# Do you prefer to read shorter novels?



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

Sometimes the novel is so long that I lose interest in it.  I am busy so don't have the time to read long novels.

So I actually prefer shorter novels.  Indie authors also tend to charge less for their short novels, usually $.99 so it is cheaper to read shorter novels.

So do you like to read shorter novels?


----------



## scl (Feb 19, 2011)

I like a really good read, and I guess length isn't as important as quality, but if it's really good and short I usually wish there was more of it.


----------



## Cindy Borgne (Mar 21, 2011)

It doesn't really matter. Anything from 60K to 120K is fine with me.


----------



## SaraDagan (May 25, 2011)

Well, I prefer to read shorter novels mostly when I am impatient  

On the other hand, I  find it conciliating, sometimes, to cuddle with a thick (good) book, knowing that I have a safe refuge for a while...


----------



## Christopher Hunter (Apr 11, 2011)

My range is 10,000 to 100,000. Won't pay for a book with a lesser word count, and the book had better be great if I'm investing the time to read more. Other than that, it's all about the story. Some books simply do more with a less.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

It's quality over quantity for me.

I don't care how many books I read a week, month, year etc., so length is irrelevant.  I've read long books that felt way to long, and some that still felt too short.  Similarly, I've read shorter books that felt too long.

But even a short book can feel too short sometimes.  For example, I'm reading David Dalglish's Half Orc series currently and those books are around 300 pages.  It's good, but feels like it should be longer and have more attention to detail in fleshing out the world and it's history, races etc.  For instance, I'm at a big battle sequence currently, and at least 3 races/species of creatures have showed up in the fight that were never mentioned before.  So it's really lacking that attention to detail that helps me get sucked into a fantasy world.  Still a good read as it's an action packed series with very detailed battle sequences, but through nearly 3 books I don't have much sense of the scale or history of the world.


----------



## Jeff Rivera (Jun 22, 2011)

I prefer longer novels, but that's based on a book to book situation. If it's long for the sake of being long then chances are it's not going to hold my attention.


----------



## Cindy416 (May 2, 2009)

The length of a novel has never really mattered to me (unless I was trying to carry the book with me whenever I thought I'd catch a few minutes' reading time). As long as the book is excellent, I don't care.


----------



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

Length doesn't matter to me, either!!!  Give me a good story!!


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Certainly quality is more important than number of words to me, but I do find that I've been feeling overloaded by many modern longer novels that seem to have added characters and plot lines simply to reach some arbitrary size -- not because those additions add to the story and the thematic elements.


----------



## Scott Reeves (May 27, 2011)

I much prefer shorter novels, in the 50k - 60k range. Anything above that seems like a chore to wade through. I've got a short attention span, and I'd rather read three or four short novels rather than devote the time to a 700-page "epic." Robert Jordan is about the only "epic" author I'll read. And even the last few books of his "Wheel of Time" series, before Brandon Sanderson took over, were so padded out that I would just skim five or ten pages at a time. Why does it take ten pages to describe Perrin riding through a city gate on his horse?

So for me, short is a plus and long is a big negative, when I'm deciding which books to read.

I've resorted to buying YA books now, since they're so much shorter. I like a good, brief story--longer than a short story, but shorter than the massive tomes that have been foisted off on the reading public for the past few decades. If you want to evidence of how the lengths of books (science fiction, at least) have changed over the years, I posted actual word counts of representative books from the past fifty years or so on my blog: http://scottonwriting.blogspot.com I wasn't able to post the exact link, because it's got a curse word in it that gets edited out of the links on these boards. But just scroll down to read it. Once upon a time, in science fiction and fantasy, at least, short (by today's standards) was the norm.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Depends on the genre. With historical fiction, I tend to prefer longer books. All my favorite historical novels are 650-1000 pages (as paperbacks with normal text size). But I also read lighter books, usually chick lit or cozy mysteries and they are usually under 400 pages.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Franklin Eddy said:


> So do you like to read shorter novels?


It depends on the book but in general I find a 300 page read easier to finish than an 800 page one (yes, Robert Jordan, I'm looking at you).


