Cormac McCarthy on Long Books: "Nobody will read it."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I was reading a Wall Street Journal Interview of Cormac McCarthy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574529703577274572.html) and came across a quote that I thought might make for an interesting topic. The quote is as follows:

Interviewer: Does this issue of length apply to books, too? Is a 1,000-page book somehow too much?

McCarthy: For modern readers, yeah. People apparently only read mystery stories of any length. With mysteries, the longer the better and people will read any damn thing. But the indulgent, 800-page books that were written a hundred years ago are just not going to be written anymore and people need to get used to that. If you think you're going to write something like The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick, go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don't care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different.

What do you think about this? I disagree. There are plenty of long Fantasy and Sci-fi being written, along with long Novels. Stephen King just put out a 1000+ page novel (Under the Doam), and the very popular Pillars of the Earth is just over a thousand pages. Sure, a long book may be a deterrent to some, but not the extent McCarthy seems to think.

The whole interview kind of makes McCarthy sound like a cranky, crotchety, old man. I'm not saying he isn't an excellent writer, of course.

[Dark Muse]

I am inclined to disagree as well. While I think it may be true that perhaps particuarly long books are not as common today as they once were becasue today people have far more distractions than they use to. In the time before TV, Video Games, Computers. etc.. than you had nothing better to to than read epically long novels. And there may be more people today reluctant to read particuarly long books.

But I would not say that no one would read them, or that it is not possible to write, and sell such books in this day in age. As I myself happen to have some dauntingly long books that are contemporary works.

I do think that his statements here are a bit presumptuous and seem almost a bit defensive.

[kelby_lake]

I think that people who have the motivation to read are perfectly capable of reading long books. In fact, I think people enjoy committing themselves to long books.

[JCamilo]

He is right. He would be right had he said it 200 years ago like Poe did. Long Novels and Romances are excessive, a mistake now. There is a good time that they went killed. That people can write or read it matter less, Epic poetry is dead and people still read it. Roth is a imense mistake.

[JakWil]

This does turn out to be true a lot of the time, as absurd as it may be. Everyone I suggest Wallace's Infinite Jest to is instantly turned off by its mass (~1200 rather dense pages), despite the fact that all those pages cost you the same as a 200-pager paperback.

I think it comes from the general misconception of what a novel is. Most people look at it as a fictional story from A to B, beginning to end, therefore really long books look daunting -- it's a lot of trust to put in a writer to keep you entertained for that long. This mindset may be justifiable in the context of plot-driven fiction, but all of the epic-length books I love use their size and scope to go far beyond the convention. I'm thinking Moby Dick here, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, to name a few. These books use their size to offer something worlds beyond simple plot occurrence, but it's something the general audience fails to appreciate for whatever reason.

Another note on the dwindling number of large novels is simple economy. A 1000-page book can't be sold for much more than a 300-pager, yet it costs a lot more to print. Add the fact that the public market says "large is intimidating – we want Twilight," and the already-struggling print publishers have even less motivation to pick up really long books.

[Virgil]

What a great interview that was. Thanks for linking us to it.

As to the question, I would tend to agree with McCarthy. Few today read a contemporary 1000 page novel. I don't. I don't have the time, especially if i don't know the writing will be top notch. First of all, there is no reason to write a 1000 page novel. The art of story telling has evolved to where compression is more powerful than repeatitive scenes.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I completely agree that less people are willing to read a longer novel than in the past, but no one? Far from it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

First of all, there is no reason to write a 1000 page novel. The art of story telling has evolved to where compression is more powerful than repeatitive scenes.

Really? What would those reasons be, other than personal preference? I love epic fantasy, and when written well, three thousand pages still may not be enough.

[Emil Miller]

What a great interview that was. Thanks for linking us to it.

As to the question, I would tend to agree with McCarthy. Few today read a contemporary 1000 page novel. I don't. I don't have the time, especially if i don't know the writing will be top notch. First of all, there is no reason to write a 1000 page novel. The art of story telling has evolved to where compression is more powerful than repeatitive scenes.

Virgil has got it right, today when people have too many other things to occupy them, a 1000 page novel is as no, no. My own favourite writer wrote a 1000pp+ novel in 1915 but his later works all roll out at about 250pp.
I would suggest that attempting to write a doorstop type novel these days is a mite pretentious given that people's time and attention span is somewhat less than in pre-WW11 days.

