This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1AnthonyGWilliams
Does the current trend towards massive SF (as opposed to fantasy) novels really add to reader enjoyment? Not as far as I'm concerned: I find a fast-paced story of around 200 pages or so just about an ideal length, and most of the 500+ pagers are hard work to read and often boring. I've explored this in more detail on my blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.com/
2john257hopper
I have often pondered this. My favourite SF books are the classics by Isaac Asimov, H G Wells and John Wyndham, many of which, the latter two especially, weigh in at 200 pages or less. That is because they are more concerned with exploring an idea or ideas, rather than creating whole new detailed universes or in depth background to characters. I find most modern SF too ponderous and sometimes pretentious in wanting to create these aspects while seeming to overlook the need to tell a story.
3bluesalamanders
I guess it depends on what you're interested in, what you consider 'hard work to read', and what bores you. For example, I find almost all nonfiction very hard work to read and boring, no matter how long (or short) it is.
On the other hand, some of my favorite SF books are 500+ pages. It may be a little work to read them, and maybe I can't get through the whole book in one sitting, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Not every book should be 500 pages, of course, but not every book needs to be 200, either.
(edited for some missing words and to make it clearer)
On the other hand, some of my favorite SF books are 500+ pages. It may be a little work to read them, and maybe I can't get through the whole book in one sitting, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Not every book should be 500 pages, of course, but not every book needs to be 200, either.
(edited for some missing words and to make it clearer)
4ShellyS
The trend toward massive sf novels has been going on for a long time now, so I don't consider it a *trend* anymore. ;)
But for me, quality trumps quantity, though shorter books means I can read more titles a year. :)
A few times in recent years, I found myself enjoying something long, only to have it grow less enjoyable as I kept reading. Long books in trilogies can suffer from this. I loved Red Mars, enjoyed the first half of Green Mars, and by the time I was reading Blue Mars, I was pretty much sick of the whole thing. The prose seemed more and more self-indulgent and at least half the words could've been cut without losing anything vital. Sometimes, it's hard to maintain quality over the long haul. I wish those had remained a trilogy but that each volume had been half to 2/3 the size.
But for me, quality trumps quantity, though shorter books means I can read more titles a year. :)
A few times in recent years, I found myself enjoying something long, only to have it grow less enjoyable as I kept reading. Long books in trilogies can suffer from this. I loved Red Mars, enjoyed the first half of Green Mars, and by the time I was reading Blue Mars, I was pretty much sick of the whole thing. The prose seemed more and more self-indulgent and at least half the words could've been cut without losing anything vital. Sometimes, it's hard to maintain quality over the long haul. I wish those had remained a trilogy but that each volume had been half to 2/3 the size.
5NativeRoses
i'd have to agree -- the quality of the shorter works of Ray Bradbury or Orson Scott Card gives the book a much greater place in my imagination. On the other hand, some of the longer writers, like Tolkien, manage to pull it off by piecing together what feels like a series of shorter stories -- each with its own tone and characters.
6Choreocrat
Short fiction allows an author to put forward a concept and plot in concise and fast flowing manners. Longer fiction allows for epic storylines and longer time periods.
Using one in the other can be very risky. In short fiction you risk leaving out information that leads to an undeveloped plot; in long fiction you risk the reader falling asleep every 2 pages.
Some authors have managed to pull off both well, but others have lost the plot (sometimes more literally). Cordwainer Smith is a good short fiction writer, but I don't know that a long epic novel (longer than Norstrilia) would have worked well.
Using one in the other can be very risky. In short fiction you risk leaving out information that leads to an undeveloped plot; in long fiction you risk the reader falling asleep every 2 pages.
Some authors have managed to pull off both well, but others have lost the plot (sometimes more literally). Cordwainer Smith is a good short fiction writer, but I don't know that a long epic novel (longer than Norstrilia) would have worked well.
7lunarSara
Maybe I'm getting off the gist of the thread here, but I think the current trend toward massive SF (and fantasy, and everything else) is a direct result of constantly improving word processing software.
In the 50s and 60s it was a major pain in the buttocks (and the hands) to write a 1200 page novel. Condensing ideas down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 pages made the whole process seem a lot less daunting and made the typewriter look a little less evil.
Today, word processors make it easy to spew out 1200 pages worth of correctly spelled words, then shuffle them into whatever order you like, spell check them, edit them, add more stuff in the middle, etc. The challenge is taking that 1200 pages of watery tree sap and boiling and simmering until you're down to a small jar of thick flavorful syrup.
In the 50s lazy writers wrote short novels because it's tough to type and retype a lot of pages. Today lazy writers write huge watered down doorstops because it's tough to decide what to cut.