----------



## Pawz4me (Feb 14, 2009)

I prefer longer books that I can really sink into.  Books with substance, of course.  Not long simply for the sake of being long.


----------



## samanthawarren (May 1, 2011)

It really depends on my mood and how much time I want to put into a book. Right now, especially with the summer here, I find my attention span to be very minimal. In situations like that, the shorter, action-packed novels fare better with me. Behemoth 700-page novels have me going "Oh dear God, when is it going to end??" I do the same when I'm writing. Novellas are easier to both read and write because they don't require as much fluff, so you get the good parts mostly. Kind of like my grandma's condensed books. But come winter, I'll want longer novels that I can curl up with while it's too cold to go outside.


----------



## apbschmitz (Apr 22, 2011)

I just finished the Philip Roth novel, Nemesis, which is 280 not-very-large pages. One thing to be said for books of this length is there's not a lot of room for wandering down the garden path. Typically the writer has a clear idea of the point, grabs it and shakes it, and then it's over. I like the sense of focus, which is pretty much essential in a shorter work. Definitely true of Nemesis.


----------



## gsjohnston (Jun 29, 2011)

Surely the length of the story is dictated by the actual story, not the reader.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

I like long stories, but I don't mind short books. In other words, I am finding that I really like the model of short stories in an ongoing series. It gives me a feeling of accomplishment as I finish each book.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I want my novels at least 70,000 words, and assuming it's a good book, more is better. There are certainly times I'm in the mood for a short story or novella, but I look at them differently and want to know what I'm getting, not just get something shorter than I wanted by accident. Generally, I feel short works don't have a lot of character development.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

I definitely prefer shorter novels.  My attention span is tiny!  (Laugh.)

Actually, I used to feel like I was "less" of a writer, or something, because I could cram more in 40,000 words than most writers do in 80,000, and I felt like that meant I was rushing horribly or something.  I've wound up discovering some authors just need more words than others, however, and it's not a "good" or "bad" thing, it's just a stylistic difference.  My husband needs 300,000 words to tell his stories; I can't stand writing more than 100,000 unless a story is completely and totally riveting.  And even then, I'll find I can shrink it by half or something when I next rewrite it.

I read plenty of longer books . . . but even then, I tend to be most pleased by writing styles that are quite succinct.


----------



## ewmacenulty (Jun 10, 2011)

Great topic. I've discussed this with my writer friends repeatedly. Generally, I prefer short novels. For myself, it comes down to not quality of writing or story, but if I remain in one world too long, I tend to get antsy for a change. I don't want to say I get "tired" of a story, because that's not quite true. I just get to a point where I'm ready for a change, a new story. For example, as much as I loved "Les Miserables" because the writing is amazing and the characters are gripping and the story is top-notch, I was ready for it to be done by the end. Another strange book for me (and I've read the book more than ten times) is The Lord of the Rings. Now, when I go back to reread it, I start with the Fellowship of the Ring right after Frodo has gotten to Rivendell and read through the chapter in the Return where the ring is destroyed. It's the beginning of Fellowship and the last third of Return that just got long to me. I adore the series though.


----------



## ewmacenulty (Jun 10, 2011)

UnicornEmily said:


> Actually, I used to feel like I was "less" of a writer, or something, because I could cram more in 40,000 words than most writers do in 80,000, and I felt like that meant I was rushing horribly or something. I've wound up discovering some authors just need more words than others, however, and it's not a "good" or "bad" thing, it's just a stylistic difference. My husband needs 300,000 words to tell his stories; I can't stand writing more than 100,000 unless a story is completely and totally riveting. And even then, I'll find I can shrink it by half or something when I next rewrite it.
> 
> I read plenty of longer books . . . but even then, I tend to be most pleased by writing styles that are quite succinct.


This is very well said and I agree. In my novels, I aim for the 70 - 85k range. I want to leave the reader wanting more. It's a tough balance ... say what needs to be said with detail and efficiency but keep the story moving.

