Harry Potter and book length (not what you think)

[kaitie]

Alright, I was reading some stuff about length, and I've found quite a few things that I find interesting. One is that everyone in publishing says that things travel in cycles and that right now there is a trend toward shorter works.

Alright, that makes sense. I get it. What I don't get is the sense of almost finality that tends to accompany this. Obviously these things are cyclical, but I've read many blog posts that make it sound as though this is a hopeless trend and no one will ever go back to longer books.

The second interesting thing that I've noticed is how many people comment on these posts with things like, "I feel cheated when I buy the new Dean Koontz book and it's half the size of his old ones." Okay, sort of a personal insert there, but true, and I see it a lot. I know that for me, I've always thought of a "good size" book being about 400 or 500 pages. I'll read longer without second thought, but I have always felt that 300 pages was just too short for a novel. Yes, I've read some great shorter works, but this is just in general. And I can agree that because of this, I do have a tendency to feel cheated.

Something I read yesterday clicked as to why I feel this way. It said that back in the '90s, the trend was toward longer books. So essentially, when I first got into reading novels, the ones that were available were mostly longer works, and I think that influenced my idea of what to expect. I grew up reading longer books, and so when I buy a book now that's hardcover with big margins and 310 pages, I feel like, "Wow, did this author just get lazy? What's happening?"

Hence the Harry Potter question. Maybe if we have people who grew up on this series we can get an opinion. What I'm wondering is if the people whose first real experiences with novels were Harry Potter are going to have an expectation for longer books and bring the trend back up as they reach adulthood.

I'm sure there are other factors influencing this, but I'm just really curious to see what other people think. What were your experiences? Which do you prefer and why?

[suki]

I think issues with book length are less about reader expectations and more about money. It costs a lot more to publish longer books - not just the time and paper, but the bindings, the freight, the storage space...all of that comes into play.

So, it's not just about what readers want or expect, it's also about how much more floor space the allotment of books will take up in X publisher's storage warehouse - 1,000 copies of a 400 page book takes up a lot more space than the same number of a 300 page book, than a 250 page book, etc. And then they are more expensive to ship, and more expensive to print and bind. And yet the publisher feels they can't really charge all that much more for the book or teh consumer won't buy it.

So, in addition to expectations, there is plain old cost benefit analysis.

~suki

[NYCutie]

I love reading long novels, but they cant be boring.. my favorite author writes great books but they are short... and she publishes three times a year maybe...

[Kaiser-Kun]

Hence the Harry Potter question. Maybe if we have people who grew up on this series we can get an opinion.

*raises hand* Here! :)

I like a story that can be divided in chapters. Each of them can be more or less self-contained, but they all have a continuity. I want every book to have closure, and not feeling like I'm just buying chapter 189 of the Nevereverends Chronicles.

The Harry Potter books are capable of raising a new mistery with each book, and also contributing to the depth of the world and the backstory of all of them. They have a "local" conflict that gets solved in every book, but they don't fall in the "villain of the week" trend.

Length is secondary to these balance, I think. Books six and seven were both smaller than book five, and yet each of them added to the main story.

[ChristineR]

I'm not convinced longer books take up more space. Shorter books tend to be printed in larger type. There seems to be a lot of factors that go into how large and thick the final product is. I think sometimes they decide how big the physical book should be and scale the type accordingly.

Anyhow, I like long books. I know that a lot of people will say "I like almost everything, so long as its good, but I prefer long/short." But when I think of all the truly wonderful books I've read, there aren't any short ones that leap out at me. A lot of short books seem to me to be plumped up short stories that really just focus on one thing.

All I can say about this is that I was a voracious reader as a child and quickly got tired of "kid books." But overall, I don't remember myself reading a lot of long books.

[ChaosTitan]

Honestly, I tend to prefer books between 300 and 400 pages long. But the word count on these page lengths can vary, depending on margins and the size of the font. A 300-page book could easily have the same amount of story as a 400-page book, depending on the publisher.

I like series because it breaks the over-arcing story up into bite-sized chunks for me. Super-long novels make me tired, so I don't read them as often. I've been putting off reading Outlander, despite great reviews, because it's 800 friggin' pages! Small font! That's a lot of time and effort and words.

But really, it's about the story. Some novels are great at 50k words, other are great at 200k. There is no one-size-fits-all for stories.

[cptwentworth]

I, too, prefer longer stories. If I can finish the book in two hours, even if I enjoyed it, I feel gypped. I enjoy novels that thud when I plop them on my desk. I bought a YA novel last year that was 167 pages because I liked the premise, but after reading it and realizing I paid $10 for a few hours of my day, it is annoying. I know YA is supposed to be shorter, but the trend is for all genres to shorten up. Disappointing.