[JCamilo]

The problem is not this one. Like Tolkien, he fills his books with geographic and lingustic excess. And by them people asked him to cut it down. When you see the movies, you see the cutting down. His copy-cats are hardly writing like him, they write (perhaps better in a way) more fluid and action based pace, not that much descriptive.
Narrative experiences like Moby or Ulysses have no place. Most of the stories are linear and when you have it, cutting the excess is the way. The sequence (artifitial) of chapters became dull.
Take Stephen King for example, good ideas sometimes completely destroyed by the excess.Rowling could do the other way, but her franchise was already a sold out, so the publishing house gave her freedom.

And it is not like writing short is bad or anything - McCarthy mixes many stories to tell one stories, Short Stories had their developers in the last 150 years, etc.

[sixsmith]

He's wrong. One need only recall the recent deification of, say, Roberto Bolano to see why. Beyond that, you've still got people reading novels like Infinite Jest and Underworld That's not to say that a 1000 page existential tome is going to spend 5 weeks at the top of the NYT best seller list but they are still read.


First of all, there is no reason to write a 1000 page novel. The art of story telling has evolved to where compression is more powerful than repeatitive scenes.

'Story telling' does not 'evolve' in the manner of an iPod. A narrative takes what it takes (that's not to say Melville, for example, couldn't have done with a decent editor).


I would suggest that attempting to write a doorstop type novel these days is a mite pretentious given that people's time and attention span is somewhat less than in pre-WW11 days


It might be considered presumptuous, but I don't see how it is pretentious.

[sixsmith]

...... sorry double post.

[JCamilo]

Sorry, but Bolanos is recent for who? He writes for almost 30 years. He died almost 10 years ago. He is a typical pos-Borges/Marquez/Cortazar writer froum south america. Which means small narratives that when linked together you have a novel, but how big? 600 pages?

And guys like DeLilo or Pynchon will write long novels because in america there is the great american novel, this hysteria to think Novels are a high literature kind. McCarthy is pointing to the other direction, for one DeLilo or Pychon (No matter how good they are as he says) there is 300 others using more simple systems. Those two had they name stabiished long ago, they can come and publish anything. They will sell well because their name sells well. They have space.

As storytelling, actually, norms of storytelling agree with McCarthy. Traditional storytelling is short. Attention spam of audiences is small, you do not have someone oral storytelling for 3 hours.

[sixsmith]

Sorry, but Bolanos is recent for who? He writes for almost 30 years. He died almost 10 years ago. He is a typical pos-Borges/Marquez/Cortazar writer froum south america. Which means small narratives that when linked together you have a novel, but how big? 600 pages?

Recent for those who read English and who do not read Spanish. 2666 is 900 pages.


And guys like DeLilo or Pynchon will write long novels because in america there is the great american novel, this hysteria to think Novels are a high literature kind. McCarthy is pointing to the other direction, for one DeLilo or Pychon (No matter how good they are as he says) there is 300 others using more simple systems. Those two had they name stabiished long ago, they can come and publish anything. They will sell well because their name sells well. They have space.

The idiosyncrasies of the American artistic psyche notwithstanding, they are still read and enjoyed.


As storytelling, actually, norms of storytelling agree with McCarthy. Traditional storytelling is short. Attention spam of audiences is small, you do not have someone oral storytelling for 3 hours.

No you don't but the novel is no longer merely a vehicle for traditional narrative. Whether it should be is another discussion. Indeed, I'm simply stating that Cormac McCarthy is demonstrably wrong when he states that people won't read a self-indulgent 800 page novel.

[JCamilo]

Therefore, Bolanos has nothing to do with that, he is past, he wrote long ago. Inside another context (McCarthy does not say people will not write, he points for the majority). English people discovers one south american each 10 years (usually with a considerable delay), it is not what McCarthy is pointing. South America does not even have a tradition of long novels for starts...

DeLilo is read, sure. Stephen King, is. Sure. And? House names that is all. The market wont close for strong names, but who is opening space?

McCarthy is generalizing obviously. He reads long novels. But the question is generalizing also. He points to a phenomem that has 150 years or more. Bottom line, the reading of long and complex text is reduced. Novels today is a simple formula.

[Drkshadow03]

Sorry, but Bolanos is recent for who? He writes for almost 30 years. He died almost 10 years ago. He is a typical pos-Borges/Marquez/Cortazar writer froum south america. Which means small narratives that when linked together you have a novel, but how big? 600 pages?