Personally I don't like those 150 page leaflets any better than the 1200 page doorstops. The short ones tend to be cut too short. The Gee-Whiz is more important than the character development so the characters get thinned down. ("Hello, Mr. Cardboard man, you are dull and you annoy me. Allow me to introduce you to the far wall of my livingroom.")
The long ones... umm... can I have the finished work please? This looks like your notes, not your novel. Did you tie your editor up in a closet to get this past him? Couldn't you have at least had it printed on lighter weight paper? Now I gotta fix that dent in the livingroom wall.
The vast majority of the books I really enjoy fall between 300 and 600 pages. Plenty of space to develop characters and plot and get me invested, not enough room for irrelevant details that not even the characters give a damn about.
>6 Choreocrat:, WillSteed, "Longer fiction allows for epic storylines and longer time periods."
Dune (without any sequels) is epic and it's right around 500 pages. Homer's The Odyssey is the definition of epic and my translation has 365 pages. Longer books tend to be epic in nature, but you don't need length to allow these types of stories.
In the 50s and 60s it was a major pain in the buttocks (and the hands) to write a 1200 page novel. Condensing ideas down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 pages made the whole process seem a lot less daunting and made the typewriter look a little less evil.
Today, word processors make it easy to spew out 1200 pages worth of correctly spelled words, then shuffle them into whatever order you like, spell check them, edit them, add more stuff in the middle, etc. The challenge is taking that 1200 pages of watery tree sap and boiling and simmering until you're down to a small jar of thick flavorful syrup.
In the 50s lazy writers wrote short novels because it's tough to type and retype a lot of pages. Today lazy writers write huge watered down doorstops because it's tough to decide what to cut.
Personally I don't like those 150 page leaflets any better than the 1200 page doorstops. The short ones tend to be cut too short. The Gee-Whiz is more important than the character development so the characters get thinned down. ("Hello, Mr. Cardboard man, you are dull and you annoy me. Allow me to introduce you to the far wall of my livingroom.")
The long ones... umm... can I have the finished work please? This looks like your notes, not your novel. Did you tie your editor up in a closet to get this past him? Couldn't you have at least had it printed on lighter weight paper? Now I gotta fix that dent in the livingroom wall.
The vast majority of the books I really enjoy fall between 300 and 600 pages. Plenty of space to develop characters and plot and get me invested, not enough room for irrelevant details that not even the characters give a damn about.
>6 Choreocrat:, WillSteed, "Longer fiction allows for epic storylines and longer time periods."
Dune (without any sequels) is epic and it's right around 500 pages. Homer's The Odyssey is the definition of epic and my translation has 365 pages. Longer books tend to be epic in nature, but you don't need length to allow these types of stories.
8prezzey
Oh I Am So Annoyed About This.
I read fast, and I read a lot, but I am much more likely to read two volumes of, say, 350-page length than a single 700-page giant. (And that's not even mentioning the 1000-1200 page monstrosities. Baroque Cycle my behind.) They are harder to lug around, and I constantly get the feeling while reading that I'm not progressing, simply because the book is so physically thick. (It's not much better with text files because then I keep on glancing at the percentage and it's not changing!)
I am a huge fan of worldbuilding, but look at Cordwainer Smith, very little output (well at least very little SF output) and very atmospheric worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is no excuse for length (even Tolkien had The Silmarillion, he didn't cram all that stuff into The Lord of the Rings) . Also, his work (I mean Smith's) is quite epic in places. It's all about pacing, not length per se (at least IMO).
> 7
I agree about word processing being a factor, but there is also something else to consider IMO: that people are actually buying these books. If no one were to buy huge doorstoppers, then publishers would stop putting them out. I know *I* buy fewer of them than books of normal length, but apparently it's not so with other people, or it wouldn't be financially feasible...?
I read fast, and I read a lot, but I am much more likely to read two volumes of, say, 350-page length than a single 700-page giant. (And that's not even mentioning the 1000-1200 page monstrosities. Baroque Cycle my behind.) They are harder to lug around, and I constantly get the feeling while reading that I'm not progressing, simply because the book is so physically thick. (It's not much better with text files because then I keep on glancing at the percentage and it's not changing!)
I am a huge fan of worldbuilding, but look at Cordwainer Smith, very little output (well at least very little SF output) and very atmospheric worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is no excuse for length (even Tolkien had The Silmarillion, he didn't cram all that stuff into The Lord of the Rings) . Also, his work (I mean Smith's) is quite epic in places. It's all about pacing, not length per se (at least IMO).
> 7
I agree about word processing being a factor, but there is also something else to consider IMO: that people are actually buying these books. If no one were to buy huge doorstoppers, then publishers would stop putting them out. I know *I* buy fewer of them than books of normal length, but apparently it's not so with other people, or it wouldn't be financially feasible...?
9Antares1
It's hard to say what is better. I tend to gravitate towards novels that are around 300 pages. I've read good ones that are shorter and some that are longer. It all depends on how good the author is.