[Cliff Face]

Hmm, I didn't grow up reading "current" books - I read things that had been out for a while. Like Lord of the Rings, which is huge, and then Hitchhiker's Guide, which is short.

I don't have any real preference to be honest, though now that I've started writing my thinking is that books that are short won't be as good somehow. Like, I found a 100 page book with large print. It was only $2, but I still felt like it was a waste of time.

As a writer I like longer books I guess. Super-long novels don't bother me, but if it costs $40 or more, then I'll probably borrow it from the library first to see if I like it.

[Mara]

My WIP is targeted at 80k-100k, but I'd love to write (and read) longer books. I miss the '90s. :(

[AlishaS]

I have to agree with the longer book thing, I have read long books that are just great and have read shorter books that are also great too.
For me though I hate with a passion reading a book that's only three hundred or so pages only to find out that the series will be continued in another book that won't be punlished for another year. I hate being left hanging in a plot, whether the central conflict for the novel has been resolved but several things left hanging.
If these shorter books really were published in a quick back to back time frame it's not so bad. I also find with shorter books and I know from one of my own personal WIP's that for a short 300 page book you spend at least 200 pages building up the storyline and for the reader to get "in" to the novel only to have the conflict to be sumed up quick in the last few pages.
I also have a very addictive personality and read books that I find super interesting nearly cover to cover in one sitting. I also buy all my books new as me and my husband collect them so when the good read is over in a day or two I feel cheated.

[LuckyH]

The logistical arguments make a great deal of sense, perhaps negated by the use of POD by most publishers nowadays, but I think the reason for shorter books lies elsewhere. And books are much shorter now than previously; I checked the Times bestsellers lists yesterday and was surprised by the number of two to three-hundred page books.

My own theory points to a change in attention span of the modern reader. I suspect the change ran alongside the rapid development of modern computing. People want entertainment quickly, the old arcade games have been replaced by modern warfare games that are so real that the bullets hurt.

Harry Potter is perhaps not the best example of trends, it was always a gigantic one-off against them.

If a graph of average book lengths over past years exists, I’m sure it would be a downward slope on word counts, consistently downwards over the past 50 years, and I can’t see the trend reversing.

On a personal level, I feel it in my bones, my own writing has got shorter and I have never even given it much thought.

[eyeblink]

A word for the perfect miniature. I've just got Jennifer Johnston's latest novel out of the library (it was published earlier this month) and it's, I estimate, 38,000 words. That's short by her standards but not unduly so.

I did have some issues with Ian McEwan's On Chesil Beach (basically he follows the wrong character in what amounts to the epilogue, therefore ducking out of the premise he sets up), but the book's length, also about 38k, isn't one of them.

I've nothing against long novels, but I do feel cheated when they are padded out beyond their natural length, which I find with too many adult novels these days. And some of it is down to the publishers - many novelists are not allowed by contract to deliver a novel below a certain length.

[defcon6000]

I don't mind long books, actually, I probably prefer them longer since I can go through a book pretty quickly. However, I dislike long chapters, and long books tend to have long chapters, unless it's a thriller.

Although I hate a stand along book, that suddenly gets turned into a trilogy where the second book is HUGE, but then the thrid book is on the thin side. It's like the author aimed at only writing a sequel, but somewhere along the line realized the second book was too thick, snipped the ending off and put it into a third book. To me, that's just lame. Basically making me buy another book to find out the ending.

[kaitie]

I don't mind long books, actually, I probably prefer them longer since I can go through a book pretty quickly. However, I dislike long chapters, and long books tend to have long chapters, unless it's a thriller.

Although I hate a stand along book, that suddenly gets turned into a trilogy where the second book is HUGE, but then the thrid book is on the thin side. It's like the author aimed at only writing a sequel, but somewhere along the line realized the second book was too thick, snipped the ending off and put it into a third book. To me, that's just lame. Basically making me buy another book to find out the ending.

I read a book once that literally just ended in the middle of the action. Not kidding. Middle of an action scene, boom: "Check out the sequel coming out next year!" Luckily I knew it had a sequel and my friend had lent me both books at the same time, but had I picked that up in a bookstore I would have been so irritated I'd never have bought the sequel.

It makes me wonder, though, after seeing so many suggestions of "have you thought of making it two books" in regards to length, if this wasn't what happened in this case. Maybe his original book was just deemed too long for the subject matter and everyone thought it would be better to have it in two. My initial thought was the same as yours, though--that I had just been conned into having to buy a second book.

[Phaeal]

I love a whopping big book, though the old custom of breaking long books into separately bound volumes is a good one for those of us who carry books everywhere, reading as we go.