And guys like DeLilo or Pynchon will write long novels because in america there is the great american novel, this hysteria to think Novels are a high literature kind. McCarthy is pointing to the other direction, for one DeLilo or Pychon (No matter how good they are as he says) there is 300 others using more simple systems. Those two had they name stabiished long ago, they can come and publish anything. They will sell well because their name sells well. They have space.

As storytelling, actually, norms of storytelling agree with McCarthy. Traditional storytelling is short. Attention spam of audiences is small, you do not have someone oral storytelling for 3 hours.

Wait . . . are you saying people exist outside of America?!!!

On a more serious note, I was thinking of DeLilo when this conversation came up. I wonder what he would think of McCarthy's long novel comment.

It seems to me McCarthy's argument isn't people don't read long novels at all anymore. We do. There are people still out there reading The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick. We're also willing to read it in the case of genre fiction, hence Mutatis's protestations about his enjoyment of epic fantasy is sort of a moot point as it doesn't challenge what McCarthy is actually saying (see McCarthy's comments about long mysteries).

But what about Pynchon and DeLillo and Roth who have longer novels. JCamillo argues they can sell those monstrosities because of their name recognition from having sold smaller novels earlier. This is a good point.

However, the problem that arises for me here is why can't another author do the same thing? Sell some smaller novels and gain a name, and then write and pitch the epic 2000+ monstrosity. Of course, how many people actually read these longer works? Which is what is really what is at issue.

[Dark Muse]

Wait . . . are you saying people exist outside of America?!!!

On a more serious note, I was thinking of DeLilo when this conversation came up. I wonder what he would think of McCarthy's long novel comment.

It seems to me McCarthy's argument isn't people don't read long novels at all anymore. We do. There are people still out there reading The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick. We're also willing to read it in the case of genre fiction, hence Mutatis's protestations about his enjoyment of epic fantasy is sort of a moot point as it doesn't challenge what McCarthy is actually saying (see McCarthy's comments about long mysteries).

I think you make some good points here. Though it is clearly incorrect to say that absolutely no one would read a 1000 page + novel today, on reflection, the point what McCarthy is making I do not think is one purely about a question of length but also content.

As with the reference made to the mysteries, I do not think McCarthy is indicating in this statement sub-genre fiction such as fantasy, or Stephen King or books of that nature.

As he specially references The Brothers Karamazov, a novel that is not only hefty in length but is quite heavy intellectually as well. I think that McCarthy is speaking in terms of novels that challenging to read both in their length as well as in the content they offer.

While it is an obvious generalization to say "No one would read it" I do think that it is true that particularly long, complex, philosophical novels in this day and age would get a lot less press.

[Showtime]

I think there's some truth to this. Not as a discouragement from writing a long novel (if it's good, it's good), but as a realistic understanding of how it's going to be received, or at least the difficulties in it.

Most of the long novels read today are either classics or popular fiction. If we're talking about serious literary works, the classics get read because they already have a considerable reputation for being classics. That status gives reassurance that it will probably be worth our time. The discriminating reader, even one who appreciates fine literature (perhaps more so), has to make choices about which books they believe will be worth it and and which ones won't.

It's not true to say that nobody reads long books. But it usually has to come on the heels of preceding reputation. Once you've "made it" it's much easier to get away with but to the aspiring new author who believes he's just written the next War and Peace, he should expect an uphill battle getting anyone to read it. Even a serious reader can't help but question the probable return on the investment. "Why take the chance on a massive tome from a relative unknown?" Reputation supplies the confidence that we'll get enough back if we give it a shot. It's tough to do if you don't have that though. With present day attention spans we're probably less patient in this aspect than ever before, and that ends up informing our choices.

[JCamilo]

Wait . . . are you saying people exist outside of America?!!!

On a more serious note, I was thinking of DeLilo when this conversation came up. I wonder what he would think of McCarthy's long novel comment.

It seems to me McCarthy's argument isn't people don't read long novels at all anymore. We do. There are people still out there reading The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick. We're also willing to read it in the case of genre fiction, hence Mutatis's protestations about his enjoyment of epic fantasy is sort of a moot point as it doesn't challenge what McCarthy is actually saying (see McCarthy's comments about long mysteries).