10reading_fox
Publishing houses* have reduced the number of editors they employ, so editors get to spend less time per book.
Social norms on reading length have also changed*.... contracts are now for 100000word+ books rather than 50000.
Note though that an author's early work is oftne substantially thinner than their later work Rowling is of course a good example, but there are lots of others.
I'm sure wordprocessors have contributed to this, but there is unlikely ot be a single cause.
*how do I know this when I'm neither an author, publisher, editor? It came up in discussion with some LTauthors somewhere in talk.
Social norms on reading length have also changed*.... contracts are now for 100000word+ books rather than 50000.
Note though that an author's early work is oftne substantially thinner than their later work Rowling is of course a good example, but there are lots of others.
I'm sure wordprocessors have contributed to this, but there is unlikely ot be a single cause.
*how do I know this when I'm neither an author, publisher, editor? It came up in discussion with some LTauthors somewhere in talk.
12Busifer
This would be the thread/discussion that reading_fox's referencing above.
http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=13213
Personally I thought Janny Wurts' response (msg 41) very enlightening, as well as that of Brandon Sanderson (msg 23).
Edited to comment that some double posting happened on me, so I cleaned it up ;-)
http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=13213
Personally I thought Janny Wurts' response (msg 41) very enlightening, as well as that of Brandon Sanderson (msg 23).
Edited to comment that some double posting happened on me, so I cleaned it up ;-)
13reading_fox
Busifer - thanks for finding that. I hate trying to dig through the mountains of old topics.
14Busifer
You're welcome. I remembered it as a very intresting conversation and had a pretty good idea of the title of the thread ;-)
15lemonthrumint First Message
I don't find that excessive length adds much enjoyment to SF novels--almost all of my favorites are under 300 pages. In good SF I like to see some neat ideas, whether that's technological, social, philosophical, whatever; that idea is best expressed (and remembered) in fairly concise plots, imo. Furthermore, I can't think of any super-long novels that I consider really good writing, just because it's so hard to balance everything at that length. Plots get out of control, and the end of the mega-novel often feels only tenuously connected to the beginning.
(For example, Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy is a lot of fun, but it's far too unwieldy and unfocused for me to ever recommend it as a 'good' novel aside from its SF goodies. And it ends with that ridiculous deus ex machina.)
I see a lot of these mega-novels going the route of modern fantasy, submitting to the twin evils of Needless World Building (i.e. Cramming in Tons of Stuff Because Tolkien and Star Wars Both Make Lots of Money Doing That, Right?) and Episodic Addiction (Initially Had an Outline with a Meaningful Arc but now Let's Just See How Long They'll Keep Reading/Buying).
(For example, Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy is a lot of fun, but it's far too unwieldy and unfocused for me to ever recommend it as a 'good' novel aside from its SF goodies. And it ends with that ridiculous deus ex machina.)
I see a lot of these mega-novels going the route of modern fantasy, submitting to the twin evils of Needless World Building (i.e. Cramming in Tons of Stuff Because Tolkien and Star Wars Both Make Lots of Money Doing That, Right?) and Episodic Addiction (Initially Had an Outline with a Meaningful Arc but now Let's Just See How Long They'll Keep Reading/Buying).
16Jim53
I don't see any reason to choose between quality and quantity. There are wonderful and terrible books at every length. The finest literary SF novel ever written, IMHO, is Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun, which takes up four medium-sized volumes. Wolfe gives us not only an epic story, but clearly drawn characters, puzzles to solve, an interesting world, different views on essential questions, fabulous style: all the qualities I look for in a novel. OTOH, another of my favorites is Alfie Bester's The Stars My Destination, a very slim volume. Quality comes in all sizes, as does absolute dreck.
17FFortuna
I think one problem with hugely long books is that they don't have enough things to fill the pages, believe it or not. They just harp on one plot or theme for eight or nine hundred pages and then dribble off to the end. Books like The Lord of the Rings or Battlefield Earth keep it moving. They have a reason to be that long.
18andyl
#15
As the final volume was called The Naked God was anyone actually surprised it was a deus-ex-machina ending?
I like a lot of SF that is below 300 pages and a lot above. As well as Wolfe's Book Of The New Sun, Stan Robinson's multicoloured Mars series (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) was well written, as was Mary Gentle's Ash: A Secret History, Brian Aldiss's Helliconia series and C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen and I could go on.
BTW - no touchstones working this morning
As the final volume was called The Naked God was anyone actually surprised it was a deus-ex-machina ending?
I like a lot of SF that is below 300 pages and a lot above. As well as Wolfe's Book Of The New Sun, Stan Robinson's multicoloured Mars series (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) was well written, as was Mary Gentle's Ash: A Secret History, Brian Aldiss's Helliconia series and C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen and I could go on.
