 27th, 2009, 5:17 pm

Length per se doesn't matter to me at all. I'm one of those who thinks The Lord of the Rings is too short :-) . And I happily worked my way through however-many-hundred pages there are of the first 6 books in Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome. On the other hand, I also loved The Candlemas Road which is hardly longer than a novella. It all depends on the book. If there's enough story to fill 1000+ pages, that's fine with me.

That said, I have to admit that if I'm very pressed for reading time I will sometimes choose a short book over a long one, because I know I'm going to have more trouble keeping track of a long story if I can only read in bits and pieces.
PATHS OF EXILE - love, war, honour and betrayal in Anglo-Saxon Northumbria
Editor's Choice, Historical Novels Review, August 2009
Now available as e-book on Amazon Kindleand in Kindle, Epub (Nook, Sony Reader), Palm and other formats on Smashwords
Website: http://www.carlanayland.org
Blog: http://carlanayland.blogspot.com

User avatar
Ludmilla
Bibliophile
Posts: 1346
Joined: September 2008
Location: Georgia USA

Post by Ludmilla » Fri February 27th, 2009, 6:06 pm

[quote=""Volgadon""]Books really should only be as long as it takes to tell the story well.[/quote]

That's really the sum of it. What it takes to tell the story well.

Being someone who can't be succinct to save my life, I do admire authors who can write a tight, concise story, and that really is a rare breed! I also don't mind the big, sweeping epics. It's all a matter of scale and whether the story is properly scaled to the events and themes taking place.

I do become very impatient with long, drawn out series, where maybe the story ended several books back, but the books have been selling well, so... the story gets extended and goes on and on and somehow dilutes the best parts of the original story arc. I also get frustrated with series when the author spends half the book rehashing the events from previous books. There's a good way and a bad way to handle that, but too many times I've comes across novels of this type excessively and unnecessarily padded.

User avatar
SonjaMarie
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 5688
Joined: August 2008
Location: Vashon, WA
Contact:

Post by SonjaMarie » Fri February 27th, 2009, 6:11 pm

I prefer books to be between 250 to 300, but will read longer books, just takes me longer.

SM
The Lady Jane Grey Internet Museum
My Booksfree Queue

Original Join Date: Mar 2006
Previous Amount of Posts: 2,517
Books Read In 2014: 109 - June: 17 (May: 17)
Full List Here: http://www.historicalfictiononline.com/ ... p?p=114965

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”