But what about Pynchon and DeLillo and Roth who have longer novels. JCamillo argues they can sell those monstrosities because of their name recognition from having sold smaller novels earlier. This is a good point.

However, the problem that arises for me here is why can't another author do the same thing? Sell some smaller novels and gain a name, and then write and pitch the epic 2000+ monstrosity. Of course, how many people actually read these longer works? Which is what is really what is at issue.

Well, Even Bolanos to get in north american market had to pass first with short stories (and 2999 is even a kind of detective story, Underworld does not have a mistery theme as well?), but i think first McCarthy is having his personal aesthetic view. He is very economic, his style is clearly closer to small works, than long works.

Now, he is also pointing to something that happens for long. The tendecy for shorter texts, fragmented prose. Lets not forgot, the last century is when the short stories had their "Masters" (Poe, Tchekhov, Borges, Maupassant,etc) and also the journalism, which is the way most people read, dominated. And the format Novel or romance was really explored to a maximum. Today, most of works follow a traditional formula.

The chapters of a tradional romance usually work as short texts, only put together by the editions. So, people is indeed trained for reading in a sitting (like Poe said). In literature, most rules are feeble, so finding a few examples to somone analysing the market, in a interview related to movie making, wont destroy what he said. It is a generalization, the question is generalizating, the answer can only be general.

oh, forget to add: I think people can break it. Example, Neil Gaiman break in as comic book writer, now write novels. I suppose he can write a big one too. But it is of course something individual and would be probally the book that everyone has and nobody read.

[Virgil]

Really? What would those reasons be, other than personal preference? I love epic fantasy, and when written well, three thousand pages still may not be enough.

Ok, let me qualify this. No one is willing to read a 1000 page literary work. A work that is finely crafted does not need to be 1000 pages. If you're into epic fantasy where adventures just repeat ad infinitum just to tickle readers fancies, then enjoy.

As to Pynchon, DeLilio, and Roth, I don't believe any of their works stretch to 1000 pages. Pynchon and DeLilio do have works up to 800 pages, but the jury is still out on how good they are, if you ask me. Roth doesn't write very long novels at all. And absolutely they can sell those monstrosities on name recognition. And get them published on name recongnition too.

[stlukesguild]

I find myself agreeing to an extent with McCarthy... and in some way this touches a bit on what JBI probably intended with his comments on the death of the novel. Our reading habits have changed over time due to the impact of the media: film, TV, video, radio, CDS, DVDs, the internet, Twitter, Facebook, etc... The individual in 1880 had no TV or CDs or DVDs to spend his or her free-time on. If he or she desired music the options were to attend a live performance (which was surely not a nightly event) or learn to play an instrument and play music at home. As a result the middle and upper-class individuals were quite often able to play at least one musical instrument. Quite often they had studied and taken classes on art as well... to such an extent that non-artists such as E.A. Poe and John Ruskin could draw of paint better than many art school educated artists today:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5168/5318407220_1d8e7d5167.jpg
-Portrait by E.A. Poe

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5318407394_811849d723_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5248/5318407492_746c1a5341_z.jpg
Watercolors by John Ruskin

This carries over into the realm of literature as well. Most educated individuals frequently wrote letters and kept diaries... often employing the most elegant calligraphy. They were also willing to spend long, long hours reading novels that went into the greatest depth of detail as to setting and character, etc... They were willing to do this with the latest writers... again and again... for the simple reason that there was no alternative of TV, or the i-pod, or popping in a DVD or jumping on the internet.

Now today there are those of us who love literature who are willing to invest such time with older writers... "classics"... but I would guess that the percentage of the educated reading audience who is willing to invest such time again and again is dwindling. The long novel demands a great suspension of belief and demands employing one's own imagination over an extended period of time... where the i-pod, the TV, the DVDs, the internet, etc... provide an instant sensory input.

As JCamillo notes, many of the greatest writers of the late 19th and 20th centuries were masters of the short story: Poe, Gautier, Maupassant, Hawthorne, Checkov, Gogol, Kafka, Hemingway, J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Tomaso Landolfi, Flannery O'Connor, Donald Barthleme, etc... Even many of the masters of the long novel from the era also explored the short story in great depth: Henry James, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Hermann Hesse, Thomas Mann, etc... In some ways, I think it is Kafka's embrace of the short story and of fragmentation that makes his more influential in some ways than James Joyce.