BTW - no touchstones working this morning
19Jargoneer
>16 Jim53: & 18 - and as we know, The Book of the New Sun was a single novel cut into four volumes. I imagine in the current climate it would have appeared as 2 volumes, or possibly even 1. (Well, if they can publish Susanna Clarke in 1 volume).
20buchleser
After reading Prezzey's #8, I thought I would add another twist to this thread (pun not intended).
Some of you mention that you would rather read several shorter books rather than one longer book. Would it make you happier to read a book that was split into a trilogy?
Along those same lines, for those of you who mentioned that you prefer longer books, do you like completed anthologies (i.e., three books printed as one larger usually hardcover book)?
And to all, does your answer still apply to collections of short stories?
Some of you mention that you would rather read several shorter books rather than one longer book. Would it make you happier to read a book that was split into a trilogy?
Along those same lines, for those of you who mentioned that you prefer longer books, do you like completed anthologies (i.e., three books printed as one larger usually hardcover book)?
And to all, does your answer still apply to collections of short stories?
21Jim53
#20 just from a mechanical point of view, I prefer reading a not-too-fat mass-market paperback. They're more portable, meaning they're more suitable for me to carry along to read while waiting in an airport or doctor's office, or when I eat by myself. They're also a little more manageable for reading in bed. So I prefer them to omnibus editions. But that's just the physical aspect of things. If I'm reading the same story, I don't care in any intellectual sense whether it's divided or not.
#19 I believe the only copies of BotNS currently in print are the double volumes Shadow and Claw and Sword and Citadel, so you're right about that.
#19 I believe the only copies of BotNS currently in print are the double volumes Shadow and Claw and Sword and Citadel, so you're right about that.
22jseger9000
You know, I don't think the length of a book has ever had an effect on my decision to read a book or my enoyment of it.
To me, it's more about what I'm in the mood to read. My favorite 'current' sci-fi author is Stephen Baxter. His books regularly clock in at about 500 very densely written pages.
Then I also love Isaac Asimov's short stories.
I HATED what I've read of L. Ron Hubbard and he (and his ghost writers maybe) was a pioneer of sci-fi door stoppers.
I also haven't gotten into William Gibson and his novels (at least the early ones I own) are pretty short.
Length isn't a factor as much as an author's skill and how much what they have to say resonates with you as a reader.
However, I really don't like the trend to sci-fi trilogies and series.
(The touchstones have stopped working. I'll edit later to correct William Gibson and ol' L. Ron.)
To me, it's more about what I'm in the mood to read. My favorite 'current' sci-fi author is Stephen Baxter. His books regularly clock in at about 500 very densely written pages.
Then I also love Isaac Asimov's short stories.
I HATED what I've read of L. Ron Hubbard and he (and his ghost writers maybe) was a pioneer of sci-fi door stoppers.
I also haven't gotten into William Gibson and his novels (at least the early ones I own) are pretty short.
Length isn't a factor as much as an author's skill and how much what they have to say resonates with you as a reader.
However, I really don't like the trend to sci-fi trilogies and series.
(The touchstones have stopped working. I'll edit later to correct William Gibson and ol' L. Ron.)
23kassetra
I haven't been put off by the length of a book before. I've loved War and Peace and Ulysses as well as The Stars My Destination and The Demolished Man - two heavy tomes and two quickies.
What gets me about longer science fiction though is that the tendency seems to be to add in as much 'scientific' description as possible - which bores me to tears. I'd rather take a quick 200 page story - over a massive 1000 page devotion to the art of describing just exactly how terraforming works - unless of course I need a weapon to chuck at students or clients, then I'll take the 700 page pressed-paper-blunt-force-trauma-device.
I don't have a problem with trilogies/series in any genre - if they have a reason to be 'three books' instead of one or many. If there is a reason, I'll buy it. If it's arbitrary or never-ending... no thanks.
I do have a problem with meandering (and never ending) science fiction / horror / fantasy 'novels' in a 'series' that act more like romance serials than the genre they are supposedly labeled as ... *cough*Laurell K. Hamilton*cough*
What gets me about longer science fiction though is that the tendency seems to be to add in as much 'scientific' description as possible - which bores me to tears. I'd rather take a quick 200 page story - over a massive 1000 page devotion to the art of describing just exactly how terraforming works - unless of course I need a weapon to chuck at students or clients, then I'll take the 700 page pressed-paper-blunt-force-trauma-device.
I don't have a problem with trilogies/series in any genre - if they have a reason to be 'three books' instead of one or many. If there is a reason, I'll buy it. If it's arbitrary or never-ending... no thanks.
