On Page Count. . .

[MstrTal]

In another thread about another topic by another member it was mentioned that titles with made up words was off putting to some. However what caught my eye was the sentiment that larger books also tended to be daunting. I believe this sentiment was expressed when another member mentioned having a some books with both made up worded titles and large page count that they had yet to start.

So out of curiosity on average are larger tome-like Scifi/Fantasy novels off putting?

What is the "preferred" length for the modern SFF novel?

Am I odd for preferring books with insanely long page counts (contingent upon decent content)?

Thoughts, Concerns, anecdotes or just comments?

[Shane Enochs]

I prefer between 300 and 500 pages. I'll read more if the story is absolutely fantastic, but usually when they go beyond 500 pages, there is a lot of fluff in there.

[Warren_Paul]

Page count is the wrong question, it's word count that matters for everything, since the page count is increased/reduced by the font and margins, etc.


I don't find big books off-putting, infact I prefer them, but I do find small fonts difficult. Take Tad William's Shadowmarch series for instance, the books if printed in a normal font, would easily be 1000 page books, but the publisher chose to print the books in a smaller font, which to me made the books harder to read. They were brilliant books though, and I'm glad I worked my way through them.


But overall the preferred novel length for most people appears to be in the 500s, which just happens to be 120k or there about, on average - the recommended word limit for debut authors.

I disagree on the big books being padded to the extreme, and believe the concept of 'padding' is over-exaggerated. Sure the books could be tighter, but I don't think they need to be tightened. Of course, there are some that truly are padded, like Wheel of Time, but I wouldn't say big books are 'usually' padded.

[MstrTal]

True perhaps I should of said word rather than page count. I guess I was thinking of when browsing the shelves of your local bookstore or chain book retailer many of us don't stop to think about the word count. So Ill expound upon my question.

When or if one were browsing for a new book, say a paperback, does the thickness of the spine ever put you off? Do you like a 2 inch+ thick book or do you prefer them around an inch? :P

[TheDustyZebra]

I've never worried a bit about how big/thick a book is, except when it's a paperback that's falling apart because the spine isn't tough enough. To me, if it's a book I like, there's just more to love.

I still remember that the library's copy of Gone With the Wind was 1020 pages, and I read it a dozen times or more as a teenager. I think of people who complain about books being too big as people who don't like to read anyway.

I've also read some average-sized books that should have been a lot shorter, so it's not so much the length that determines the fluff as it is, well, the fluff.

[J-Sun]

Yeah, I've posted on this before - the perfect length for a science fiction novel is 192 pages[1]. I'll generally tolerate up to twice that without too much fuss. Three times that, particularly at the upper end of it, begins to test my patience. I won't generally touch anything in the *4 range unless it's by Vernor Vinge. I did make myself read a Hamilton (*5 or *6) once, but never again. I like his first collection of "shorts" (the longest of which is 175 pages), though. And, outside the genre, I have made my way through Tolstoys (urgh) and Dostoyevskys (better) but I had more time left to read then and they still could have been cut.

Actually, of course, the perfect length is exactly what the story minimally requires but the best novel-length stories are such that that's what they minimally require. I have a hard time thinking of >500 page books that really needed all that wordage. Generally, if your novel is longer, you're either padding, diluting potential impact, not focusing sharply enough, or otherwise doing something wrong and, if you get away with it, you're lucky and it's in spite of the length and not because of it.

Originally Posted by TheDustyZebra

I think of people who complain about books being too big as people who don't like to read anyway.

That does not compute. I've read 13,776 pages so far this year. I'd be really mad if I'd read only 13 Peter Hamilton novels instead of the 52 books (265pp avg.) by 30 different authors that I have read. And I take us to be talking about single fictional stories here. Not story collections, volumes of poetry, history books, philosophy, science, etc., which have very different parameters.

--
[1] With the proviso that I agree that it's a rule of thumb and that margins and font size can make a huge difference - but the word count isn't on the copyright page like it ought to be, so we pretty much have to use the rule of thumb. And not that it can't be less than that - for instance, I love Mission to the Stars (126pp) and like After Doomsday (128pp) but those should arguably have had their original book publications in collections and any less than that is in chapbook territory and definitely should be in a collection.

[mithril]

Originally Posted by TheDustyZebra

I've never worried a bit about how big/thick a book is, except when it's a paperback that's falling apart because the spine isn't tough enough. To me, if it's a book I like, there's just more to love.

