Fantasy Book Club discussion
General Chit-Chat
>
Does anyone besides me have a min page req to bother with a book?
message 1:
by
Benjamin
(new)
Jan 01, 2015 04:41PM
For me, for the most part, I wont bother with a book thats less than 400 other than with specific authors that have give me special reason too. Less than that and the stories are just too short, even in series. When I read a book in want to get sucked into the world, and that world ends just way too soon with these 250 page books.
reply
|
flag
Have you ever been disappointed by 400 plus page book?
I do prefer longer works when I look for my next fantasy read. The longer the better.
I am not a fan of short stories or novellas as a rule ,not long enough.
I
think
I don't really care. I always check the thickness of the book, but that's habitually. I admit I'm ALWAYS sceptical about the book, no matter how many pages it has, how awesome the cover or description is, but it has nothing with book pages.
I'm normally not that bothered by the length of a book, but I have to admit, all my favourite books are lengthy ones.
I've read enough at this point that I'm more enamored of variety than being tied down to a book that's so long it's going to take me months to finish. I don't really have a minimum word count or number of pages. If the writing is good and the author knows how to tell a good story, then I'll seek out more by him/her, regardless of length.
I'm a sucker for a really long epic doorstopper series. And I almost never read short stories.That said, I never refuse to read a shorter book. In fact, one of my favorite series of all time (Ellis Peters - Cadfael mysteries) is made up of books all under 300 pages I think.
I do refuse to buy a book I think is too expensive for the price - that's why I look at book length, since with ebooks it can be hard to tell.
When I'm in library, automatically, my hands pick up the biggest books available. They say larger the mass, stronger the gravitational pull.I have read great books of less "mileage" but I alway think that if it's good I don't want it to end too soon.
I don't. But I may quit the devotional I am reading.
I don't have a page limit. Interesting plot comes first for me. Some of my favorite books are shorter reads. I'm not a terribly fast reader so shorter books are fine by me. I feel like I'm getting through more books that way. Sometimes (not always) lengthier books and series stretch out the plot too much when it could have been wrapped up better with less books or pages. If you can keep things exciting for that long, then great. I don't think every author can do that. I think Martin does it well and I love his series and they are super long. I like long books and short books as long as I'm not bored with the story.
When I was still buying paper books, I admit the thickness of the book often had an influence on my purchases, as I tended to gravitate to the bigger books.
I don't care how long a book is--I love them long or short. I've read 1000 page books I've loved and those I had to quit. I've read picture books and graphic novels that thrill me to the core and those that absolutely suck. So.
Contrary: I prefer shorter novels. I think many long books could and should have been written in fewer pages. There are lots of exceptions to that rule, of course. I love to read shorter works as well.
I like both, and in between, but being on Goodreads and doing a reading podcast has changed me a little bit in my preferences. As a teen it was the longer the better. Now I have appreciation of a wider range, and even anthologies of shorts or serials (and now that I'm writing too, that makes me curious about different formats). But I find now that if I read a long epic fantasy book then I feel like I'm never updating Goodreads and it makes me feel slow. So I start looking for some smaller ones to feel like I'm making more progress before or after. (For example, I'll be diving into book 3 of Song of Ice and Fire sometime, after I've worked up to it.)
Discovering graphic novels with my son is helping that, because they can give a lot of story in quicker time. Helps balance things out. And Bone is pretty awesome.
The length of a book? Short or long, it doesn't matter to me. As long as the length of a book feels right for the story being told. I feel cheated if a book appears thin and under-written. I also feel cheated if a book feels full of excess stuffing... The few books I've abandoned unread come into that category. (That's maybe a good idea for a thread, if it hasn't already been done? Fantasy books readers have abandoned unfinished and why?)
I used to, time was I wouldn't read anything less that 200k words. But that all changed when I read Rivers of London.
I don't have a minimum page requirement for one book, but if they are shorter I prefer them to be in a series. A 300 pages stand-alone novel feels a bit short and even if it's really good I will probably forget about it afterwards, with some exceptions of course.However I really do like anthologies, but I prefer if the stories are set in the same universe.