The Harry Potter series simply proved that length doesn't matter* -- it's all about the story. I wish I had a buck for every little kid I've seen laboring along under those massive volumes, and loving it.

(That said, Book Five could have used some serious cuts, especially since the whole Dept. of Mysteries build-up largely went nowhere. Ditto the Sirius Black PTSD/redemption arc. The other thing HP proves is that editors don't worry too much about editing sure sales.)

[Maxinquaye]

I like Peter F. Hamilton's books. I think that goes to show what I think of long books. :)

[seun]

Long books can be great to get lost in, to really get into the world of the story BUT the story has to suit the length otherwise the chances are you just end up with a self-indulgent pile of poo.

On the other hand, short books are fine if you've got a punchy story.

[Libbie]

I grew up reading novels that had been published several decades before I lived. They were generally long, sometimes extremely long.

I don't care about the length of the work so much as the content. One of my favorite works of fiction ever is a short story by Ted Kosmatka.

[Alpha Echo]

It's funny that you mention this because whenever I'm looking at a book, unless it sounds really good, I won't buy it unless it's a long book. The thicker the better. Most of the time, I don't even browse books that are shorter in length. Huh.

[Jamesaritchie]

The logistical arguments make a great deal of sense, perhaps negated by the use of POD by most publishers nowadays, .

POD still isn't common with commercial publishers of any size. POD doesn't make make sense when you have to have print runs in the thousands, which even a small first novel usually gets, let alone in the hundreds of thousands to millions for a bestseller, or even an ecpected bestseller.

[HisBoyElroy]

Interesting topic.

I have heard recently that a first fantasy novel should be around 100k, which always seemed short to me. I have looked at some recently published fantasy first novels and I don't see any at 100k. In fact they range all the way up to 250k, with the bottom of the range at about 125.

Interestingly, I found one first novel (published in 2008, I think) that looked to be about 125k. The publisher used a larger font and doubled-spaced to make a page-count of 650+. On the shelf, this rather small book looks like an epic.

Confusing to say the least. But if I have to go with something, I'll go with what publishers/agents do over what they say. (I see lots of say-do discrepancies in the publishing world.)

[Jamesaritchie]

The only trend toward shorter novels I've seen comes from the desire of chain bookstores to be able to get more copies of novels on the shelves and racks. Publisher's guidelines haven't changed that I've seen, and neither has teh size of teh average book I see in stores.

I love really long novels, but I love short ones, as well. Maybe this is because I'm old enough to have read a bazillion of the 50-60k paperbacks that were so common in the fifties, sixties and seventies.

[C.M.C.]

A book that's too short is better than a book that's too long. You can never get back that wasted time.

[Kate Thornton]

A book that's too short is better than a book that's too long. You can never get back that wasted time.

I agree - and I never choose books because of their length. There are so many other factors to consider, length is *way* down on the list.

[Vildea]

I grew up with Harry Potter and read Lord of the Rings at the same time, and honestly? I tend to be wary about reading any book that's 400+ pages these days. I'll do it, because there are some really wonderful books at that length, but I have found myself looking at 500-600 page books and simply thought; "You gotta be kidding me, you really want me to read all that?" And this is from a girl who's pretty much known for reading huge volumes and tomes.

I don't know, I suppose after going through Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and various other long books I tend to stop whenever I see a book that's obviously going to be over 400 pages long. This particularly goes for hardbacks (that'll nearly make me run screaming) or small sized paperbacks that look like they'll fall apart if I break the spine because they're so thick.

I'll still read long books, but just like any other book I read the longer books have to draw me in and keep my attention throughout the story. Occasionally I'll come across a long book that's filled with 30 page long tea-breaks or shorter books that literally jump ahead so fast I feel like I'm missing half the story.

*Shrug* As long as the book uses its pages wisely, chances are I'll pick it up and read it. Regardless of whether it's page count is 250 or 600+.

[kaitlin008]

Length doesn't matter to me. I would rather read a 300 page book where the author told the story the way it needed to be told than if that author tried to pad it into a 500 page book with extraneous details. I love long books, of course, but only if they're actually meant to be long.

[Linda Adams]

Length doesn't bother me. What would bother me is paying $27 for a massive book that isn't any good. It would bother me if I paid $20 for a 193-page book, and it wasn't any good either.

[CaroGirl]

I value quality over quantity. More words does not make a better, or valuable, book. I had no idea I was supposed to care about length until I joined this site. And frankly I still don't give 2 hoots about the length of the novels I read, as long as they're good. Unless, of course, it's a library Express Read that's 600 pages. That makes me nervous.