I still remember that the library's copy of Gone With the Wind was 1020 pages, and I read it a dozen times or more as a teenager. I think of people who complain about books being too big as people who don't like to read anyway.

I've also read some average-sized books that should have been a lot shorter, so it's not so much the length that determines the fluff as it is, well, the fluff.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on book length. If the blurb on the back sounds (reads?) interesting enough, I'm more likely to pick up a thick book than a normal one. Part of the reason is that I finish the normal length books too quickly. So unless I see the book ending up being worth re-reading at least 4-5 times (ambitious much? ) I'd rather buy a thick book, so I at least get 6-7 hours of enjoyment out of it. of course the proviso about well written books holds there too.

It's a pity that there's hardly any tradition of accessible public libraries here in India (especially for SF and Fantasy). I'd rather buy books I know I'll enjoy for many years to come, and that I'll like having my kids (in some distant future) read

[Fishbowl Helmet]

At a reasonable font size anything more than 500 pages is almost an automatic dealbreaker for me. If it's an author I really like, or a highly recommended book, I'll push through, but other than that I haven't found a story yet that "needs" 670 pages to tell. The tomes I've read that we're that long could easily be edited better without losing any story.

[Jammill Khursheed]

I don't think this is the place to get a succinct answer to that question... Everybody here is a writer and I'm assuming a proper reader, and publishers aren't catering for people like us when they publish books, they're catering for the Dan Brown generation...

You wouldn't ask a forum of independent film makers whether a film should be 90mins or thereabouts because they don't WANT to do that, they just have to, and are versed and experienced enough in the format that something very different to that standard wouldn't phase them, but might put off the general film going public...

What we think personally, as in what we would read, is going to be different to the general public... I give us more credit than that All we can suggest is what we know from publishers and writing blogs that help you get published...


Jammill

[Lilmizflashythang]

I don't care about the length. For those who say that you can't be telling a story in over 500 pages without padding it, I must disagree. If your story takes that long to tell, then it takes that long to tell. I don't intend to take out vital information of my WIP just because it took too long to tell the story.

[James Coote]

If it has "Book One of the Verylong Saga" emblazoned across the front, that will put me off. I don't have the time or the commitment to chug through a multi-book series.

Usually I decide on a book based on recommendations. By the time I pick the book up off the shelf at the store, I've already decided to buy it. The last few books I bought online for my Kindle, so I never even saw the thickness of them.

Then again, I don't read much

[thaddeus6th]

James, on that point: stores sometimes now estimate ebook length (in page terms). Mine was 284 on Amazon, but Apple reckoned it was over 400!

I can see why there might be a slight difference, but that's quite enormous.

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Looking up an ebook I have on Amazon. The print paperback is 384 pages, the ebook on iPad for that same text is 779 pages, the same ebook file is 1443 pages on the iPhone. That same book is likely around 550-600 pages on Kindle, which I don't have access to.

And that's assuming you're using the standard font and font size. Each device allows you to adjust both font and font size. So ebook page count is essentially a useless measure. And don't get me started on page references with ebooks... ugh.

[Cynric]

Originally Posted by J-Sun

...Dostoyevskys (better) but I had more time left to read then and they still could have been cut.

I actually physically shuddered when I read that. I still lament the fact that The Brothers Karamazov was just the prelude to the real story he wanted to tell, but died before finishing. That was my first experience of aching for unattainable art, and a sense of the world being impoverished by the loss of a unique voice.

On topic: it's complicated. When I love a book (see above) it's always too short. When a book is padded, I give up without finishing it.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by MstrTal

In another thread about another topic by another member it was mentioned that titles with made up words was off putting to some. However what caught my eye was the sentiment that larger books also tended to be daunting. I believe this sentiment was expressed when another member mentioned having a some books with both made up worded titles and large page count that they had yet to start.

Ha! T'was I! Going on about Terry Brooks's daftly titled High Druid of Shannara books, which also happen to be quite fat.

Incidentally, A Dance with Dragons is also sitting unread on my shelf and that's about the same size as the three Brooks' put together.

So, yeah. I prefer a slimmer tome. The Picture of Dorian Gray, Corbenic, Mortal Engines, Death of an Ordinary Man - all slim books sitting on my shelf between the monstrosities of Brooks and Martin, and all read in the time it probably would have taken me to read just one of the others.

I just don't have time to read a long book. I go days without reading and in longer books it sometimes means that I've simply forgotten what happened before. With a slim book there's less to forget.