Alice wrote: "I don't have a minimum page requirement for one book, but if they are shorter I prefer them to be in a series. A 300 pages stand-alone novel feels a bit short and even if it's really good I will pr..."I guess this thread is really telling us, that every reader is different. Which I guess, is how it should be. A great book is a great book whatever its length. Mind, I can see your preference for anthologies... particularly when you've read one fantastic novel in a series and laid out before you is a whole lot of great reading still to come. Magic :-)
For the people who only read long novels... do you ever read short stories?
James wrote: "For the people who only read long novels... do you ever read short stories?"I rarely do. And when I read them, I usually don't like them.
I don't. I usually stop if it upsets me enough like the last one I read.
I'm not a fan of novellas and short stories and wouldn't read them unless I know and love the author.As far as novels go however, I don't mind them if they're a bit shorter even tho I love big fantasy novels as much as the next man (survived the entire WoT so I even have proof! :D ). In fact, if I don't know the author and am not completely sure that I'll like his book, I prefer it to be shorter - not bellow 80 000 words, but not a 500 page brick as well. A good writer can easily write a 250 page book and still make it compelling, intriguing and full of events and drama. Once I've read and liked a book like that, I'm much less hesitant and more enthusiastic about reading his/her 400+ novels as well.
I usually read anything from 350 pages upwards. I'm not that big a fan of short stories and anthologies. I use to dread it when we had to study short stories in high school and I guess that has stuck with me.
I'm curious because I actually don't get this experience.Can anyone explain why they only like long novels?
Mod
James wrote: "I'm curious because I actually don't get this experience.Can anyone explain why they only like long novels?"
The idea is that a larger volume allows the author to explore a more complex story with more complex (and numerous) characters, which is enjoyable. Especially in fantasy and sci fi where a certain amount of the text HAS to be devoted to world-building.
However, as I said - a good writer can make even a short novel (even if it's a first in it's series) really good. Most writers need more pages, but the good ones don't. It all comes down to skill, really.
For me, a large book by a good writer is the perfect scenario, but I'd much rather read a short and good novel than a big and bad one so I don't shy away from 250-350 novels at all.
Yordan wrote: "For me, a large book by a good writer is the perfect scenario, but I'd much rather read a short and good novel than a big and bad one so I don't shy away from 250-350 novels at all. "Yes, indeed.
The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett is one of my all-time favourite reads and it clocks in at less then 225 pages (I think).
But I'm curious as to the motivations of people who experience books in a different way, from me. So I'm still curious.
I ran across this article and thought of this discussion thread.Tor.com Explains Why Novellas Are The Future Of Publishing
Scott wrote: "I ran across this article and thought of this discussion thread.Tor.com Explains Why Novellas Are The Future Of Publishing"
Hmm. I really like short stories (not novellas tho, since they´re most usually attached to some novel) but I think this text is just ridiculous.
They like to call novellas short novels (haha) but the truth is that I don´t believe just anyone is able to write a short story (or novella, that should be even harder to write). Short story is an art, novellas (as we know them today) are just a "pain in the ass", to quote others.
and:
"We expect that the reader who has to fit their reading into their daily commute will appreciate a novella they can finish in a week, rather than a year." æ well if novella is bad, it might take not a year but 2+ years to complete, if you´re of the ones that have to finish every book they´ve started
I don´t believe they know what they´re writing about
Lára wrote: "I don´t believe they know what they´re writing about "When it comes to the reasons for increased novella sales, they're probably just trying to come up with a tale to tell. But novellas are experiencing a golden age.
Lára wrote: "They like to call novellas short novels (haha) but the truth is that I don´t believe just anyone is able to write a short story (or novella, that should be even harder to write). Short story is an art, novellas (as we know them today) are just a "pain in the ass", to quote others"
Short story, novella, novel... these are all arbitrary terms that we have. Novellas just didn't fit into publishing houses ideas of a book and was too long for most magazines, either. So it never really gained favour.
But it's really no different. Each story idea has a length that works, best.
"Short story" isn't an art; writing is an art. "Short story" is an arbitrary technicality.
James wrote: "Lára wrote: "I don´t believe they know what they´re writing about "When it comes to the reasons for increased novella sales, they're probably just trying to come up with a tale to tell. But nove..."
