Giant Novels

The cynic in me wants to say that the doorstop novels are still out there. They're just being more strategically written to be released as trilogies (or more). More volumes equals more money.

Lakey said:

I adore long books. I don't mind a languid pace or a large complex of plot threads or even digressions, provided the reading is engaging. If a story and a world are enticing to me, I want to spend as much time in it as possible.

Click to expand...

Me too. I love long books. I find them to be so much more richly plotted, with complex characters and relationships and world-building. And the longer it takes to read them, the more real they feel. I remember Stephanie Meyer talking to Rainbow Rowell during an interview and saying, "Books the bigger the better." I thought I was the only one who had a weird interest in long books, but apparently there are lots of people who like reading them.

paddismac said:

The cynic in me wants to say that the doorstop novels are still out there. They're just being more strategically written to be released as trilogies (or more). More volumes equals more money.

Click to expand...

As it's actually fairly difficult to break a narrative apart, even into a series with cliffhangers, I'd say that when it's done it's less to do with greed than with wanting to get the thing published in the first place.

It's also a lot more expensive to produce three books, even if they're shorter, so I'd be a little surprised to see a publisher push to break up a book they've already acquired. (And I have a vague memory that this has actually been done, at least once? But I doubt it's common.)

I adore both types of books, but there's nothing like sticking your nose in a really good long book and savoring every little bit of it.

It depends on the book, but it can reap magical wonders.

BethS said:

You're not the only one. I've run into this before. But thanks for the explanation. It seems to be related to an effort/reward ratio. Shorter books obviously get a reader to the end more quickly. Longer books take more patience and more sustained attention to the characters and plot. I suppose to some readers, getting to the end is a stronger reward than taking the journey. A long book requires falling in love with journey itself, to the point where the reader isn't tempted to stray. I can see the appeal of preferring shorter books; you get a feeling of accomplishment at having finished. OTOH, a long book that is also engaging/gripping/emotionally compelling can become a place you'd have to pry the reader away from, and when they do have to put it down, they can't wait to get back to it. I've read some like that.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better myself, though I have yet to read a shorter book and feel satisfied when I reach the end. Its all about the journey for me.

A very complex book often benefits from being shorter, at least for me.

A lot of Gene Wolfe novels are on the slim side, 80k or less per volume, and the heart quails to consider how daunting they'd be if they were incredibly long as well as incredibly dense >.>

But then I read Jane Eyre without complaint and that's pushing 300k so who knows. Although I'd have said that's more exploratory than dense; she devotes a lot of time to musing, meandering, self debate, micro tensions, the complex minutiae of life at which she excelled at writing.

Harlequin said:

But then I read Jane Eyre without complaint and that's pushing 300k so who knows. Although I'd have said that's more exploratory than dense; she devotes a lot of time to musing, meandering, self debate, micro tensions, the complex minutiae of life at which she excelled at writing.

Click to expand...

I love Jane Eyre, but tbh I skip the whole St. John Rivers section when I re-read it.

Interestingly, wikpedia claims it was originally published in three volumes.

! Me too

I can't bear that berk. Also he's boring and it's totally the worst subplot in the novel. "Okay" the first time but as you say, on rereads... Still, even without him, it'd be at least 240k words

lizmonster said:

I love Jane Eyre, but tbh I skip the whole St. John Rivers section when I re-read it.

Interestingly, wikpedia claims it was originally published in three volumes.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but they were octavo volumes; comparable to a mass market paperback

The 3 volumes are about 7.79'' height x 4.64'' wide; a lot of modern editions have preserved the three sections of the volumes.

Lady Fox said:

though I have yet to read a shorter book and feel satisfied when I reach the end. Its all about the journey for me.

Click to expand...

Yeah. The ending itself may be satisfying, but if I really enjoyed the book, I'm not satisfied to reach the end, but rather, it leaves me hungry for more.

I've got to really love a long book to stick with it. I'll give it more time too before I decide whether to continue, maybe 100 pages when a shorter book might get only 50 or less. I've rarely read a long book that I thought was just right; they could all use edits to me, Stephen King included, and Martin definitely (I skip whole POVs in his Ice and Fire books and don't seem to really miss them).