I do have a problem with meandering (and never ending) science fiction / horror / fantasy 'novels' in a 'series' that act more like romance serials than the genre they are supposedly labeled as ... *cough*Laurell K. Hamilton*cough*
24jjmcgaffey
20 buchleser - depends on the book. There are 'trilogies' that are literally one book cut into multiple parts - and that drives me _mad_. No conclusion, just stop and start again - it's rare (thank God) but entirely unacceptable to me. The Wooden Sword by Lynn Abbey is one I just read that did that. Another is Linda Evan's Far Side of Darkness - not only did she stop the story in the middle, she stopped writing the series! They've been falling into the Seine for more than a decade now...I want the end of that story!
On the other hand, there are quite a few series that really are one story arc - but each book comes to a reasonable stopping place. Those I love - and if they come out in omnibus form, I'm more than likely to buy them (the only time I actually think a hardback is worth it). I own two Pern omnibuses, three Tortall (Tamora Pierce), two Valdemar (and I'd love to have more), all of Isaac Asimov's Lucky Starr series in one book, the first volume of the Lensmen series (because I hate Kimball Kinnison, I didn't get the second volume), etc etc.
And for short stories - I'll read collections, but it's not my favorite form - I much prefer novels. Short stories always leave me wanting to know more about the world/characters/story.... There's also the annoyance factor of having to own an entire book of short stories when I only really like and want to reread one or two. Sort of like having to buy a CD for one or two tracks.
However, on the original subject - like most of the respondents, there are small books I love and small ones I hate, fat ones I love and fat ones I hate. Yes, newer books are a _lot_ fatter on average. But I don't notice any particular trend in size versus quality for me. Yes, a bad fat book is usually very boring, with a lot of stuff inserted just for size; but a bad slim book often leaves out too much and leaves me confused.
However, I think the less-editing trend is just plain bad. There are books coming out now that really, _really_ needed a couple more passes by a proofreader, a copy-editor, and someone (maybe the author?) willing to look at the logic of the story. The just-plain-typo level in a lot of modern books rivals the errors in the pulps that were put out as fast as modern romances and with almost no proofreading! And there are a lot of really quite good books that have serious logical errors (changed names, impossible locations, timeline errors) in them. Actually, that last shows up most often in series - the sequel states something that contradicts the previous book(s). Very frustrating if, like me, you a) remember books/words well and b) like to sink into a universe!
grrr - touchstones not working at all. Sorry.
On the other hand, there are quite a few series that really are one story arc - but each book comes to a reasonable stopping place. Those I love - and if they come out in omnibus form, I'm more than likely to buy them (the only time I actually think a hardback is worth it). I own two Pern omnibuses, three Tortall (Tamora Pierce), two Valdemar (and I'd love to have more), all of Isaac Asimov's Lucky Starr series in one book, the first volume of the Lensmen series (because I hate Kimball Kinnison, I didn't get the second volume), etc etc.
And for short stories - I'll read collections, but it's not my favorite form - I much prefer novels. Short stories always leave me wanting to know more about the world/characters/story.... There's also the annoyance factor of having to own an entire book of short stories when I only really like and want to reread one or two. Sort of like having to buy a CD for one or two tracks.
However, on the original subject - like most of the respondents, there are small books I love and small ones I hate, fat ones I love and fat ones I hate. Yes, newer books are a _lot_ fatter on average. But I don't notice any particular trend in size versus quality for me. Yes, a bad fat book is usually very boring, with a lot of stuff inserted just for size; but a bad slim book often leaves out too much and leaves me confused.
However, I think the less-editing trend is just plain bad. There are books coming out now that really, _really_ needed a couple more passes by a proofreader, a copy-editor, and someone (maybe the author?) willing to look at the logic of the story. The just-plain-typo level in a lot of modern books rivals the errors in the pulps that were put out as fast as modern romances and with almost no proofreading! And there are a lot of really quite good books that have serious logical errors (changed names, impossible locations, timeline errors) in them. Actually, that last shows up most often in series - the sequel states something that contradicts the previous book(s). Very frustrating if, like me, you a) remember books/words well and b) like to sink into a universe!
grrr - touchstones not working at all. Sorry.
25wyrdchao
IMHO, length has little to do with quality; sometimes a great story takes a lot of pages to do it justice (LOTR: 1200+ pages). I have no problem with this (I read fast, and am always sorry when the story is over...), and I think artificial limits on length of 200-300 pages, set by publishers in the 50's for purely economic reasons, are just that: artificial. What's our big hurry?
'Classics' certainly cannot be judged in this manner: neither Moby Dick nor The Iliad could be considered a 'light' read, either in content or in length; and contemporary mainstream novels aren't consistent either.
I think that it is a good sign for the SF field that, even though 90% of everything is crap, we have so many different types of crap to choose from; no other genre has so much variety of style, length, content, etc.