I disagree. Writing can be and might not be art. Would you call Fifty Shades of Grey art?
Artists are rare (in any form, being writer, musician or painter, etc). Anyone can write a novella or a book for that matter and it still wont be even near to art, if they dont have that "something" (talent its called, Im afraid) and talented people can write a novel, might not write a short story or novella at all and be completely untalented for poetry. Writing in itself isnt an art.
Lára wrote: "I disagree. Writing can be and might not be art. Would you call Fifty Shades of Grey art?"You're not disagreeing with me, here. I never said it was. I said that writing is art. The existence of bad art doesn't, in any way, challenge the existence of good art.
Lára wrote: "James wrote: "Writing in itself isnt an art."
I don't understand your distinction. You say that writing is not art, because it can be done badly; but you call short story writing an art.
If the ability to do something badly means it can never be art, then art couldn't exist. And if you can identify the point at which something becomes "art", then definitely you should elucidate the world.
Art can't be an objectively identifiable thing. It's an abstract concept. A way of categorizing meaning and experience. You can definitely decide what you consider art, personally, but that's all.
Is Fifty Shades of Grey art? I don't know... do you think the writing was intending to create something artful? She wrote it from personal passion, on some fandom site. I think your question was more of a broadside... one that I return:
What prevents Fifty Shades from being art?
I´ll just point out what I didn´t say and other you can imagine for yourself, since you´re obviously good at it ;)James wrote: "You're not disagreeing with me, here. I never said it was. I said that writing is art. The existence of bad art doesn't, in any way, challenge the existence of good art.
I disagreed with writing being an art (period).
I also mentioned some other things (like that lame book) with which we couldn´t disagree about before since I haven´t mentioned it before, which you obviously took into your response as it was there from the begining.
I didn´t say "that writing is not art, because it can be done badly", I said that writing is not art at all, not if we don´t have a talented specimen present, and we usually do not. Mind that even a talented specimen can have a bad art, but that doesn´t make him any less talented.
@ Lara: If we go by your distinction that "writing can be an art and might not be an art, depending on whether we have a talented specimen present" then we'll need a new word for "art writing" altogether (warting?). But we don't cause when we say "writing is an art" we just know that we're talking about that type of writing that's an art and not just ... mail spam.
I tend to read really less often short stories or novellas (since they are usually less immersive or some can feel just like a scene), but I don't really have a minimum page requirement for the novels I read.Well with ebooks, I now favor the shorter novels while I used to borrow or buy long novels (well I'm still more likely to buy the longer paper books).
I mostly don't care if a book is long or short. As long as it is interesting i will read it.. I read ebooks usually and they are more likely to be about 150 to 300 pages.
Same here, I usually approach a 1000+ or a 200 pages book with equality. I don't usually even check how many pages a book is, since I read ebooks, I don't really "weigh" the page count. When picking up a book, I care if it is a standalone, the first book of a trilogy or the first step on a longer series, and if the series is ongoing or not. Those are definitely elements that matter to me.I like short stories and novellas, particularly if linked to series, and anthologies, too. But the experience is not as fulfilling as reading a full-fledged book...as Ilona said, short stories are usually less immersive, because you have almost no time "to break the ice" with a new context and all.
In novels, if the author is good, my personal preference says longer is better than shorter, I'm less inclined to dislike a little overabundance of details compared to explanations shortage or (woe betide) rushed closings/underdeveloped situations.
This being said, we are talking about very different formats, I guess it's all up to the author's skills (this being extremely subjective as in "author skilled to suit my tastes") and to the fact that I, as reader, manage to pick the right story at the right moment to enjoy.
I like complex stories with rich settings, character driven, heavy in compelling world-building and with artistic balance between action, thoughts and descriptions. I guess such elements are found in longer series (if not longer books!), but I also like standalone novels and fluff stuff with quick, linear plots to read (duh, lately I've been reading the wars of light and shadow series at home and short medieval romance novels during downtime at work), and an anthology now and then.
I have an internal page count I use as a measurement to judge quality. If I can't get invested in the story by the end of the first chapter (or the prologue), I don't keep reading. I've also made it a rule that if I start skimming whole chapters, I need to put the book down. The one exception was GRRM's A Storm of Swords. I skimmed to keep down my frustration level so I could get to the parts I liked without losing anything of importance in the plot.