Well said.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

ewmacenulty said:


> Great topic. I've discussed this with my writer friends repeatedly. Generally, I prefer short novels. For myself, it comes down to not quality of writing or story, but if I remain in one world too long, I tend to get antsy for a change. I don't want to say I get "tired" of a story, because that's not quite true. I just get to a point where I'm ready for a change, a new story. For example, as much as I loved "Les Miserables" because the writing is amazing and the characters are gripping and the story is top-notch, I was ready for it to be done by the end. Another strange book for me (and I've read the book more than ten times) is The Lord of the Rings. Now, when I go back to reread it, I start with the Fellowship of the Ring right after Frodo has gotten to Rivendell and read through the chapter in the Return where the ring is destroyed. It's the beginning of Fellowship and the last third of Return that just got long to me. I adore the series though.


I'm pretty much the opposite of you there. I love spending a lot of time in one world with a set of characters I love. It's a big reason fantasy if my favorite genre.

I love getting lost in a richly described world like Middle Earth or Westeros or Salvatore's Forgotten Realm's series etc.

That said, I don't like books that feel long just for the sake of being long (i.e. are long and don't have the detailed plot/world to justify the length).


----------



## ewmacenulty (Jun 10, 2011)

mooshie78 said:


> I'm pretty much the opposite of you there. I love spending a lot of time in one world with a set of characters I love. It's a big reason fantasy if my favorite genre.
> 
> I love getting lost in a richly described world like Middle Earth or Westeros or Salvatore's Forgotten Realm's series etc.
> 
> That said, I don't like books that feel long just for the sake of being long (i.e. are long and don't have the detailed plot/world to justify the length).


I get that, I certainly do. I think it must be psychological as I love the Dune series by Frank Herbert. Six books, all of decent size, and were you to put them into one book it would be one looooong tome. But, broken up into the smaller books, I feel like I can enjoy the one I'm reading and when finished, go on to the next one or go on to another completely different book and return to the Dune world at a later date. And, like you, I love digging into a world. But I also like the variety.

Good thoughts.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, if I start a series, I have to finish it.  I don't have a great memory of things I read for leisure (especially since I mainly read at night when sleepy!) so I hate reading a book or two in a series and then reading something else as I'll forget to many intricacies of the characters and plot by the time I get back to the series!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Nope.

With me the longer the better. I think it has to do with the fact that I'm a fast reader. I hate when I've just really gotten into a novel and it's over already.


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

I used to read brick-sized novels when I was younger but these days I tend to prefer short stories, novellas and short novels. I think it's partially because of the time constraints I have, balancing a dayjob and writing and my social life as well as the fact that my tastes in fiction have changed. A lot of my current crop of favourite writers favour the shorter forms so there I am.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

scl said:


> I like a really good read, and I guess length isn't as important as quality, but if it's really good and short I usually wish there was more of it.


This!


----------



## lib2b (Apr 6, 2010)

If the story is good and/or I'm interested in the characters, I tend to feel longer is better.  I do read a lot of shorter stuff, but even the ones I enjoy, I tend to feel were a little too short or would have been better if they'd been longer and more fleshed out!  If I enjoy a book, I like to get a little deeper into the story than shorter books allow.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I prefer shorter works, longer ones often feel like they really needed editing. I've always wanted to read Don Quixote, but it is a rather imposing length.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

ewmacenulty said:


> For example, as much as I loved "Les Miserables" because the writing is amazing and the characters are gripping and the story is top-notch, I was ready for it to be done by the end.


Funny, this is always the book I use as an example for length and writing style too....for all the reasons you mentioned...but I wasnt looking for the end. The only thing I minded was the weight! (It would be a non-issue on a K now :-/ )


----------



## ewmacenulty (Jun 10, 2011)

Scott Reeves said:


> I've resorted to buying YA books now, since they're so much shorter. I like a good, brief story--longer than a short story, but shorter than the massive tomes that have been foisted off on the reading public for the past few decades. If you want to evidence of how the lengths of books (science fiction, at least) have changed over the years, I posted actual word counts of representative books from the past fifty years or so on my blog: http://scottonwriting.blogspot.com I wasn't able to post the exact link, because it's got a curse word in it that gets edited out of the links on these boards. But just scroll down to read it. Once upon a time, in science fiction and fantasy, at least, short (by today's standards) was the norm.


