Do long books put you off reading?

[StephenKingman]

How many people here are put off by the thought of reading long books (500+ pages)? Most modern books out there are usually in the 300-500 pages region and i for one have gotten used to this and can manage to read these books in easily digestible chunks but i admit that a book of 600 or 700 pages would take me quite a while to read as i know i wouldnt be able to do it in a week and hence would take my time getting through it..

The exception is if you really are a huge fan of the author-obviously King has released a few 1000+ page books and i soaked these up for the simple reason that i love horror and King but a new genre of book would probably daunt me a bit if it was very long.

Anyone else any thoughts on long books?

[Fran]

Wouldn't put me off in the least - I love a good tome.

That said though I like a mingle my reading .... big tomes interspersed with nice little gems.

[Melaniep]

For me, Anna Karenina was a ridiculously long book. I took a break about halfway through and read something "light and fluffy" to decompress before I finished Anna Karenina. It worked well for me. As long as I can take breaks like that, I don't care how long the book is!

[Fran]

For me, Anna Karenina was a ridiculously long book. I took a break about halfway through and read something "light and fluffy" to decompress before I finished Anna Karenina. It worked well for me. As long as I can take breaks like that, I don't care how long the book is!

That's a good idea Melaniep .... I have A History of Christianity (1016 pages) on my TBR pile so I might try reading it in phases as you say.

[Bighuey]

Anything over 500 pages scares me off in most cases, it depends a lot on the book and how much patience you have. The few exceptions for me was LOTR, its around 1500 pages and took me about 4 month to read that. Not because Im a slow reader, it was because I bought Fellowship at a store in 1966 and at that time you could only get the other two by mail order one volume at a time. It took me about 3 months to get all three. Another long book was Gone With The Wind, a little over 1000 pages, which I read in about a week.

[Jacob]

Any book from 300-1000 pages is awesome, IT excuses itself because it's a great book and I read some Stephen King before. I don't read anything under 300 pages and I never read anything over 1000 unless I know it's going to be good.

[Gannon]

I love a long book. The author has more time to breath life into his characters and build the story that he is creating. For me with a long book, lets say something like "Pillars of the Earth", I feel more immersed in the story, strange but true. The only time I wish that a book wasn't so long is when a favourite author brings out his latest novel and you really want to read it straight away. Having said all that, I am a big fan of short stories as well. I think it takes alot of skill for a writer to compress everything into the short story format.

[Rest_In_Pieces]

I have no issues with a lengthy book, as long as the writer uses that space well and doesn't make himself guilty of producing 'filler'. That's just wasting the reader's time, and is something I simply loathe. LOTR has been mentioned, and although I certaintly don't find it a bad book (in fact, I love it), it sometimes really loses sight of what's important, and destroys whatever dramatic momentum it had in some instances. The first book is the worst violater of this simple law for writing books. But hey, it's Tolkien, in the end it's the most fun I've ever had reading fantasy.

[Aileenhu]

They don't put me off unless they "drag" the story.

Now when I mean "drag" is that there never seems to be any new plot.
Ail.

[Butterbescotch]

Yes I'm intimidated to read a book that's 500+ pages except Harry Potter. Even if an HP book is 1K+ or 2K+, I would dedicate my whole week for it.

[Smblomker]

Now I don't know if you'd consider this as long books. But I've read a few all in one books that were over 800 pages long. I know that those were good enough to stick too.

I have read other books that were over 1000 pages and if the story wasn't good I would have put them down and not finish them. The shorter novels are easier to read always.

[Euphoriameantime]

It really depends on the writter and genre. I've been reading a lot of series/trilogies lately. Ambrose Trilogy by John Dickinson. Where one book is only, like you say, 300-500 pages, but the whole series put together is well over a 1,000.

Now if you gave me a King book, I couldn't do it. Not just because I'm a pansy, but he just goes on, and on, and on, and on. I get lost in backstories and minute details. The only book I really enjoyed by him was Bag of Bones. But perhaps I should give him another chance.

[StephenKingman]

It really depends on the writter and genre. I've been reading a lot of series/trilogies lately. Ambrose Trilogy by John Dickinson. Where one book is only, like you say, 300-500 pages, but the whole series put together is well over a 1,000.

Now if you gave me a King book, I couldn't do it. Not just because I'm a pansy, but he just goes on, and on, and on, and on. I get lost in backstories and minute details. The only book I really enjoyed by him was Bag of Bones. But perhaps I should give him another chance.

Ha, we are from two different spectrums of King fans in that case. Whilst i do agree with you that King can sometimes take a tangent to a story and batter it to death to the detriment of the reader's enjoyment (IT, Under the Dome, Liseys Story), i think generally it adds to the overall story and point he is making albeit in a protracted way. And i also rate Bag of Bones as one of his worst books ever, the plot goes nowhere from page one to the end but this book is very divisive so the debate rages on and on

[GotThatSwing]

I usually tend to choose long books so no, the lenght doesn't put me off. If something puts me off it's the way the book is written, not the big number of pages.

[Euphoriameantime]

Ha, we are from two different spectrums of King fans in that case. Whilst i do agree with you that King can sometimes take a tangent to a story and batter it to death to the detriment of the reader's enjoyment (IT, Under the Dome, Liseys Story), i think generally it adds to the overall story and point he is making albeit in a protracted way. And i also rate Bag of Bones as one of his worst books ever, the plot goes nowhere from page one to the end but this book is very divisive so the debate rages on and on

Admitedly, it's been about 10 years sense I read Bag of Bones, I don't actually remember much about it. It was the only King book I managed to finish. I do think he is a very talented, creative and twisted writter. I give him credit and respect. I just can't stand reading 300 pages of dribble to get to finally, finally a plot. And then the plot is the little engine that could, slowly trudging along, "I think I can, I think I can" to a climax.
But you're right it usually is at the very least semi-important. I just don't have the patience.