Horror Aficionados discussion
Does anyone besides me have a min page req to bother with a book?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Jon Recluse
(new)
Jan 02, 2015 11:59AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Jon Recluse wrote: "For full literary immersion, I like Dan Simmons and Peter Straub."Both great authors. What are your favorite works of theirs?
Jon, as regards King, you've probably hit the nail on the head. He's fully admitted trying everything under the sun.
Mod
Both great authors. What are your favorite works of theirs?"
For Straub, I'd say Ghost Story, Floating Dragon and the Blue Rose trilogy (Koko, Mystery and The Throat)
As for Simmons: Summer of Night, Drood and The Terror.
Peter Straub is at the top for me. He has a strong literary style which never fails to make me catch my breath at certain moments. Okay, some of his books may be large, but they can still hold their own with a brilliant cadence to the writing. Straub maintains that he writes thrillers, and not horrors. Apparently, he hates the label. As for Simmons, well, his breadth of vision and learning is incredible. The research for Drood and The Abominable must have been painstaking. And so different in subject matter. The Terror was wonderful. Yes, Jon, I think we're on the same page...
Ghost Story is far and away my favorite of Peter Straub, though I did really enjoy Shadowland and The Throat as well (speaking of which, just grabbed Koko and I'm really excited). Floating Dragon didn't quite work for me, but I still hold a lot of respect for it. As for Simmons, I've only tried his more traditional horror novels so far, and of those it's pretty close between Song of Kali and Carrion Comfort. The former has less flaws, but the latter is just so damn impressive in its scope and structure. I have The Terror sitting on a shelf somewhere, and from what you two are saying here, it sounds like I should hunt it down and open it soon.
I don't understand why anyone would want to impose arbitrary limitations on what they will or will not read. It's like when people refuse to watch subtitled films -- it just doesn't compute for me. They're missing out on so many great films, just as those of you who will only read books of a certain length are missing out on so many great reads. To each their own, though. Now, that said...I, like another poster above, do tend to read shorter works on my Kindle instead of buying them in physical form. I just can't justify paying as much for a book that's under three hundred pages as I pay for one that's over three hundred pages.
Mod
I know people who just will not, come hell or high water, watch black and white movies. This I have never understood. On another note: there have been a couple of occasions where I have paid lots of money just to get my hands on a single short story. These days, with the Internet, it's easier of course - but not always...
I don't consider it a "book", unless it's 300 pages or more. Anything less is a novella, or a short story to me.
Jon Recluse wrote: "A great short story should linger in the mind as long as any novel does.The Willows by Algernon Blackwood is up there for me."
The Willows! How could I not have mentioned that?
Jon Recluse wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Jon Recluse wrote: "For full literary immersion, I like Dan Simmons and Peter Straub."Both great authors. What are your favorite works of theirs?"
For Straub, I'd say Ghost Story..."
No Shadowland, Jon? Man, I love stories about magicians and Shadowland is one of the best, IMO. It's right up there with Ghost Story for me.
This has been an excellent discussion so far!I never would have thought to see Dan Simmons mentioned in a thread about shorter stories. :)
Mod
Both great authors. What are your favorite works of theirs?"
For Straub,..."
I loved Shadowland, but my copy disappeared years ago. I have to get a new one and give it a reread. The tipping point would be if it still holds up after all these years, y'know?
Charlene, Dan Simmons has written some fine short stories. Check out Prayers to Broken Stones. Within is a story called Metastasis. Wow!
John wrote: "Squire, you've got a very good point. I know two people personally who have got rid of their entire libraries of physical books in favour of their newly acquired Kindles. I also made them aware of..."As for the real thing comment, The story is the real thing, not what kind of media its written on.
I usually prefer books of 400 or more, I find that these are the one's with the complexity and character development which I crave. also important is value for money, for example a on the kindle a 700 page book for £4 is far more likely to be purchased by me then a 200 or 300 page book for the same price. whereas I realise it doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the novel, one is going to last you a couple of nights the other maybe a week. when you have a limited budget, it's worth bearing in mind.
Glenn wrote: "I don't consider it a "book", unless it's 300 pages or more. Anything less is a novella, or a short story to me."But does that stop you from reading shorter works?
Mod
Then why even read, use audio books.
I'm reading 'Salem's Lot and originally I started it with my paper copy, then picked up my kindle thinking I can read easier when it's dark but went back to my paper copy, just liked the way it looked and read, even though it's the same story obviously.
Jon Recluse wrote: "I sometimes wonder if King went the same route as James Patterson. Fragments of ideas passed on to a village of ghostwriters.....somewhere in rural North Korea....Outer Mongolia.....New Jersey...."I have a friend who knows Mr. King quite well. He once asked this very question of him and was answered with an unequivocal no.
"I don't like being held hostage by filler." Adrian, I love your turn of phrase. That just about sums it up for me, and I don't think anybody else could be more apt when describing this unnecessary phenomenon.
Mod
If you were him, would you admit it? ;)
Mod
Novel, n. A short story padded,
and
"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Several major authors are guilty of confusing filler/padding with literary density.
Straub is an author of dense works.
Jon Recluse wrote: "Kristy wrote: "Jon Recluse wrote: "I sometimes wonder if King went the same route as James Patterson. Fragments of ideas passed on to a village of ghostwriters.....somewhere in rural North Korea......"Probably...but maybe not. :-)
Adrian wrote: "I don't like being held hostage by filler. A great 500+ word novel is a wonderful thing, but I find more long books that should have been written tighter. Fantasy genre is most often guilty of this..."Same here. 400+ titles always make me suspicious, especially from unknown authors, where I usually end up criticizing the length in my review. However, I never give a second thought with books by favorite authors.
