.
| Hearsay: |
Reader Jess sends in this article from Charlie Stross’s blog about why novels are the length they are. Very interesting stuff.
Publishing is a whole bunch of different businesses flying in loose formation; which is by way of saying that this particular topic is specific to commercial fiction publishing and has nothing to do with text books, technical reference manuals, autobiographies, or cookbooks.
Why are novels (the prevailing form of fictional entertainment on retail sale today) generally the length that they are?
It looks obvious at first — novels are the length they are because, well, they’re novels — but in truth, the length of a novel varies depending on the prevailing publishing industry distribution model when it’s written.
Back in the mid to late Victorian period, when books were frequently printed and sold as weekly serials, in chapter-sized magazines that could be bound together, the length of a book was really dictated by the author’s (and printer’s) stamina. In contrast, as I mentioned in my last blog entry, I’ve got a book coming out this month which is actually not a stand-alone novel, although that’s what it’s listed as in the publisher’s catalog — it’s the sixth (and final) installment in a multi-book story, six volumes long. Why isn’t that story coming out in a single binding?
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
March 24th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I just finished reading Under the Dome. What’s the explanation for the length of that beast of a book?
March 24th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
One of the many topics book people waste time discussing is how important size is to the reader. Will the reader feel the book is too short and not buy it because there is not enough story for the money? Can a book be too big causing readers to pass on buying it because they lack the time and energy to read the whole thing?
But there are times the multi-book series is published in a set after sales of the final book slows down.
One must wonder why the size of the Harry Potter books has not convinced more people it is the content not the size of the content (why does that sound like a straight line for a dirty joke?) that matters to the reader?
March 24th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Comfortable weight for holding in the tub?
March 24th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Interesting article — reading it, I recalled how an editor at one indie publishing house told me that the novel I wanted to publish was, at 400 pages, too long to print economically. Unless you’re printing a large number of copies, it’s hard to justify making small runs of large books. If readers want longer books (according to a few of the comments posted below the main article), are they willing to pay for the extra paper?