# Are Novels too Bloated Nowadays?



## yingko2 (Jul 26, 2011)

I have to admit, when I am browsing books I find 1000 or even 500 page novels with tiny print off-putting now. I feel many of today's books are just simply too long. I prefer books in the 30-70,000 word range. I am not a fast reader and I like to be able to finish the book within a week or so. It's not so bad if the book moves fast, but many books are simply over fed at the publisher's request. I feel books should be as long as the story calls for, without being jammed full of arbitrary scenes or characters or sub-plots just to extend it into a 1000 page doorstop. So do you all prefer your books short, medium or super-sized?
Cheers,
Howard


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Certain authors do "bloat".. Jean M. Auel's final book in the "Earth's Children" series was SEVERELY, MASSIVELY, UNBELIEVABLY-REDUNDANTLY bloated. It could quite easily have had 1/3 of it cut and not lost a BIT of the story.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't read a whole lot of 1000 pagers, well outside the Outlander series  . I prefer my books what I call normal length which is 300-450 pages or so. Up to 500-600 still good. I don't like them very short though. To me 30000 is a short novella, not a novel. Anything under 50000 I think would be like novella to me. 
I am not really good with the wordcount, but I guess I like to have at least 80,000 or 100,000. If I understand word count to page count correctly that is. 

The later books in Outlander are a bit bloated, at least to me. But I haven't found the bloating with any of my other "normal" sized books I read. I do read about 15 books a month, although I try going for more.


----------



## Seanathin23 (Jul 24, 2011)

As a slow reader I find bloat to be ponderously aggravating. So many books I have put down because they spent paragraphs and paragraphs on peoples clothing, and the roof on an inn or a flying flag. 9 out of 10 times that is just bloat that can be nipped and tucked into better prose.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

Today's novels are anemic supermodels compared to the behemoths that came out of the Victorian era. The '50s through the '70s were pretty big on those giant sagas by Michener and Leon Uris and John Jakes and James Clavell and so forth, too.

I like long books with lots of subplots if they're all interesting and well-drawn, and I like pared-down novellas. Whatever serves the story in question. I have certainly read books that seemed ridiculously padded beyond what was necessary to tell the story well, but sometimes a huge book like Shogun or A Suitable Boy builds an entire world you can be pleasurably lost in for hours and hours.


----------



## SpearsII (Jan 16, 2010)

I agree with Thalia. _If_ the story is good and the writing is good I want to stay with the story awhile. I like reading trilogies for the same reason. I think this is because it can be hard to find really good stories sometimes. I think that fantasy has this problem. There is sooooo much of the genre that is just hum drum. When I do find a captivating book I don't want it to end in one weekend. Of course if it is bad writing 25 words is way to much.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I agree with Thalia.  I'm not sure it's a modern problem.  Remember once upon a time many writers were paid by the word.  It's just an issue of quality.  If you think the book is bad - it will be too long even if it's just a short story.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

If well written, long is better to me (350 pages is about the minimum for a novel, IMO, and I tend to browse the big tomes first, someting I can finish off in an evening is barely an appetizer).

I was weaned on 19th century Russian novels, I think that has something to do with my tastes in lenght.

That said, I've fallen in love with (relatively) short novels: The Remains of the Day is a masterpiece to me, and I remember taking a whole week to read Crime and Punishment because I had to 'resurface' and detach myself from its sheer intensity.


----------



## EStoops (Oct 24, 2011)

Oh dear. Yes. Some are terribly bloated nowadays. I think even the fans of "The Wheel of Time" will tell you there is too much in there. I know Anita Blake's fanbase got really antrsy about the romantic subplot taking over the detective plot. Of course, what one fan says is bloat, another fan will say is just what they are looking for. So the author is under some very contradictory guns. And then you have authors that admit to "bloat" and "padding". 

Other books however, could really stand some padding. I wrote a review for one of Cassandra Clare's novels very early on in her original fiction career that the book seemed too trimmed. I felt like an entire subplot had been removed. The most recent book she released had an even WORSE case of the issue, and so I'm done with her books. I'm not sure if it's an editor issue or if it's an author issue, but they are too skinny. A few other books I've read lately have some plot holes that even my best fan wank can't fill, so there's another spot where some padding wouldn't have been amiss.

Patricia Briggs went back and re-wrote an early novel to pad it out and give it more life. The result is solid, but you can see it's an early effort. I'm not sure if I've read of an author doing the reverse. I think Herman Melville stated he though he should, or that he wanted to. 