This is a very true reality for most readers today. Many are resorting to YA novels for the length (or lack thereof) and, for many, present company excluded, the average reading level for many readers today is the eighth grade level. While I certainly understand that a large, formidable book based on just weight in one's hand will turn off many, a balance between a shortER gripping story with depth and emotion will attract a larger audience. I referenced Les Mis in an earlier post and another post referenced Don Quixote, I think we can agree that books of this magnitude have a harder time finding broad play in today's market. BTW: they're amazing books so please don't think I'm slamming them in any way.


----------



## Tamara Rose Blodgett (Apr 1, 2011)

Ah...no. I get embarrassingly excited about saga-length. When Stephen King [the Master, in case any of you were wondering] came out with, _Under the Dome_, I got depressed when I was in the last third of the book. That phenomena happened with the Outlander Series as well...huh. Sort of a problem...

Conversely, I did just enjoy a relatively short read titled, _Surviving Passion_. I guess if a book is good enough, length is not critical. It's just great when a book is long and a terrific read ( more to love!).


----------



## Shaun Jeffrey (Jun 17, 2010)

I prefer shorter novels because I know that if it's a doorstop book then I'll have to invest a lot of time to read it and with a lack of time, I may have to abandon it or I may lose interest in the story when I haven't had chance to read it for a while.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

That's definitely a fair concern.  Myself I usually always read 30-60 minutes a night before sleeping and maybe a little more here and there.  So long books do take me a long time to get through. A 1,000 page book tends to take me 1-2 months to finish.  I don't mind though, as long as it's a great book and holds my interest that whole time.  The latter is the key issue for me, not the length.

I just want to read and be entertained.  I don't care if that means finishing only 1 book in a month or 3-5 shorter ones. I'm not concerned at all with how many books I read a month or year etc. as I don't approach my hobbies like work.  All I care about is maximizing my entertainment during free time, and I do that by only reading books I'm really enjoying, regardless of length.


----------



## Shana Norris (May 31, 2011)

Length doesn't matter to me. I read both long and short books. Though sometimes after a really long book, I feel like I need a break with shorter, breezier books for a little while.


----------



## TiffanyLovering (Jul 1, 2011)

I guess you could say I like longer books because I tend to go for books that are part of a series.  I mean Harry Potter is like a 4000 page book.  I like to feel like I really know the characters and longer books have a better chance at sucking me into their world.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

It all depends on my mood.  Sometimes I LOVE to read a really long novel.  Stephen King's Under the Dome was the last truly long novel and I loved it.  There was a time when I worked mornings as a board-op at a small radio station.  Most mornings I sat there with nothign to do.  I got into reading Tom Clancy novels, the longer the better.  I think the book should be as long as it needs to be to tell the story.


----------



## JennaAnderson (Dec 25, 2009)

Shaun Jeffrey said:


> I prefer shorter novels because I know that if it's a doorstop book then I'll have to invest a lot of time to read it and with a lack of time, I may have to abandon it or I may lose interest in the story when I haven't had chance to read it for a while.


I completely agree with this. I also have a short attention span and get confused easily. (Simple me.) If I set a book down for a week and come back to it... ugh.

I've decided to read lots of short ebooks this summer. 

*~ Jenna*

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## grahampowell (Feb 10, 2011)

I very much prefer shorter novels.  I was reading a (paper) book the other day that was almost 450 pages.  Kind of a bummer to get 200 pages into it and not be halfway done.

After that one I read another that topped out at 235 pages.  That's more my speed.



Graham


----------



## JennaAnderson (Dec 25, 2009)

Maybe it's because I know there are so many great books out there. If they're shorter, I get through more.  

Jenna


----------



## JanetMcDonald (Jul 6, 2011)

Interesting question.  There is no ideal length for me, although I will admit to being turned off by books that are overly long.  In general, though, the ideal number of words or pages is so so SO author and story specific.  Books at either extreme are sometimes problematic.  A short one may seem unsatisfying - or, worse, like the author tried to make what should have been a short story into a short novel.  A long one can make my eyes cross with boredom if it feels like it is filled with "filler" content.  