Excellent short works:
Mindswap by Robert Sheckley
The Door Into Summer by Robert Heinlein
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin
Emphyrio by Jack Vance
Long stuff:
Titan/Wizard/Demon
Book of the New Sun/Urth of the New Sun
Lord of The Rings
The Chanur Saga
Cyteen
Dune/Dune Messiah/Children of Dune
Green/Red/Blue Mars
( touchstones still dead )
'Classics' certainly cannot be judged in this manner: neither Moby Dick nor The Iliad could be considered a 'light' read, either in content or in length; and contemporary mainstream novels aren't consistent either.
I think that it is a good sign for the SF field that, even though 90% of everything is crap, we have so many different types of crap to choose from; no other genre has so much variety of style, length, content, etc.
Excellent short works:
Mindswap by Robert Sheckley
The Door Into Summer by Robert Heinlein
The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin
Emphyrio by Jack Vance
Long stuff:
Titan/Wizard/Demon
Book of the New Sun/Urth of the New Sun
Lord of The Rings
The Chanur Saga
Cyteen
Dune/Dune Messiah/Children of Dune
Green/Red/Blue Mars
( touchstones still dead )
26lemonthrumint
#20
What I meant was that The Naked God ends a massive cycle with an incredibly fast, out-of-nowhere, no-consequences resolution that really doesn't follow from any of the choices or strengths of the characters. That diminishes the value of a long work for me at least.
What I meant was that The Naked God ends a massive cycle with an incredibly fast, out-of-nowhere, no-consequences resolution that really doesn't follow from any of the choices or strengths of the characters. That diminishes the value of a long work for me at least.
27SimonHaynes
According to a couple of reliable sources, these days UK publishers won't look at SF novels under 100,000 words, and prefer them 120-150,000.
Now, the problem occurs when an author has a finished manuscript weighing in at 75,000 or 80,000 words. Do they give up on the idea of getting published, or do they add material until the scales tip in the right direction? A new character, a sub-plot, additional travel scenes and technobabble?
The way it should work is that authors knock out 150,000 words and then boil it back to 80-90,000, removing excess material. Not the other way round.
I hate the idea of a novel being extended to suit some arbitrary word count. Hitchhiker's Guide wasn't much more than 50,000 words, for example, and padding it out would have been a disaster.
Now, the problem occurs when an author has a finished manuscript weighing in at 75,000 or 80,000 words. Do they give up on the idea of getting published, or do they add material until the scales tip in the right direction? A new character, a sub-plot, additional travel scenes and technobabble?
The way it should work is that authors knock out 150,000 words and then boil it back to 80-90,000, removing excess material. Not the other way round.
I hate the idea of a novel being extended to suit some arbitrary word count. Hitchhiker's Guide wasn't much more than 50,000 words, for example, and padding it out would have been a disaster.
28jseger9000
Hitchhiker's Guide wasn't much more than 50,000 words, for example, and padding it out would have been a disaster.
Padding The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... Isn't that what the sequels were for? Ouch!
Padding The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... Isn't that what the sequels were for? Ouch!
30reading_fox
On the other hand it would be equally a travesty to cut something like Cyteen down to even 150k.
Work length and quality are independant variables. Having minimum length criteria is a silly as maximum.
However I do object to paying £8 for a new 50k work and a 200k work, even though I know that the raw material cost difference is a small part of the end price, I feel that 50K should be cheaper.
Work length and quality are independant variables. Having minimum length criteria is a silly as maximum.
However I do object to paying £8 for a new 50k work and a 200k work, even though I know that the raw material cost difference is a small part of the end price, I feel that 50K should be cheaper.
31AnthonyGWilliams
I agree that quality and length are independent. The point of my original article is that SF novels seem to have become longer without (in general) becoming any better; in other words, that too many current novels have been "padded out" compared with those of a few decades ago. This not only doesn't add anything, it can actually detract from the story by slowing down the action.
There are exceptions to this of course, and the complex worldbuilding of much fantasy and some SF is often better suited to longer books.
But basically, if I'm going to spend twice as much of my precious time reading one book as opposed to another, I expect it to be better - and IMO it frequently isn't.
There are exceptions to this of course, and the complex worldbuilding of much fantasy and some SF is often better suited to longer books.
But basically, if I'm going to spend twice as much of my precious time reading one book as opposed to another, I expect it to be better - and IMO it frequently isn't.
32reading_fox
"going to spend twice as much of my precious time reading one book as opposed to another, I expect it to be better"
Now that I don't agree with - I'd very much hope that it was as good as the shorter book all the way through. - eg enjoyment per page would be the same.
You are right though that some books are padded where the enjoyment per page is not as high as it could be if it had been edited strongly.
Now that I don't agree with - I'd very much hope that it was as good as the shorter book all the way through. - eg enjoyment per page would be the same.