I will say this, bloat seems to be either the author's style (like it or leave it), or an indicator of a franchise zombie, where the author is simply writing the franchise because they have to, not because they have more stories in their head for that universe/story/character (time to find a new series). Sometimes, though, I think the editors tone it down in early books and once the author gets sufficiently famous, out it comes so it might be sneaky.


----------



## Todd Trumpet (Sep 7, 2011)

It depends on the quality of the bloat.

Two recently read examples:

1. *"CRYPTONOMICON" by Neal Stephenson:* Well over 1000 pages, and it could have taken a huge haircut page-wise without hurting the main storyline. HOWEVER, Mr. Stephenson is such a good/smart writer that even the asides and tangents were entertaining to me.

2. *"REPLAY" by Ken Grimwood:* This one was only 320 pages... but far more bloated by comparison, IMO. In other words, the details were uninteresting, unwarranted, and ultimately unwanted.

As a screenwriter, I've become hyper-sensitive to the issue of bloat, and usually can't tolerate it...

...but, as Mr. Stephenson's doorstop demonstrated...

...it depends on the quality.

Todd


----------



## J.R.Mooneyham (Mar 14, 2011)

As long as I'm enjoying it, I don't care if a book is a million pages long. In fact, I often will read a particular author's entire output of books, if I sufficiently like the first one I see. I was doing that with the Culture series of Iain M. Banks until I got to the fourth volume, and discovered it's not available for Kindle in the USA.

I recall reading the Stand by Stephen King years ago, and I think it was close to a 1000 pages in length. And yet, it seemed to end too quickly. Later on I read an article about it where King said his editors forced him to wrap it up and end it prematurely, because of marketing concerns.

I mostly agree with Todd about Cryptonomicon (I read it a few months ago).


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

Some definitely are. The Girl With the Dragon Tatoo for one. It went on and on and on and on.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Actually, do I dare say that many novels are to sparse? Too much action too fast with too many short sentences will cause me to find something else to read in a short amount of time. Maybe I'm the odd duck, but I like the detail and slower pace of _The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo_


----------



## davidestesbooks (Nov 4, 2011)

I recently talked to a literary agent who told me that the trend is towards shorter novels once again.  Like others on this board, I am probably of the opinion that it really depends on the story.  If you think about it, many series of novels are shorter per book, but when you add it all up between 5 or 6 books, you have a massive piece of writing.  So perhaps individual books are getting shorter, but series seem to be getting longer.


----------



## EStoops (Oct 24, 2011)

Well, I do think bloat is per-book. There's no page count that instantly says "bloat" to me. I do think that you have a point about individual books getting shorter and stories getting longer. I have to admit, I thought Garth Nix was pushing it with seven books in the "Keys to the Kingdom" series that I loved. I was ready to be done with the story around book five or so. It just seemed a little drawn out, timewise. However, had I found the series out as a whole from the get-go, I don't think it would have bugged me at all. As for the Randland books by Robert Jordan, I loved everything up to about book 6-7, and then I was really, really ready for something to happen. I'd still feel that same way if all the books were available. right now and I could rush to the end.

But then again, I don't know that the number of books really is a bellweather either -- I'm reading the Dresden Files, and find that I like each one a bit more than the last. But then, they are self contained.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

It depends on my mood, but because of time constraints I rarely read novels (or buy novels) that are over 450 pages.  I might wishlist something longer just in case, but I generally read long novellas up to about 100k.  I prefer about 350 to 400 page novel because I know when I read, I'm not going to be able to immerse myself for two or three days.


----------



## ahro (Aug 5, 2010)

Seanathin23 said:


> As a slow reader I find bloat to be ponderously aggravating. So many books I have put down because they spent paragraphs and paragraphs on peoples clothing, and the roof on an inn or a flying flag. 9 out of 10 times that is just bloat that can be nipped and tucked into better prose.


Agreed. I prefer long short stories, or as English profs. call them, novelettes and novellas; a read you can finish in one sitting or on the bus or train. There's as much literary majesty in something like Maladud's 'The Angel Levine' as there is in a longer work, say Doctorow's 'Ragtime.' Of course, I do have a bias.


----------



## Casey W (Oct 10, 2011)

Depends on the writer and the flow of the story. Some books out move along at a ridiculous slow pace, while there are others that are 900 pages and they read like only half that. Lonesome Dove comes to mind.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I read about 2400 locations or 145 pages a day.  I want a book that will take me a few days to read, so something 300 is a short, 2-day read for me.  I prefer a book that is both long and well-written.  There are plenty of big books that are 'bloated', and those annoy me as they really should have been shorter, but if a book is entertaining, then I say bring on the sub-plots and extra descriptive details.


----------



## ahro (Aug 5, 2010)

Most people in the thread seem to be opting for the bigger novels. What ever happened to terrific short stories? Cheever and Kafka come to mind, diametrically opposed, but still wonderful.