I think the only long books I've really loved are historical novels. The genre is expansive and epic enough that the space is needed. Most contemporary stuff. . .not so much. I don't read a lot of sci fi, but I did like Red Mars and a few other fatter ones. Fantasy can be longer in my opinion, but so many people seem to go way overboard, usually with world-building that can get really turgid, or overly complex plots with a cast of zillions.

But then, I'll forgive anything if I love at least one character in the book.

lizmonster said:

I love Jane Eyre, but tbh I skip the whole St. John Rivers section when I re-read it.

Interestingly, wikpedia claims it was originally published in three volumes.

Click to expand...

That (publication in 3 volumes) was standard in that age.

I prefer mid-sized books. I love to spend time with a good book, but it'd have to be really good for me to stick with it for 1000 pages. I don't get a lot of time to devote to reading, and my eyes make it difficult to read for long periods, so it would be exhausting for me to read something that long. It would take me months. But I also don't love super-short books--they usually don't get into the characters' psyches enough for my tastes. So, around 100k words is my sweet spot for reading AND writing.

All thing being equal I go for the longer book. If a book turns out enjoyable I want it to last as long as possible, preferably it should never end. As a matter of fact, I generally avoid shorter books as they tend to end just as I get stuck in the story.

lizmonster said:

As it's actually fairly difficult to break a narrative apart, even into a series with cliffhangers, I'd say that when it's done it's less to do with greed than with wanting to get the thing published in the first place.

It's also a lot more expensive to produce three books, even if they're shorter, so I'd be a little surprised to see a publisher push to break up a book they've already acquired. (And I have a vague memory that this has actually been done, at least once? But I doubt it's common.)

Click to expand...

Well the book I will release (hopefully) this fall is a very, very long novel (over 330,000 words). Originally, my idea was three volumes. Two came out in French with two different publishers, because the editor in the first publishing company left. I got the rights to revert to me when the second editor also left the second company, and then I decided to rewrite the whole story in English (some parts already existed in English).

I always wanted to get the whole story out. It took me several years to write, to edit, to rewrite, and all that. When I edited I took out 300 pages. It's not a series, it's just a long book. I know this kind of length is impossible for an agent, or a publisher. I thought of serialization, but since the book is finished, it doesn't seem to be a good idea. So I will self-publish. What I want now is to get the book out and we'll see about readers. Some like short books, some like long books. I feel that if a book is a good book, you're just happy to be involved with the characters. I hope it will be like that for my own!

I'll let you know...

If the story and characters are good, I feel cheated if the novel is short.

I forget where I heard this but it was a LONG time ago... When you turn the final page of a truly great novel, you wonder what happened to the characters on their next day.

Hmmmmm.

That IS some interesting food for thought!

indianroads said:

I forget where I heard this but it was a LONG time ago... When you turn the final page of a truly great novel, you wonder what happened to the characters on their next day.

Click to expand...

No novel in history epitomizes this thought more than The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas. 900+ pages, fine print, in the Penguin Classic paperback edition I read many years ago, and unputdownable throughout.

Perhaps the most important personal story about my reading Cristo was that I actually read about 100 pages of it sitting on a rock on a beautiful Mediterranean day on the Château D'If, offshore of Marseilles, on a tourist visit back in 1992. I broke away from the tour group to do that. For those who don't know the story, the Château D'If, which was a real prison island and has the remains of a real prison on it, was the setting for the beginning of Dumas' tale of treachery and vengeance. They even have a cell there that they claim was the one Edmond Dantès, Dumas' hero, escaped from. Which is complete merde de boeuf, because the story really is fictional.

I still have that volume, in very good condition, and ain't nobody ever going to take it from me.

caw

Jennie said:

I know this kind of length is impossible for an agent, or a publisher

Click to expand...

Not impossible, no. But the writing and the story have to justify it, so the bar is set very high for books like that.

Good luck with yours!