Do long books put you off reading?

Use this forum for book and reading discussion that doesn't fall into another category. Talk about books, genres, reading issues, general literature, and any other topic of particular interest to readers. If you want to start a thread about a specific book or a specific series, please do that in the section below this one.
Post Reply
User avatar
StephenKingman
Posts: 13998
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 12:00
Bookshelf Size: 0
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-stephenkingman.html

Do long books put you off reading?

Post by StephenKingman » 01 May 2011, 15:03

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?
You only live once.....so live!

User avatar
Fran
Posts: 28092
Joined: 10 Aug 2009, 12:46
2018 Reading Goal: 100
2017 Reading Goal: 100
2018 Reading Goal Completion: 97
2017 Reading Goal Completion: 109
Favorite Author: David Mitchell
Favorite Book: Anna Karenina
Currently Reading: Esther Waters
Bookshelf Size: 880
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-fran.html
Reading Device: B00I15SB16
fav_author_id: 3104

Post by Fran » 01 May 2011, 15:11

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. :lol:
We fade away, but vivid in our eyes
A world is born again that never dies.
- My Home by Clive James

Melaniep
Posts: 163
Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 11:20
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Melaniep » 01 May 2011, 15:15

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! :D

User avatar
Fran
Posts: 28092
Joined: 10 Aug 2009, 12:46
2018 Reading Goal: 100
2017 Reading Goal: 100
2018 Reading Goal Completion: 97
2017 Reading Goal Completion: 109
Favorite Author: David Mitchell
Favorite Book: Anna Karenina
Currently Reading: Esther Waters
Bookshelf Size: 880
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-fran.html
Reading Device: B00I15SB16
fav_author_id: 3104

Post by Fran » 01 May 2011, 15:20

Melaniep wrote: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! :D
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.
We fade away, but vivid in our eyes
A world is born again that never dies.
- My Home by Clive James

User avatar
Bighuey
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 21936
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 21:24
Currently Reading: Return to the Dirt
Bookshelf Size: 2

Post by Bighuey » 01 May 2011, 16:34

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.

User avatar
Jacob
Posts: 4484
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 07:08
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Jacob » 01 May 2011, 16:36

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.
"Humanity is a parade of fools, and I am at the front of it, twirling a baton." - Dean Koontz

User avatar
Gannon
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 14464
Joined: 17 May 2009, 01:48
Favorite Author: Colleen McCullough
Favorite Book: Pillars of the Earth
Currently Reading: Heaven's Net is Wide.
Bookshelf Size: 52
fav_author_id: 2863

Post by Gannon » 01 May 2011, 16:44

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.
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless. - Mother Teresa

User avatar
Rest_In_Pieces
Posts: 155
Joined: 12 Mar 2011, 16:08
2017 Reading Goal: 0
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Rest_In_Pieces » 01 May 2011, 16:54

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.
Don't leave home without your sword - your intellect. - Alan Moore

Aileenhu
Posts: 1551
Joined: 04 Mar 2011, 00:25
Currently Reading: Daisy Chain War
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Aileenhu » 02 May 2011, 00:17

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.
:D Enjoy your day~

Butterbescotch
Posts: 515
Joined: 13 Apr 2011, 08:27
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Butterbescotch » 02 May 2011, 04:11

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. :lol: :lol:
Image

User avatar
Smblomker
Posts: 71
Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 20:05
Favorite Author: Kelley Armstrong
Favorite Book: so far all of the house of night series
Currently Reading: beautiful creatures
Bookshelf Size: 0
fav_author_id: 3117

Post by Smblomker » 02 May 2011, 10:52

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.

User avatar
Euphoriameantime
Posts: 200
Joined: 18 Apr 2011, 19:54
2017 Reading Goal: 0
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Euphoriameantime » 02 May 2011, 20:09

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.

User avatar
StephenKingman
Posts: 13998
Joined: 29 Dec 2009, 12:00
Bookshelf Size: 0
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-stephenkingman.html

Post by StephenKingman » 03 May 2011, 10:50

Euphoriameantime wrote: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 :D
You only live once.....so live!

User avatar
GotThatSwing
Posts: 2293
Joined: 29 Nov 2010, 19:02
2017 Reading Goal: 0
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by GotThatSwing » 03 May 2011, 11:00

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.
Lolita. Light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth.

User avatar
Euphoriameantime
Posts: 200
Joined: 18 Apr 2011, 19:54
2017 Reading Goal: 0
Bookshelf Size: 0

Post by Euphoriameantime » 03 May 2011, 18:56

StephenKingman wrote:
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 :D
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.
Silence is golden but duct tape is silver. :D

Post Reply

Return to “General Book & Reading Discussion”