----------



## iPublish (Oct 31, 2011)

Attention spans are not what they used to be. If you really want to see long novels, walk down the Russian literature section of your bookstore. The works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky could keep you busy for years. If a novel reaches their level than I don't mind spending the time. Not for something that's just good though.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

ahro said:


> Most people in the thread seem to be opting for the bigger novels. What ever happened to terrific short stories? Cheever and Kafka come to mind, diametrically opposed, but still wonderful.


I like some novellas but since they are usually a pleasant afternoon's read, I like them as the anchor to an anthology as opposed to being a stand alone.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I tend to avoid overly thick novels. But part of the problem is that vacation reads make up a large proportion of mmp (mass market paperback) sales, and doorstep novels are ideal for this purpose, which makes publishers very keen on them.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

EStoops said:


> Sometimes, though, I think the editors tone it down in early books and once the author gets sufficiently famous, out it comes so it might be sneaky.


The first part of that is true. Editors want first novelists to be tight within the genre (a trad mystery is much shorter than a fantasy). But the second part isn't the editor's fault but the marketing department's. They want thick books from their brand-name authors so as to grab more shelf space in bookstores _to keep their competitors out._

Also, of course, some authors' heads swell when they sell a few copies, and their words become more godlike, and their books swell because mo' godlike words are mo' betta. And the marketing department rubs its hands gleefully...


----------



## Alan Ryker (Feb 18, 2011)

I was flipping through the vinyl in my favorite record store awhile back and heard an interesting comment from a hipster employee that I immediately wanted to refute: "There aren't many albums that need to be longer than a half hour."

But once I started thinking about it, I realized it was true.

The length of an album was first set by a 33 rpm LP, later by a 74 minute CD, but really, I could think of almost no albums that couldn't be improved by cutting them back to an essential 20 to 30 minutes. Because they'd been padded.

Same thing has happened to fiction in the past 3 decades. 40-60K is the sweet spot, in my opinion. The rest is usually filler.


----------



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

To me, bloat is in the eye of the beholder. Or the hands of a skillful author.

It's only bloat if it has no value for a particular reader. If I hadnt experienced successful and skillful embellishment of details (Victor Hugo, Stephen King, Dick Francis, Greg Bear for a few), then I wouldnt have any basis for that opinion. But knowing they exist(ed), then I believe that there are certainly more out there.

To be sure...there is bloat, but IMO it has nothing to do with 'length' but only quality of content. A two page essay can be bloated and valueless.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> To be sure...there is bloat, but IMO it has nothing to do with 'length' but only quality of content. A two page essay can be bloated and valueless.


I think that's the crux. There are books that are large primarily because the author or the publisher wanted them to be that size and are obviously half filler. Then, there are novels that are anything but - take Edward Rutherfurd's _Sarum_ as an example. It's 24k locations long and could have easily been broken into several novels by the publisher but it's a fantastic read as a stand alone book. Likewise, Tolkien's _The Lord of the Rings_ is often broken into a trilogy but is perfect as a single, albeit long, novel.


----------



## ahro (Aug 5, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I like some novellas but since they are usually a pleasant afternoon's read, I like them as the anchor to an anthology as opposed to being a stand alone.


I don't understand the distinction. I'm a bit new here so I hope I'm not overstepping the bounds of self-promotion, but (there's always a but, isn't there?) I have three books on Kindle, each priced under a dollar. So if one purchased them all, you'd have an anthology of two novellas and a short story for less than three dollars, and have a glorious time cavorting through the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. In any case, personally, as a reader as well, I don't enjoy overwrought and languid passages that seem to on forever. Steinbeck used whole chapters of description as a tension builder between chapters of the Joad family saga . After a bit, I just skipped over the descriptive chapters.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I can't speak for Geoffrey, but I just don't enjoy novellas much. Just too short for me to get into a story or character. I read a few here and there, last one I actually loved a lot, but it had 40,000 words so I think that is my minimum for a story. Plus it was in between books for a connected series. And a favorite author  

When I read a magazine, or Readers Digest with the articles, then I expect shortish stories. Those would be the in between things I read. Those are mostly non fiction though, life stories and such. 

But for me when I read a fiction book, I want to read a book. Its just a preference thing. Even if there are many short stories in a book for example, I just wouldn't like the constant start story, end story, start story, end story  . I read a lot and fairly fast I think, I would have to read so many short things to make up for my reading time that everything would get jumbled. 

I like to savor the characters, I like to experience a great story and get immersed into it. I need it to be a certain length to accomplish that. 