Size itself doesn't really matter. All that matters is if the story is interesting.
Amy wrote: "I skimmed to keep down my frustration level so I could get to the parts I liked"I actually can not imagine skimming fiction, unless it was an academic exercise and I was seeking a particular quote.
If I was willing to skim, I'm pretty sure I'd put the book down, because, to me, that's less a compliment about the suspense then a criticism about the general writing skill: if I want to skip ahead, you aren't writing it well enough to keep me there.
James wrote: I actually can not imagine skimming fiction, unless it was an academic exercise and I was seeking a par..."Try romance novels, skimming is a matter of survival ;)
Really, absolutely, if a book unnerves me as much as I have to start skimming, it's bad news. But I do recall reading ASOIAF not always in sequence, when left with a compelling cliffhanger, I sought the next part about that character skipping the next chapter and going back when my irritation faded out.
Real skimming anyway is just good with magazines, with books is a warning to invest my time elsewhere.
Alissa wrote: "Try romance novels, skimming is a matter of survival ;)"And that is why I don't read romance novels. I tried, twice, years ago. (because it seemed ignorant to say I didn't like them, if I didn't try them)
Amy wrote: "I have an internal page count I use as a measurement to judge quality. If I can't get invested in the story by the end of the first chapter (or the prologue), I don't keep reading. "That quick? Wow. And I thought I was too quick to judge. :)
My limit is between 50 and 100 pages, depending on the length of the book. If it doesn't grab me in the first 50-100 pages I skim through the rest of it. I never put a book down tho - a good ending can often make up for at least some of the initial struggles of the storytelling, especially if it's a young author. I've worked as a book annotator however, so I'm quite pro at skimming. :D
Now that I think about it, while I don't have a page requirement, I do have a page/chapter requirement - I don't like books with chapters that are longer than 20 pages. It must be a really special book for me to read it if I see beforehand that the chapters are too long.
Amy wrote: "I have an internal page count I use as a measurement to judge quality. If I can't get invested in the story by the end of the first chapter (or the prologue), I don't keep reading. I've also made..."
I agree with you. It's not the length of a book that matters its the quality of the storytelling that matters. The story grabs you or it doesn't. It's well written or it isn't.
Mod
I didn't used to touch novellas, that's only come about through the ebook shorts to keep readers involved while waiting that next book.
As to length of chapter, I wouldn't know how long it was until I read it.
Helen wrote: "I tend to start a book with the same attitude, feeling, whatever, regardless of page count. I used to pick up any size paperback and don't notice now on my kindle.I didn't used to touch novellas..."
Length of chapters doesn't bother me either... Short or long. Although when reading a very long chapter its sometimes good to see a natural chapter break or line break coming up. It's a purely visual thing. I know Terry Pratchet uses line breaks rather than chapters in his Discworld novels, and it's kind of nice to know how big a chunk of text I've got to devour before I get to come up for air. (In the nicest possible way.) :-)
Mod
I try to avoid books with less than 300 pages. It has gotten somewhat difficult to tell with ebooks, so now I have to look at file size and hope they don't have a bunch of pictures hidden away in the book or a weird table at the end. If I know the other I will occasionally pick up a smaller book or novella, but usually only after some reviews are out. The only time I like to be able to read a book in a sitting is if it is something I have been waiting for.
Some self published authors I have read, like to throw out books that took maybe 2 hours to read and had 4 books in the series out in under a year. At that point I would rather avoid it unless they compiled them. Makes me feel like I am sitting down to read a partially completed short story.
For the people who feel that short stories just don't take enough time to be able to be worth reading... a further question:Do you ever enjoy tv shows?
Plays (or theatre, in general)?
Movies?
Graphic novels?
any other form of entertainments that only last a couple hours, or less?
And, as a follow-up, to that:Do you feel that only text fiction is unable to tell a satisfying tale, in a short time? Do you feel that all other media are capable of doing that?
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Fifty Shades of Grey (other topics)The Maltese Falcon (other topics)
The Emperor's Soul (other topics)
