Anyone ever read something, force yourself through it, and realize that it was bad, but--taken as a whole the story itself was good? I kind of felt that way with Moby Dick. I felt like only the last twenty pages or so were pertinent. A more recent work was Cryptonomicon. I made it through that one, but the four page commentary on how the protagonist enjoyed his Captain Crunch was bit much. As it is, now I can't even pick up another Neal Stephenson book.

I would never, ever advise anyone to read Nicolas Nickleby all the way through. And though I enjoyed War and Peace and would never refer to it as "awful lit", the long, heavy-handed meditation on history at the end gave me a (mental) hernia.

Sacred Games could have been 450 pages shorter and been a better book for it.

The Italian by Ann Radcliffe. I liked the book just fine, except for the extended scenic passages. Though I may have been spoiled by reading The Monk first, as that one was a bit more, erm, exciting, shall we say?

Yeah Cryptonomicon was great and all, but four pages on breakfast ... why? I also have to admit that The Lord of the Rings could have been a bit shorter, especially the first book, even though I am a fan and kind of like the verbose style.

I fully agree about War and Peace. At least, lop off those epilogues!

Also, I found Catch-22 extremely repetitive and in need of a ruthless trimming.

I've always thought of the first part of Lord of the Rings as a sort of endurance test. It's also a nice, leisurely stroll through Everything That Will Be Lost If Evil Wins, or something.
The two that come to my mind are It, by Stephen King (would've been twice as good if it was half as long), and The Man Who Laughs, by Victor Hugo. 8 pages describing a body hanging from a gibbet? Five me 4 pages on Captain Crunch anytime.

The first one that comes to mind is Shadow of the Wind, by Carlos Ruiz Zafon. I would have liked the book fine had it been several hundred pages shorter.

Not literature, per se, but Mortimer Adler's book titled How to Read a Book could have been one third it's thickness and still be a great book.

The easy one here is The Stand, particularly the uncut version Stephen King foisted on us after he became the shiznit.

Also, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell was way too long.

Re 10: I actually thought Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell should have been longer.

Many years ago The Stand was my favourite book, and I read it several times. Couldn't get enough, so I thought. Then the unedited full version was published, and I saw that yes, actually I could get enough. The editors were right the first time.

>9

Right on Wholehouse. How to Read a Book is a must-read. Boring as all hell, but a must-read. I keep telling myself to go back and check it out again, soon.

And ironically, it is particularly valuable to students, who usually have the attention span of a short-tailed shrew.

The last three Harry Potters. Badly in need of an edit. consider phlebas and it's sequels. Ditto.

Cut out the unnecessary half-arsed plot lines, and replace with a smaller volume of necessary detail filling in the main plot properly.

I generally like long books, they give the author time to explore the characters and their interaction with the world better. But sometimes the author just gets carried away and needs reigning in.

At this moment the first thing that pops into my mind is Wally Lambs: The Hour I First Believed.

Much of the middle of this book could have been done away with. In fact, it seems like two books in one.

For me LotR is just the opposite, I like the first part the best but once they get past Moria...

And Victor Hugo seems to be partial to really long descriptions, a friend of mine mentioned a 20+ page desc about what Paris looks like from up high in Notre Dame, I think?

I am partial to shorter books and tight writing, so almost all the long books are either just plain bad or would have been better if...
One of the oft-quoted exceptions is Anna Karenina, I do like the story of Levin as it provides a counterpoint to Anna...