There is a lot in between a short story and a 1000 pager. But average length for me is 400 pages. 

And again, I read close to 500 books in the last 3 years and I don't recall much if any bloating. Contrary, some books I wished were a bit longer. I think if your love is short stories and novellas, then a regular sized book can appear too long. Just a matter of perspective. Just like when you read mostly regular sized ones, the short ones can feel a bit lacking. 

Thankfully there is lots for everyone, although I mentioned it before, I am a bit concerned about the push for shorter and shorter novels and novellas by Indy's and other small publishers. I notice this more and more in my favorite genre when I browse, over and over I have to sift through the reviews to find out its a novella I am looking at. Then no page count or anything to even give me an idea how short it actually is. So I tend to stick with books that have a paper version so I can at least compare the size.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2011)

DYB said:


> I agree with Thalia. I'm not sure it's a modern problem. Remember once upon a time many writers were paid by the word. It's just an issue of quality. If you think the book is bad - it will be too long even if it's just a short story.


Charles Dickens certainly didn't skimp on his stories, but I don't think anyone could accuse him of artificially inflating them to up his word count and revenue.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Many times, novellas are perfectly entertaining reads for a lazy Saturday afternoon. But, I'll then start a new book that night.

I like a book that includes character backstory and sub-plots - for me it makes the story come more alive when I know all this other stuff going on. With a novella, I often feel all that other goodness has been left out in favor of the main plot line and the primary characters. In an anthology where several short stories and novellas that are either thematically related, make up a greater story arc or exemplify a single author's work are bound together, I get to enjoy good short fiction while still having a meaty sized book to read over the course of a couple days. (for example, take Card's Maps in a Mirror: The Short Fiction of Orson Scott Card or McAfee's A Land of Ash or Greenberg and Helfers' Villians Victorious)

I don't dislike short stories or novellas that are stand alone, I just prefer them as part of a larger whole ....


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2011)

I think it depends on the genre. Many publishers have guidelines for debut authors, so you may want to check out more novels by them. Usually they have to be in the under 100k range (about 400 pages or less). It's the more established writers who get away with larger books, though the occasional debut author with a tome does break through every now and again 

Personally, I don't want a story that is too long nor one that is too short.

Hey, have you tried novellas? They are usually in the 20-60k range, if I remember correctly


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

DYB said:


> I agree with Thalia. I'm not sure it's a modern problem. Remember once upon a time many writers were paid by the word. It's just an issue of quality. If you think the book is bad - it will be too long even if it's just a short story.


I don't know. It could be a modern problem. Think of all the things that claim our time. And then look at the lengths of so many of the self-published Kindle books. Many are novella length, masquerading as novels. Some are mere stories. (Not that there aren't great stories.) Next to those, a doorstopper looks intimidating.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

Bloating a book just to pad out its length is a crime - no, I don't need to read a whole chapter describing a group of people entering a room, one at a time, right down the stitches on their clothes (yes Mr Jordan, I am looking at you.)

All that bloat has turned me off novels and pushed me in the direction of short stories and novellas.


----------



## Casper Parks (May 1, 2011)

Depends if the novel is intended as "epic" in style.


----------



## Carolyn62 (Sep 5, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> Certain authors do "bloat".. Jean M. Auel's final book in the "Earth's Children" series was SEVERELY, MASSIVELY, UNBELIEVABLY-REDUNDANTLY bloated. It could quite easily have had 1/3 of it cut and not lost a BIT of the story.


No kidding! Shelters of Stone had the same problem.


----------



## ahro (Aug 5, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I like some novellas but since they are usually a pleasant afternoon's read, I like them as the anchor to an anthology as opposed to being a stand alone.


I hope you wouldn't sell stand alones short (pun intended). I've written a few so, naturally, I'm kind of dug in on the issue. Is it an issue?


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

I was just talking to my sister about this topic the other day. She reads thrillers and she's starting to avoid authors who she says pad up the word count with pages of descriptions of how bombs are made, etc. I'm finding that I'm seeking out my old paperback collection--novels that run about 100K words. Much easier to read!

Brian January


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm the kind of person who LIKES descriptions of how the bombs are made and so forth, if it's well told and enhances the atmosphere of the book. For me, learning about various specialized endeavors is one of the perks of reading a lot -- for instance, I loved Airs Above the Ground, which mixed an exciting story of adventure with a ton of information about the Lipizzaner performing horses.


----------



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

I've read bloated short stories and 400 page novels that were too sparse.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

What I remember as industry standard from my querying days . . . an average length first novel is between 70,000 and 80,000 words (at least this was what publishers were looking for in the late 90s).  Fantasy and sci fi authors could get away with 125,000 words for a first novel, but anything much over that was liable to get rejected, no matter how good the first chapter was.