You are right though that some books are padded where the enjoyment per page is not as high as it could be if it had been edited strongly.
33AnthonyGWilliams
But if the "enjoyment per page" is the same, and you have lots more pages, the total enjoyment should be greater, no? ;-)
34lemonthrumint
But if you think of "enjoyment per story" divided by "time spent reading", brilliant short stories will always win out...
Actually a really brilliant haiku might always win out.
Reminds me of that film in Pattern Recognition, edited down to a single blurry frame of a bird...
Contrary to my earlier anti-length statements, I do enjoy consuming a good long novel now and then. This thread is about enjoyment, after all, isn't it? Not objective aesthetics.
That said, I'm still saddened by the over-all move to longer books/series. It doesn't hurt brilliant writers, and really bad ones would hurt at any length. But there are many mediocre stories I would enjoy at 200 pages and never finish at 900.
Actually a really brilliant haiku might always win out.
Reminds me of that film in Pattern Recognition, edited down to a single blurry frame of a bird...
Contrary to my earlier anti-length statements, I do enjoy consuming a good long novel now and then. This thread is about enjoyment, after all, isn't it? Not objective aesthetics.
That said, I'm still saddened by the over-all move to longer books/series. It doesn't hurt brilliant writers, and really bad ones would hurt at any length. But there are many mediocre stories I would enjoy at 200 pages and never finish at 900.
35Amtep
This discussion reminds me of my parameters for a good "train book". As a student, I would make the 2-hour train journey to my parents every other week. A good train book was:
- thick enough to last several trips
- entertaining enough to hold my attention for that time
- not so enjoyable that I'd finish it during the weekend
Those "epic fantasy pills" were reliable in this regard :)
- thick enough to last several trips
- entertaining enough to hold my attention for that time
- not so enjoyable that I'd finish it during the weekend
Those "epic fantasy pills" were reliable in this regard :)
36AnthonyGWilliams
I had to laugh. I've just noticed a review of my SF novel 'Scales', posted a week or so ago on amazon.co.uk.
The reviewer said:
"I did enjoy this book a lot, the author clearly has great ideas.
I think putting all the ideas into one book meant that it was too rushed, it would have made a great trilogy."
You can't win....
The reviewer said:
"I did enjoy this book a lot, the author clearly has great ideas.
I think putting all the ideas into one book meant that it was too rushed, it would have made a great trilogy."
You can't win....
37andyl
#36
To be fair trying to cram every good idea you have into one novel is a common mistake that beginning novelists make. Alternate universe type stories seem to suffer quite a bit from this in particular I find. I haven't read your book so I cannot comment on whether too many ideas (and that would be partly a matter of taste) have been added to the mix - I guess it comes down to how well you have done the section with the parallel worlds and non-human societies and the whole threat to humanity thing.
To be fair trying to cram every good idea you have into one novel is a common mistake that beginning novelists make. Alternate universe type stories seem to suffer quite a bit from this in particular I find. I haven't read your book so I cannot comment on whether too many ideas (and that would be partly a matter of taste) have been added to the mix - I guess it comes down to how well you have done the section with the parallel worlds and non-human societies and the whole threat to humanity thing.
39AnthonyGWilliams
#37: "To be fair trying to cram every good idea you have into one novel is a common mistake that beginning novelists make."
That's an interesting point. OTOH, one of the most popular SF novels of all time is Bester's 'The Stars My Destination', and it is frequently commented that he packs as many ideas into one 200 page novel as a modern author would stretch over a fat trilogy.
That's an interesting point. OTOH, one of the most popular SF novels of all time is Bester's 'The Stars My Destination', and it is frequently commented that he packs as many ideas into one 200 page novel as a modern author would stretch over a fat trilogy.
40buchleser
#39, 37
A great deal of it is in the blending of said ideas. If they build on one another or go hand in hand, great. If they don't, not so great.
Looking at it in a different way, like most everything else in writing, it's half the writer's writing, half the reader's reading. Some readers are always looking for the new and different: even if there are one or two new concepts in a book, it's not enough for them. Whereas, other readers like to assimilate new ideas at a more 'digestible' pace.
A great deal of it is in the blending of said ideas. If they build on one another or go hand in hand, great. If they don't, not so great.
Looking at it in a different way, like most everything else in writing, it's half the writer's writing, half the reader's reading. Some readers are always looking for the new and different: even if there are one or two new concepts in a book, it's not enough for them. Whereas, other readers like to assimilate new ideas at a more 'digestible' pace.
41andyl
#40
Yep, I think that is fair comment. If the writing is good and the plot-elements fit together and work as a coherent whole then it is to the good. If every idea is crammed into the story, not because it fits, but just because it's neat then it isn't so good.
As for Bester, he could get away with plenty us mere mortals cannot - the nonsense words (in the movement as sound synaesthesia bits) and the typographical effects for example. Far-out stuff indeed for the 50s.