I guess most of my favorite works of fiction are around 300 pages.  So, on the shorter side for sure, but not into "novella" territory.


----------



## grahampowell (Feb 10, 2011)

JanetMcDonald said:


> A short one may seem unsatisfying...


True. I remember reading a Matt Helm novel from the early 1960s that was only 180 pages. I was sort of waiting for the next twist when I realized there were only about 15 pages left. I felt the story was kind of foreshortened.

Graham


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

scl said:


> I like a really good read, and I guess length isn't as important as quality, but if it's really good and short I usually wish there was more of it.


This about sums it up for me. I tend to prefer reading novels around 80k words.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

I get motion sick if I read on the bus, so that means 2 hours x 3 days a week I'm sitting on a bus. So, I like to plug in a full-length audiobook so that I "read" a book. I want a longer book for that.

However, day-to-day I want to keep up with reading, but I don't have much time. So, I then like to read a lot of short stories and short novellas. That way, I'm still reading, I'm keeping up with trends in my genres, and I'm finding new authors whose novels I might like when I have enough downtime to devote to novels.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Nope.
> 
> With me the longer the better. I think it has to do with the fact that I'm a fast reader. I hate when I've just really gotten into a novel and it's over already.


I think the speed at which one reads and how much time one has to read does affect one's preferred length.


----------



## Izzy Hammerstein (Jul 6, 2011)

If a long novel has just worthless padding then naturally it's going to become tedious.
Every story should have an appropriate organic length...I think.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

Depends on the story really. Most books that are extra large usually just need to be split up into 2 books. Typically I like something in between.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Tara Maya said:


> I think the speed at which one reads and how much time one has to read does affect one's preferred length.


Time affects me, not speed. I read fast and it has not affected my choices or preferences.

I like to finish a book in 1-2 sittings. That means giving up a day (or most of a night) to finish a long novel. It doesn't matter how fast I read, I can't always do that.


----------



## Evelyn Collier (Jul 7, 2011)

I don't mind how long a novel is. What matters to me is that I enjoy it. I have experienced novel that are too long - it's as if the writers felt they had to write a blockbuster, but ran out of ideas, so put in too many tedious details and irrelevant subplots.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tara Maya said:


> I think the speed at which one reads and how much time one has to read does affect one's preferred length.


Neither really affect me personally. I don't read all that fast as I read every word (so I read pretty much the speed I'd read if reading aloud, maybe a bit faster) when reading for leisure. And I generally only read for a bit before sleeping--usually 30 to 60 minutes. I read a variety of shorter novels (300 or so pages) and several longer ones (up to 1,000 or so pages).

That said, I do generally do at least that little bit of reading every day, so I don't have long breaks where I forget what was going on etc. that some have mentioned. If I read more sporadically like that, then I could see it being an issue.

But otherwise, I don't care if I read a few shorter books in a month, or only one long one. As long as I'm enjoying what I'm reading, that's all that matters to me.


----------



## LucieSimone (Jun 30, 2011)

I think my preferred length is between 300 to 400 pages. But I've read many a book that I just didn't want to end. To me, the quality of the story is much more important than the length, although if a book is over 600 pages, I'm going to think twice about reading it.


----------



## Tim C. Taylor (May 17, 2011)

I find my preferred book length is shortening. Too busy perhaps? Ten years ago I would say 600 pages was my preference. Now I'd prefer 350 with an occasional indulgence as my guilty pleasure.
Tim


----------



## Akincaid87 (Jul 5, 2011)

I like shorter novels sometimes.  I like short story anthologies as well...they're nice because you can pick and choose.  If it's a really long novel, it has to be an author I already know and like, or something that sounds like it has a cool premise.  That's a huge time investment after all.  

I mostly look at the author or the product description; if it sounds good I'll read regardless of length.


----------



## Ilyria Moon (May 14, 2011)

I prefer longer novels. I read quickly, so I feel cheated if I finish a new book in a day or two.