I think the book should be as long as it needs to be to tell the particular story the author wants to tell, no more, no less.  Some 1000 pagers aren't long enough for me, and some short stories bore me to tears.  Anything that doesn't advance plot or characterization should go.  In fact, I'm not sure why an author would include endless descriptions of clothing, food, setting, etc in a novel that do not contribute to plot or characterization--endless descriptions are boring to write.  If I'm bored writing it, I can be assured my audience will be bored reading it.


----------



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

purplepen79 said:


> What I remember as industry standard from my querying days . . . an average length first novel is between 70,000 and 80,000 words (at least this was what publishers were looking for in the late 90s). Fantasy and sci fi authors could get away with 125,000 words for a first novel, but anything much over that was liable to get rejected, no matter how good the first chapter was.
> 
> I think the book should be as long as it needs to be to tell the particular story the author wants to tell, no more, no less. Some 1000 pagers aren't long enough for me, and some short stories bore me to tears. Anything that doesn't advance plot or characterization should go. In fact, I'm not sure why an author would include endless descriptions of clothing, food, setting, etc in a novel that do not contribute to plot or characterization--endless descriptions are boring to write. If I'm bored writing it, I can be assured my audience will be bored reading it.


I'm kind of like that too, esp about character development.

But have you ever read Victor Hugo? He was amazing at it.

And Kathleen Woodiweiss, a romance writer, could do it too. She's the only romance writer I ever read regularly.

Some authors can do it and do it superbly. But I dont think it's a very common skill.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> Certain authors do "bloat".. Jean M. Auel's final book in the "Earth's Children" series was SEVERELY, MASSIVELY, UNBELIEVABLY-REDUNDANTLY bloated. It could quite easily have had 1/3 of it cut and not lost a BIT of the story.


Strongly agree. Also skipped much of the Potter series where the filler was usually yet another quidditch (sp?) game.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Are books really larger these days?


----------



## LaraAmber (Feb 24, 2009)

I was thinking the other day how SKINNY so many books look. I was watching The Daily Show and there is Jon Stewart holding up another book while talking to the author and all I could think was "someone feed that book a sandwich!!!" I swear with non-fiction titles the more famous the author the thinner the book (and the smaller the name of the ghost writer, I mean collaborator).

I like variety in fiction, give me the giant 14 book series and let me sprinkle in some short romance novels and funny mysteries to break it up and I'm a happy camper.


----------



## Phil Day (Nov 11, 2011)

I agree, it seems that novels are all over 400 pages now.  Sometimes I won't pick up a novel if it's over 200 pages unless it's by an author I like, because I can't trust that they can captivate me for that long.  Mostly I just don't have the time to devote to such long books, but I also can't pay attention that long if the author blathers on and on.  Because reading is essentially about enjoyment.


----------



## StephanieVoid (Mar 11, 2011)

I've read so many books with too much bloat that I get hesitant to dive into a series made up of long books unless it is highly recommended. So yeah, I think bloat can be a bad thing.


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

I'm reminded of a comment quoted (if memory serves) by the great William Goldman in one of his screenplay collections.  In a conversation, director George Roy Hill (again if memory serves) told him,

"If you can't tell your story in an hour and forty minutes, you'd better be David Lean."

There are of course d*mn few David Leans out there in the film world, and I often think the same principle applies in the print world as well.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I've often wondered if digital technology will one day bring us the Accordion Book (my made-up term).

Imagine if books were interactive, and you could select the menu option for "minimal descriptions" and "minimal backstory of side characters" before you started reading.

I admire John Irving's work, but I lose interest before the halfway point of his books.  I know some people love every single word, and I wouldn't want to steal that experience from them, but I'd love it if I could read an abridged version.  With technology, that could maybe happen one day, I think.

Or, imagine if you could get a collaboration, such as when one musician remixes another musician's work.  You'd want to have everyone's permission, of course, but I'm thinking of the literary equivalent of The Phantom Edit, where that guy re-cut the Star Wars movie.  (Of course maybe people are already doing this and I'm just in the dark.)


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

That was the point of the Reader's Digest condensed books, wasn't it? I find the whole concept that anyone would want an abridged novel baffling, but clearly there's a market for it!


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

Re: the RD Condensed Books.

Eons ago, and don't ask me why because I don't remember, I had occasion to read the RDCB version of Glendon Swarthout's BLESS THE BEASTS AND CHILDREN.  The condensed version, as I recall, achieved its targeted length by omitting flashback sequences.  Which kept the main story line, sort of, but left out anything that would tell the reader what these kids thought they were doing and why and how they got to this point in the first place.