SK had some good points on this subject in 'On Writing', and imho he is one of those authors who knows how to fill 400+ pages the right way.
I've said this before: If you cut Stephen King books by a third - especially those post twenty-five years ago - they'd be better books. Otherwise they are filled with superfluous crap.
I have more of a maximum page limit. Unless I'm really interested in the author/topic, I tend to shy away from 1,000+ pages.
I am with Ian. I use a cost versus book length approach when stuck trying to decide what to read next. That and I go off of recommendations and reviews from all of you. I've read 600+ size books that were so good I flew them in few days. Then there were the 100 pagers that took forever or were left unfinished.
I've decided not to spend my time reading books with openings that I don't enjoy. If they don't do something for me within a few pages, I'll normally move on. I'm wary of doing so though, because I nearly missed out on American Psycho for this reason. The first time I read the opening pages, I hated it. I decided I would keep reading until something supposedly horrific happened and then something subtle shifted and I got it. I was hooked. And have read it multiple times since.
Now I'm wary of giving up too soon, because the strange opening of AP makes sense in context of the story as a whole.
Similar with The Hobbit. I gave up on that twice, despite recommendations, because it was more childish than I was willing to immerse myself in, but after the dwarves of sung their songs it gets increasingly adventurous, dark and adult. Now I'm glad that I tried a third time and persisted.
Good point, Dean. I'm also wary of giving up too soon (something I do more often than not - life's too short), so I tend to read at least twenty pages or so and then decide. More if it's a Kindle page.
I don't really look at the page count when I choose a book to read, it's the story within that counts. That said the average amount of pages tend to be around 500 page mark, but I think that's more because I read a lot of fantasy and sci-fi, genres that I think lend themselves to longer stories. However, I do feel like some books are needlessly padded. A lot of great authors are authors who can tell a great story without padding. When I read about the writing process they tell you to keep it simple, and some of the best books I've read are books that don't use more words just for the sake of it. That said I think some authors are masters of detail and need more words; such as George R. R Martin and Peter F. Hamilton. I've never felt like their books are too long, even though they continuously break the 1,000 page mark with their novels.
Dean wrote: "I've decided not to spend my time reading books with openings that I don't enjoy. If they don't do something for me within a few pages, I'll normally move on. Has anybody talked about the "Rule of 50" when reading a new book? I only have to read, um, 35 pages now to be allowed to quit. Here's the link to the article: zite.to/1Af5PfQ
My attention span won't lock down unless it's about 100+ pages. No maximum concerns. That said, I've read some great short stories but remember few of them. I really struggle with anthologies, especially where roughly every other story sucks. It takes me a year to complete those. I have no doubt that I'm missing great stories but my attention span is what it is. I need more than 50 pages to become fully absorbed in most cases.
John wrote: "Very well put, 11811."Thank you, sir.
This probably deserves it's own thread but how long does it take you to finish a book? Not how fast do you read, but how often do you zone out on the other 50 things going on in life while trying to focus on fiction?
When my Kindle tells me I should finish a book in six hours but twelve hours later I'm still reading, and only halfway through said book - I suspect I zone out a lot.
I'm with you there 11811! I don't even read short stories unless it's gotten so many reviews from alot of people. It takes me about the same amount of time to get into a book, and if it's going badly, I STILL try and read it. If I'm halfway thru it and it's still going bad, then I give up.
If the book is good enough, I try not to zone out. Indeed, the other day I was in a Carvery queue waiting to be served my meal and was continuing with my book from my Kindle app on my phone. My son was looking at me with good-natured reproof while his girlfriend was saying how cool it was. Unless there is a child trapped under a car or there's a burning building nearby where people need rescuing, I'll stick with that book come wind or high water...
I don't, but my husband does. (He says short ones aren't worth his time, but then he reads WAY fast.) I like short stories, so don't mind short ones. However... I feel it is wrong to put your book out there as a Novel, when it is short story/novella length. BE HONEST! And please price accordingly.
Squire wrote: "I returned the Nook I was given for my birthday last year. I like the feel and smell of a physical book in my hand. On top of thaqt, I collect hardcover books. I can sit and read a physical book fo..."I don't like reading on a 'screen' either, but the e-ink that Kindle's use is so different! I now have a Kindle Paper White and LOVE it!! I still have tuns of paper books though and love the smell/feel of them. Two things I miss when using the Kindle is: A) No bookmark (I have a collection and miss them) and B) I cant close it and gaze fondly at the cover of the book. That being said, you might be able to handle an e-reader that uses e-ink instead of a 'screen'.
I know what you mean, Maria. I still have my original Kindle 3 and prefer its unlit screen. When reading on my Kindle Fire or iPad Mini, I have the screen colour set on sepia, to give the 'page' an older quality. At night, when I read in bed, I sometimes have the screen set on white on black. It's surprisingly cosy and less glaring. Although you can't beat a physical book, it's somehow humbling to know you can carry a complete library in your backpack within the confines of a tablet...
I don't have a minimum length, but I do tend to prefer longer novels with very detailed stories. My writing tends to reflect this too. My first novel (not published yet) is slightly over 600 pages.
I'm a big short story reader, so no I don't. I'm not daunted by a 700 page breeze block either. The quality of the writing has to be good, though, otherwise it gets thrown overboard.
I don't usually bother with a page count unless I'm buying a book on Amazon. I want to make sure I'm at least getting a full book if I'm laying out money for one.
Horror Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
American Psycho (other topics)Paris (other topics)