Yep, I think that is fair comment. If the writing is good and the plot-elements fit together and work as a coherent whole then it is to the good. If every idea is crammed into the story, not because it fits, but just because it's neat then it isn't so good.
As for Bester, he could get away with plenty us mere mortals cannot - the nonsense words (in the movement as sound synaesthesia bits) and the typographical effects for example. Far-out stuff indeed for the 50s.
42darkside
I enjoyed the 'quick' novels of the 50's-60's because they got on with the plot and didn't deal with where the main character went to school and what the parents did in their spare time. It was because of the length of these novels that I started writing my own Sci-Fi. That started when I was snowed in whilst working in Sweden. The result is that I have 3 novels - only one in print and writing the fourth. Check it out at www.darkside.co.uk
I enjoyed writing them as if I was the main character - you might enjoy it too!!!
I enjoyed writing them as if I was the main character - you might enjoy it too!!!
43rojse First Message
Some of my favourite SF novels are really short, such as "I am Legend", by Robert Matheson, is not even two hundred pages long.
Another favourite of mine, Fallen Dragon, is either eight or nine hundred pages long, but I also love it.
The only SF books that I do not like are the three/five/seven book epics which are broken up into story sections, leaving you with no resolution between books, and you need to read all of them consecutively to gain the entire story.
Another favourite of mine, Fallen Dragon, is either eight or nine hundred pages long, but I also love it.
The only SF books that I do not like are the three/five/seven book epics which are broken up into story sections, leaving you with no resolution between books, and you need to read all of them consecutively to gain the entire story.
44AnthonyGWilliams
I think, on further reflection, that if authors wish to develop a detailed universe to explore at length, I would rather see a number of self-contained shorter novels based on this, rather than one giant one (or a multi-book serial which has to be read in the right order). That approach also enables the author to explore activities at different times (allowing room for extended development of the universe), and featuring different people. Three good examples come to mind immediately: Asaro's 'Skolian Empire', Banks' 'Culture' series and Niven's 'Known Space'.
The problem I find with most really long novels, even if well written, is that the stories get very complicated; I often find it difficult to keep track of all the characters unless they are very clearly drawn; and the plot can lose focus and direction. There is something about the pacing of 200-300 page novels which I find particularly satisfying.
The problem I find with most really long novels, even if well written, is that the stories get very complicated; I often find it difficult to keep track of all the characters unless they are very clearly drawn; and the plot can lose focus and direction. There is something about the pacing of 200-300 page novels which I find particularly satisfying.
45LamSon
A teacher of mine responded to the question, 'how long does this paper have to be?', with this answer, 'how long does a piece of rope need to be?'. In other words, it should be long enough to get the job done.
Ray Bradbury can tell a great story in just a dozen pages. I would not have wanted Grapes of Wrath to be any shorter. (I know, it's not SF)
Ray Bradbury can tell a great story in just a dozen pages. I would not have wanted Grapes of Wrath to be any shorter. (I know, it's not SF)
46jburlinson
Actually, the Grapes of Wrath would be a SF novel, if it was being read by someone contemporary with Samuel Pepys, say around 1669. Such a reader would probably recognize the dystopian nature of the book, but would likely be much more struck by its amazing technological imagination. What would he or she make of the Hudson Essex touring car that the Joad family drove across country? How would this reader understand the fate of the turtle in Chapter 3, when it gets run down by a truck? What could a "communist" be -- some sort of android? Considered in this way, as an SF novel, Grapes would be too long, in my opinion.
47geoffreyg1978
Regarding #44:
I think it is a great suggestion to do the parallel novel approach for developing an extended fictional universe, and I do agree this is better than trying to hunt down all 10 novels in a series in the correct order.
I would like to add, however, that I think it is a curse of too many SF/Fantasy authors to sit down and "create their own universe" simply for the sake of creating a new universe. How many books out there have a map on the inside cover? Too many. What happens is the story suffers, because the author isn't writing fiction, (s)he's writing a Dungeons & Dragons campaign.
I'm not naming names, and I don't have anyone in mind. Just a general comment to suggest that authors should build the setting to serve the STORY, not the other way around.
I think it is a great suggestion to do the parallel novel approach for developing an extended fictional universe, and I do agree this is better than trying to hunt down all 10 novels in a series in the correct order.
I would like to add, however, that I think it is a curse of too many SF/Fantasy authors to sit down and "create their own universe" simply for the sake of creating a new universe. How many books out there have a map on the inside cover? Too many. What happens is the story suffers, because the author isn't writing fiction, (s)he's writing a Dungeons & Dragons campaign.
I'm not naming names, and I don't have anyone in mind. Just a general comment to suggest that authors should build the setting to serve the STORY, not the other way around.
Join to post