I've worked occasional library book sales, and there were always some donated RDCBs on the tables, and we couldn't even give 'em away.


----------



## StephenEngland (Nov 2, 2011)

In response to the OP: you should take a look at the indie novels floating around. Short novels are not to my personal taste, but I've found that indie novels over 100k words are rare.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Lursa (was 9MMare) said:


> I'm kind of like that too, esp about character development.
> 
> But have you ever read Victor Hugo? He was amazing at it.
> 
> ...


I'm not against long descriptions, per se--I love every word of Thomas Hardy's novels and I could read the description of Scarlett's wardrobe in _Gone with the Wind _ until I was blue in the face and not get bored. But the reason I like those descriptions is because the writer infuses them with dramatic tension and/or a specific character's voice, which advances plot and characterization. Other writers, however, don't infuse their descriptions with anything except useless filler. One of my favorite essayists Florence King wrote an essay about this very topic called "Women's Litter" in her book _Reflections in a Jaundiced Eye_, and she gives some excellent examples of useless filler, contrasted with the kind of the descriptions that entertain and take a novel from good to great. I've never read Hugo, but I imagine from your description that I would enjoy his writing, so I'll have to try him!


----------



## Brian Edward Bahr (Nov 12, 2011)

I think many authors go overboard with descriptions.  They list the hair color, eye color, height, size, etc. of people who sometimes aren't even that relevant to the story.  I agree that Hardy and Hugo made some elegant descriptions, but the thing about descriptions is that you have to remember them.  Most of the time I can't remember if a character has blonde or black hair unless it's relevant to the story.  And that is the point: if it's not relevant to the story, then why is it mentioned at all?  
And ultimately, I tend to imagine the character in my own way no matter what the description says.  I usually create an image of what I think the character looks like by their actions.  This isn't something I consciously do, though, it just happens naturally while I read.  And that's one of the reasons why I think written works are always better than the movie: because each person has their own unique version of the story.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Graham Greene used to make a point of barely describing his characters at all. He'd let his readers imagine how they looked by the way they talked and acted.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Tony Richards said:


> Graham Greene used to make a point of barely describing his characters at all. He'd let his readers imagine how they looked by the way they talked and acted.


Graham Greene wasn't quite the innocent your description makes him out, Tony. He knew a lot more about his characters than he wrote down. He said, for instance, quite specifically, that a novelist who doesn't know where his character has his shirts laundered isn't likely to write a good novel. He defined this as the "loucheness factor"!

Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
(I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter.)
-- Blaise Pascal, 1657


----------



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

purplepen79 said:


> I'm not against long descriptions, per se--I love every word of Thomas Hardy's novels and I could read the description of Scarlett's wardrobe in _Gone with the Wind _ until I was blue in the face and not get bored. But the reason I like those descriptions is because the writer infuses them with dramatic tension and/or a specific character's voice, which advances plot and characterization. Other writers, however, don't infuse their descriptions with anything except useless filler. One of my favorite essayists Florence King wrote an essay about this very topic called "Women's Litter" in her book _Reflections in a Jaundiced Eye_, and she gives some excellent examples of useless filler, contrasted with the kind of the descriptions that entertain and take a novel from good to great. I've never read Hugo, but I imagine from your description that I would enjoy his writing, so I'll have to try him!


You may have a very good point about how the details merge with the story. Maybe I didnt notice because it was seamless...the sign of truly skillful writing.

And yes, _ALL_ the details in GWTW are fascinating, including Scarlett's wardrobe. The details are dovetailed beautifully with other details of the period and society.

For Hugo, try Les Miserables. It's a brick, so read it on your Kindle!


----------



## Brad Murgen (Oct 17, 2011)

I don't mind a long novel, as long as it's done well. Others have mentioned *Cryptonomicon* by Neal Stephenson - I loved that book, mainly for the fact that it was so long and sprawling with all those different tangents.

I don't get into short stories much anymore, whenever I read them I feel that there's more to the story that could make it even better - even though it may be completely self-contained in a short story.

In the end, though, the book should be as long as it needs to be... I've read many examples where a 1000 page book is justified. *Les Miserables* isn't one of them, that one feels like a couple of books to me.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I think series are also an excellent example of extreme bloat of a kind, especially when they go on and go when ten, fifteen, or twenty plus volumes. These are usually the same characters doing the same kind of thing under slightly various circumstances.

I'd much rather read detailed descriptions than have the story repeat itself again and again. Billy Bob the Gumshoe doesn't need to solve 26 cases to bring character arcs to completion. But the fact that series are extremely popular indicates some readers are very happy with some kinds of _bloat_.