Technology can not help but impact the way we read and the way we write... and as a result... the way we think. Roberto Manguel's History of Reading is a fascinating book on the subject. I was particularly struck by the surprise expressed by St. Augustine at witnessing his mentor, St. Ambrose, read:

"When he read, his eyes scanned the page, and his heart sought out the meaning, but his voice was silent, and his tongue was still. Anyone could approach him freely, and guests were not commonly announced, so that often, when we came to visit him, we found him reading like this in silence, for he never read aloud."

Reading silent, which we take for granted, was not a common practice over the whole of history. Manguel goes on to explore how reading was often a communal experience. We know that for many of the aristocratic poets (Spenser, Sidney, Raleigh, etc...) writing was not undertaken with thoughts of publication and a large public audience... but rather it was part of a courtly etiquette and protocol intended to convey the sense of one's sophistication, culture and refinement. We find such an approach to poetry in Renaissance Italy, and in certain eras in Japan, China, and the Middle-East.

Our notion of private reading only really takes hold following the development of the folio (separate pages bound together in the format that we most think of as a "book") and the quarto and octavo volumes which were essentially small enough to be held in the hand and easily carried, combined with the innovation of the movable type or printing press which made the book accessible to a larger audience. It was not for quite some time after Gutenberg that private reading was a reality for anyone beyond the scholars, clergy, and aristocrats.

The development of the internet, the website, and weblogs suggests new possibilities in writing combining text or the written word with images, audio, and video. Writers such as William Blake, William Morris, Lawrence Sterne, Louis Carroll, Stephane Mallarme, Apollinaire, and James Joyce (to say nothing of Japanese, Chinese, and Middle-Eastern writers/calligraphers/painters) explored the possibilities of writing and the book that included the visual elements: graphics, fonts, lay-out, non-text visuals, illustrations, etc... Is is not beyond comprehension to imagine a writer or group of writers and visual artists combining abilities to produce a multi-media form that will push the boundaries of our concept of "reading".

[nathank]

A Suitable Boy by Vikram Seth (1500 pages; 1993) was the 1st book that came to my mind. It was a bestseller at the time.

Others that jumped to mind from the last 50 years but that haven't been mentioned:

Cryptonomicon (1200; 1999)
Infinite Jest (1100; 1996)
Terra Nostra (800; 1975)
Sot Weed Factor (800; 1960)
The Recognitions (1000; 1955)

Long works probably aren't going to disappear. More so, were they ever really THAT prevalent to begin with? Sure some of the classics are long, but most aren't anywhere near 800-1000 pages.

Also, many classics were serialized, so people didn't necessarily sit down to huge tomes even "back in the day."

[sixsmith]

Therefore, Bolanos has nothing to do with that, he is past, he wrote long ago.

Come one J, he wrote 2666 in the last 5 years of his life. Hardly a relic from the days of yore.

The fact that it takes an established author to publish a large novel is simply a matter of logic. It is highly unlikely that someone is going to publish a 1000 page debut novel, in large part because it is equally unlikely it is going to be any good. This says nothing about whether or not people are prepared to read 800 plus page novels.

Ultimately, I think it is simply wrong headed to make generalisations about what people will and won't read in this or that day and age. If McCarthy wants to make a more nuanced point, I look forward to reading it elsewhere.

[JCamilo]

Bolanos wasnt writing for american audience, which Roth talks about. The book is even not "finished" but well, it mistery story...

Anyways, why people are getting mathematical, 1000 means much, not 1000. And it was a number given by the interviwer, McCarthy reduces it to 800, Mentions Moby who is about 600 and Karamozov, which depending the endition can be from 700 to 1000. It is rather obvious it is a general idea, size is more a format than number of pages.

[Mr.lucifer]

Its been like that for over a 100 years. The same thing with the problem of too many people not reading.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There is no doubt that with the advent of electronic media, reading (much less the long novel) has gone down. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But the blanket statement is just not true:

"If you think you're going to write something like The Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick, go ahead. Nobody will read it. I don't care how good it is, or how smart the readers are."

I will grant that it is unlikely that a novel like The Brothers Karamazov and Moby Dick would not be widely read or a commerical succes, and to get it even published in the first place would take an all ready established name, but that's not what McCarthy says. He says nobody would read it. This just isn't true. He may have been being hyperbolic, but there's no way to know for sure, unless it is clarified in some other article.


Ok, let me qualify this. No one is willing to read a 1000 page literary work. A work that is finely crafted does not need to be 1000 pages.

