While we’re taking issue (or I am, at least) with the suggestions in this Library Journal open letter from a librarian, I thought it’d be interesting to talk about her issue with book length: “Unless you’re publishing Madame Bovary or The Brothers Karamazov, 200 pages is plenty.”
I’ll leave aside the issue that even the newest of the books she cites as the ideal length is 12 years old and most of them are 40 or more. And I’m all for a variety of book lengths for a variety of readers and reader skill levels (not to mention age groups). I’m a little more troubled by the idea that she lists this suggestion under the subhead, “Better editing.”
Personally, I don’t think editing has much to do with it. I’ve read any number of adult books recently that made me think, “Boy, this could be about 25% shorter and we’d never know the difference.” I have NEVER read a published middle-grade or YA book and thought that. I may not have liked it, and I may have seen things I thought were editorial lapses, but I’ve never thought a published book for young readers was bloated or rambling. Generally, I think “our” pacing is excellent and there is rarely a lick of padding — there’s just plenty of story packed between the pages.
And what about SFF/fantasy books in particular, which lately are more likely to be long books than contemporary fiction? One could argue (I’m not sure I’m prepared to) that the fact that a story takes place in another time, place, or universe suggests that the author might need a few more pages to establish those settings or inform the reader about things that can simply be taken for granted in a contemporary book. Does it? Or are fantasy authors, and readers, simply more likely to indulge or wallow in their worlds and peoples? And if so, is that perfectly okay, as long as we have, as it were, “consenting readers”?
(I’ve certainly heard book people talk about kids who wouldn’t look twice at a book if it wasn’t 300 pages because they’ve become used to lengthy books, love them, and know anything shorter would be over too soon. I’ve also had loads of readers who simply assume that if there is one book, there WILL be a series, and when does the next one come out?? Even my shortest novel for the youngest readers is 217 pages, and some of that length is because the publisher felt it would be too skinny to appeal without a pretty decent font size and some illos. And my second-shortest novel, which is 240 pages (well over that 200 limit), is the only one that had otherwise glowing reviews say, in short, “I wished it was longer and/or X was developed more.”)
I will admit that when selecting which book to read next, a thick one will often go lower in my TBR pile because I know it will take me longer to complete. But I’m not convinced young readers think the same way, I’m almost certain it’s not for the same reason if they do, and I wouldn’t want that particular book to be thinner or ever let it affect a purchase decision — I’m just prioritizing my to-do list to be able to cross more things off sooner.
What do you think? Have HP and Redwall and a few titles like that given authors word diarrhea? Or are there elements of spec fic particularly that beg for or require greater length?
– Joni, who probably couldn’t write a novel under 200 pages to save her life.
Posted in Joni Sensel Tagged: book length
I have to say I’ve read some MG/YA that could definitely (should definitely) have been cut back. It seemed overly wordy for no good reason at all.
I also seem to see this in second and third and fourth books in series when authors become “uneditable”.
But 200 pages does seem very short. I’ve yet to write a novel under that!
Like what? (Just curious if it’s anything I’ve read.)
Although I can think of a certain series that starts with T, I guess that’s my only example, and I think that’s actually a separate issue.
That is an offline conversation! But I’ll email you!
But agree on the T series, also!
I can remember thinking about half-way through Eragon, “I’ve read a couple hundred pages here, and really nothing has happened.” No offense to young Mr. Paolini, but I think his books are a perfect example of stories that could have been told in a much shorter page count. When I heard the last book in his “Trilogy” was going to be split in two because he couldn’t tell the whole story he wanted in three books, I just kind of laughed.
But in general, my son ALWAYS wishes books were longer (he’s 11). We only get him books that are in a series. The bigger the better for him. You have to remember, kids don’t really have anything else they HAVE to do. We may prioritize shorter books because we have so many responsibilities, but kids, especially on summer break, could read all day (at least my son does pretty regularly). So I’d have to say, at least in the YA genre, shorter is definitely not better.
You know what? The responses to this post are making me realize that I simply block books I don’t like completely out of mind and memory. I guess there are plenty of examples of books that are too long… I just hated them — and stopped reading — so I don’t “count” them, ha ha.
I wonder if that librarian is frustrated her books must compete with online and other types of short-form media for kids’ attention.
A story takes as many words (or pages) to tell as it takes. I’m economical in my wording, but not everyone wants to read that.
I know I’ve read a few MG fantasy books that seemed overly long, but I do tend to agree that if I really like a book I want it to last longer. For example, I appreciate the plot and pacing of Rowling’s earlier Harry Potter books, but when her later HP books got quite long and the plots unwieldy, I didn’t mind because I wanted to spend more time with the characters anyway.
I completely agree with D. Robert about the Eragon books, especially the third, Brinsingr. In my Goodreads review I said I would have given it 3 stars if it had been 100 pages shorter and 4 if it had been 200 pages shorter. Way, way too much excess that really slowed down what could have been a very exciting book. And I had to laugh because in his acknowledgments he said the version he turned in to his editor was much longer. I can just hear the sigh.
Length, however, is not the problem. A long book can read fast and a short book can read slow no matter your age. Every writer needs to take Oscar Wilde’s advice and cut out all the boring parts. That’s the problem. Some people just like listening to themselves a little too much.
I’m talking to myself, aren’t I?
I know that a lot of my reluctant readers will look at the thickness of a book until several people have told them how good that long book is.
I love that advice about cutting out the boring parts.
In Elmore Leonard’s “Rules for Writing,” he lists #10 as: Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.
I blogged about that here:
http://www.jamespreller.com/2008/10/13/elmore-leonards-rules-for-writing/