Also, authors may be assuming readers to be knowledgeable about certain things. For example, one hundred years ago, a reader may not known what an Italian villa looked, so the author described the details, but a modern author will assume the reader has seen an Italian villa on TV, so there is no description needed, and their readers will view the older works as having bloat.


----------



## soyfrank (Feb 2, 2011)

Unless it's Dostoevsky or the like, I'm probably not going to read a 1000-page novel.


----------



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

soyfrank said:


> Unless it's Dostoevsky or the like, I'm probably not going to read a 1000-page novel.


Having tried (shorter) Dostoevsky, there's no way I'd read a 1000 pg novel of his.

However a Les Miserables or Gone With the Wind or The Stand.....amazingly smooth and easy reads....and fascinating.

IMO it's not about the length, it's about the writing and story. *Not the message nor the literary value*

Heh heh, I'm shallow that way.


----------



## Glen Hendrix (Sep 5, 2011)

I love it when I find a fellow fan of Iain Banks. Good example to discuss the bloat in novels. His novels are long but you don't mind. Bloat is a point of view. If you're not enjoying the prose, it's bloat.


----------



## N S Cooke (Sep 27, 2011)

I believe the book should find its own length. I try to plan my novels, give them a skeleton, develop the high impact chapters and then link - so I'm never searching around to pad out. Four to five hundred pages seems to be about right, although my latest stands at 530 pages and still going. I guess that proves the rule - in my opinion - a novel should find its own size: everything put into it, should have a purpose and need to be there!

Now, I'm read 'Pillars of the Earth' - Ken Folleft; got to be 1200 pages. A great read and a winding, snaking tale. So much so that I've just started 'World Without End' - and that daunts even me. It'll take me until 2012 to read.


----------



## wordsmithjts (Nov 14, 2011)

I totally agree. Some books need to have the fat trimmed off of them. if the story needs to be that long you can easily put it out in 3 segments or make a series out of it. Reading a 1000 page book is a bit off putting.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

If the story progresses naturally over 1,000 pages, I don't want it arbitrarily broken into three books, two of which have to be cliffhangers.


----------



## Rosejr (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm in the same boat but then I see books that aren't even books, they're picture books with some quotes attached in each page. Mystery novels tend to be way too long. I guess they want to make it as in depth as possible. I saw finding a balance between breadth and depth is necessary.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

Could be.  I mean, I love Stephen King's work and have for years, but his last one was Under the Dome and that was over 1,000 pages.  Now his latest one is right around that as well.  Of course, I enjoyed Under the Dome and am REALLY enjoying 11/22/63 so far...but seriously...  Is he suddenly Tom Clancy?


----------



## Mit Sandru (Aug 19, 2011)

Some books are bloated, Terry Goodkind comes to mind, and any book should have no more or less words than is needed to convey the story. On the other hand if a book contains several stories, they should be broken down and serialized.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I do think some books are bloated, or at least could have used some thorough editing. J.K. Rowling's 3,4,5,6th... books come to mind. My editorial hat was on while reading them to my kids and I was so tempted to run a pencil through unnecessary words, especially the abundance of adverbs.

I have a publisher for print & ebooks. I write mysteries and she prefers that they be around 70,000 words, which is fine with me, but I read fantasy, and the majority of them seem to come in at 100,000 - 150,000 words. I don't know if that's bloating or complex story telling. I guess it depends on the author and the story.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

One of the things I love about the Kindle is it offers stories of all lengths.  There can be a thousand pager or I can grab a short story from the store.  Sometimes it's not always easy to tell which is which but a lot of authors list their word count and after a while you can kind of tell the length from the listed file size.  In that case, choice is great.  

Although, more on topic, you can always tell when a story is being padded out to add a few more thousand words, although some authors do it much much better than others.


----------



## RJ Locksley (Oct 21, 2011)

balaspa said:


> Could be. I mean, I love Stephen King's work and have for years, but his last one was Under the Dome and that was over 1,000 pages. Now his latest one is right around that as well. Of course, I enjoyed Under the Dome and am REALLY enjoying 11/22/63 so far...but seriously... Is he suddenly Tom Clancy?


I'm a huge King fan, but Under the Dome could have been cut by 40% without any problems. You could go through the book with a scalpel and cut out whole chapters.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

There have always been bloated books, some have recently been released and some will be released in the future. There is a difference though because readers of the past wanted a different read. Novels of the past were the prime entertainment for many and many readers wanted long descriptions and digressing narratives and details, details, details, readers wanted the 1000 page tomes. 

Today we are more critical and we usually like to have the story keep moving at a rapid pace.