----------



## SJWrightAuthor (Feb 11, 2011)

SaraDagan said:


> Well, I prefer to read shorter novels mostly when I am impatient
> 
> On the other hand, I find it conciliating, sometimes, to cuddle with a thick (good) book, knowing that I have a safe refuge for a while...


I actually prefer long novels as well. If I only had the patience to write longer novels, I'd be golden!


----------



## Akincaid87 (Jul 5, 2011)

SJWrightAuthor said:


> I actually prefer long novels as well. If I only had the patience to write longer novels, I'd be golden!


I don't have the patience to write anything much longer than a novella. That's why I crammed 13 stories in my first book and I'll have about ten in subsequent books. It's a novel length book without all the hassle of writing a 300 page long story! haha


----------



## ajbarnett (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm amazed by the diversity of opinion on this thread. I  must admit my prefernce is for a 300 pager, but I've read much longer - including some Penny Vincenzi books, but I've also enjoyed shorter stories. 

I think quality is what truly counts.


----------



## Akincaid87 (Jul 5, 2011)

ajbarnett said:


> I'm amazed by the diversity of opinion on this thread. I must admit my prefernce is for a 300 pager, but I've read much longer - including some Penny Vincenzi books, but I've also enjoyed shorter stories.
> 
> I think quality is what truly counts.


That is definitely the deciding factor...even if something is only about 30 pages long, I won't read it if the first five pages are crap. 30 or 300, it has to be good!


----------



## D/W (Dec 29, 2010)

I prefer shorter novels. Short story collections can be fun too. I usually don't have large blocks of time to devote to reading, and if I have to start and stop reading a book _too_ many times I tend to lose interest.


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

I seldom start books that are more than about 400 printed pages. More often than not, longer books move too slowly for me.

On the other hand, I could think of a several dozen long books that I've read that I thoroughly enjoyed.


----------



## Ilyria Moon (May 14, 2011)

Akincaid87 said:


> I don't have the patience to write anything much longer than a novella. That's why I crammed 13 stories in my first book and I'll have about ten in subsequent books. It's a novel length book without all the hassle of writing a 300 page long story! haha


I wish I could write shorter stories!  I haven't read many, so I wouldn't know where to start (pacing etc)


----------



## Meb Bryant (Jun 27, 2011)

I prefer to read novels in the 70,000-90,000 word range, approximately 225-275 pages. Since I read at least 

an hour in bed, the book's weight is an issue. Shorter novels allow me to connect with more authors. If I'm 

need of a quick read, short stories are the perfect choice. I feel privileged to read material from new writers.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't read short stories or novellas. I like my books to be a normal length. Yeah, I know, what the heck is normal.  

I don't know anything about word count and it doesn't mean anything to me. I finally got used to the Kindle locations so I like to read books that are in between 4500-7000 locations on average. I am flexible going either side, but most of my books are in this range. I think that is around 340-390 pages (Paperback) depending. I don't mind longer if its gripping. I mean heck the Outlander books have like 20000 locations  . I still devoured them. I'd rather a book be longer then too short though.


----------



## Riven Owler (Jul 9, 2011)

There are some stories that I wish would never end, and I like them to be good and long.  I was happy when J.K. Rowling's last book was long for example.  There are other books like The Pearl (Steinbeck) and The Road (McCarthy) that are so piercing and elegant.  They're small, and perfect just as they are.


----------



## Akincaid87 (Jul 5, 2011)

For me, the story should be as long as it needs to be.  Some longer stories end 200 pages before the book does, and some short stories need another 200 pages.  So long as the story is interesting though, I'll stick around whether it ends on page 30 or page 300


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

If the book stays awesome and keeps getting better, length is not really an issue.  I don't see a problem with an author just telling the story, and not padding it.  I am grateful to Kindle for the opportunity to write shorter, more to the point, novels that don't have to be padded in.  Maybe not everyone thinks so, but this is an opportunity for people who write shorter to get published where they might not have been before.  Long live the writer.


----------



## karenk105 (Jul 7, 2011)

It depends on the novel. For instance, I never thought the Harry Potters were too long. But when I'm reading romance, I prefer to read shorter books.


----------