I like Stephan King but a couple of his recent books could have used an editor, same with JRR Martin.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

My favorite reading as a youth consisted mostly of cheap paperbacks, mostly sci-fi, crime fiction (especially John D. McDonald)  and what at the time were called "men's adventure" series novels. Those all tended to run short, about 75,000 to 80,000 words. So that's the length I tend to like (and the length I tend to write).


----------



## Tony Rabig (Oct 11, 2010)

JD Rhoades said:


> My favorite reading as a youth consisted mostly of cheap paperbacks, mostly sci-fi, crime fiction (especially John D. McDonald) and what at the time were called "men's adventure" series novels. Those all tended to run short, about 75,000 to 80,000 words.


We may have been devouring those paperbacks around the same time -- I went for the science fiction, though, and didn't hit crime fiction and MacDonald until the mid-70s. Most of the sf novels, with a few exceptions like _Dune_ or the post-_Stranger_ Heinleins, ran 250 pages or less in paperback and frequently a little under 200. So that's what I got used to. The Science Fiction Writers of America regarded 40,000 words and up as meeting the length requirement for a novel in their Nebula award judging. Most of what I was reading probably topped out at about 50 or 60 thousand.

One thing I miss more than I can say are the summer vacations between 7th grade and junior year of high school; paperbacks were still fairly cheap, I didn't have to work full time yet, and could still read fast enough to take in a novel a day -- and at those books' lengths sometimes two. Heaven...


----------



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

DG Sandru said:


> Some books are bloated, Terry Goodkind comes to mind, and any book should have no more or less words than is needed to convey the story.


I dont know, I think I disagree. Hugo's Les Miserable comes to mind. The tangents he goes off on are far and wide....yet kept me intrigued and involved. Such as the in-depth experience of Thenardier at Waterloo, the background on the bishop (in the very beginning), just as a couple of examples.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez pulls it off too. As does Stephen King (mostly) IMO.


----------



## JD Rhoades (Feb 18, 2011)

There's also this factor: while I'm working my way through a thousand pages or more, I'm acutely conscious of my always increasing TBR pile (now a queue, I guess, with the Kindle).


----------



## audreyauden (Nov 26, 2011)

yingko2 said:


> I have to admit, when I am browsing books I find 1000 or even 500 page novels with tiny print off-putting now. I feel many of today's books are just simply too long. I prefer books in the 30-70,000 word range. I am not a fast reader and I like to be able to finish the book within a week or so. It's not so bad if the book moves fast, but many books are simply over fed at the publisher's request. I feel books should be as long as the story calls for, without being jammed full of arbitrary scenes or characters or sub-plots just to extend it into a 1000 page doorstop. So do you all prefer your books short, medium or super-sized?
> Cheers,
> Howard


I also find my attention wandering with some long books. I don't know if it's because I've become lazier as a reader or because some authors have failed to put their work on the editorial chopping block. I agree with the sentiment that a good story requires editing not just for style, but for conciseness where conciseness is due.

I have a particular bone to pick with Neal Stephenson in this regard. I love Neal Stephenson. Snow Crash is one of my favorite books. I think all of Stephenson's ideas and themes are fascinating. But then I pick up something like the Baroque Cycle, and I'm just stuck. I managed to get through Crytonomicon and Anathem after multiple tries, and I love them both, but, boy, I think that man could use an editor. I wonder if he thinks the rambly-ness is part of his art, or if his editor is taking a vacation because the publisher knows that Stephenson will sell no matter what's between those covers.


----------



## jwest (Nov 14, 2011)

I started out reading Louis L'Amour books as a kid, and never felt like I was missing anything. Then I had a phase where everything I picked up was 250,000 words or more. Now, I prefer them smaller again, and faster-paced. I guess I've gotten to the point in my life where I like a story that gets going, stays going, and gets me to where it is supposed to.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

I guess I prefer "medium"-length books. I want to get invested in the world and the characters, so I don't want a story to be too short. But I also don't want to be stuck in endless subplots and mindless descriptions that just drag out a story that I care less and less about. If I really like a world or a story, then I want to read a sequel, not chapter 800.


----------



## samuelhawk (Dec 8, 2011)

it all depends on the material.  If it interests me greatly, it's worth the read.  If it's a suggested read by a friend, then I can only suffer so long, if not interested.


----------



## brianrowe (Mar 10, 2011)

As Roger Ebert says... "No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short." I definitely feel this way about films, but books really need to be outstanding to warrant more than 500-600 pages. I love Stephen King's work, especially his three mammoth novels - It, The Stand, and Under the Dome. But usually I prefer books 400 pages and shorter, unless I'm familiar with the author and enjoy his work.


----------