That is just your opinion.


If you're into epic fantasy where adventures just repeat ad infinitum just to tickle readers fancies, then enjoy.

Some epic fantasy does this, but not all.

[JBI]

Meh, it also has to do with how books were published.

Back in England especially, the dominance of lending libraries led to basically buying books something of a luxury - I read a calculation somewhere that buying a book would cost in todays money something like 300$ a volume (with books usually being 3-5 volumes) and most people not making enough money in the first place to meet ends meet - it wasn't until the introduction of Zola into England, ironically, that books became drastically cheaper - Vizetelly, Zola's English translator and publisher successfully wiping out lending libraries that had dominated since Walter Scott brought them to the height of popularity, and basically popularized the volumed editions.


Now, there was a simultaneous trend in Novel publishing at the same time - namely, in Newspapers, and in mass print - the things that Walter Benjamin and the political anthropologist Benedict Anderson would base most of their work on - the culture of mass identity with stories published in newspapers as if they were being reported. Dickens gets his start there, as do the family cycle authors, this form stays popular into the beginning of the 20th century, and remains popular in Hong Kong, for instance, until the 70s.


Now, we can look at today, to see what is different - namely, books are cheap, and libraries public. Also, we can notice that the internet and e-readers have blown everything up - we have so much, and it isn't in installments with cliffhangers either - it is in all shapes and sizes.

Now, as for fiction, I will disagree with McCarthy, in that, as far as I can tell, the most advanced country as far as I can tell in incorporating technology into publishing, China. Namely, the bulk of publication is online now, and people will pay to read books as if they were paying per installment for a newspaper - the majority of best sellers are originally serialized online, 80% of which come from one corporate website - the authors get paid well as well. Those novels are varying lengths, some well over 1000 pages (in Chinese, that's equivalent to around 1700 pages in English). And they are read, as Chinese people read more novels, from what I can gather, than American or Canadian people, they just do most of it reading on an iphone or e-reader.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, if we look at how most of the classic long novels we have were originally serialized, it could be asked if the very-long novel was ever a big success. There is a huge difference psychologically between reading serialized sections one at a time in a newspaper than picking up a mammoth book. The book is definitely more intimidating. And, since books were so expensive, as JBI said, even less people were buying long novels than they are now, and even when they did, they most likely knew what they were buying since it had been previously serialized and gained popularity. Modern novels (China notwithstanding) aren't serialized, and when people buy them new, which still happens enough for publishing companies to find profit, they are going in blind (to an extent).

It seems it could be argued that the long novel is just as popular as it ever was.

[JCamilo]

I think it is clear McCarthy is talking about Europe-North America, specially america, which literary tradition was founded with novels. It means nothing in Latin America, where the spanish tradition is rooted in short stories (Even Marquez and his 100 years has such roots) and Brazil, which tradition in novels until XIX had Machado de Assis and Jose de Alencar writing no more than 200 pages for a novel.

A note, the journalist (Since Dafoe) occupies in the great urban centers and in the mass media the job of the narrator (Benjamin complains about the lack of experience of the narratives, this can be related to the idea that the journalist is an impartial observer), the central oral storyteller, because the journalist. He is losing space with internet, but the way people read daily (which is way most us read) is linked to journalism. Direct prose, objectivity, no poetry, average language, informative text. If you know this and know how to make a chapter follow another, You write best-sellers.

[JCamilo]

Well, if we look at how most of the classic long novels we have were originally serialized, it could be asked if the very-long novel was ever a big success. There is a huge difference psychologically between reading serialized sections one at a time in a newspaper than picking up a mammoth book. The book is definitely more intimidating. And, since books were so expensive, as JBI said, even less people were buying long novels than they are now, and even when they did, they most likely knew what they were buying since it had been previously serialized and gained popularity. Modern novels (China notwithstanding) aren't serialized, and when people buy them new, which still happens enough for publishing companies to find profit, they are going in blind (to an extent).

It seems it could be argued that the long novel is just as popular as it ever was.

Dumas and Dickens are quite popular with long novels. Very long novels. Dom Quixote is far from small, Tyrant Le Blanc either (they were usually published in a pack, so quite big), Victor Hugo novels are not short, Dostoievisky and Tolstoy liked theirs bricks, If I recall Germinal is not small... You must not forgot, if the book ware serialized first, it got popularity, sold in a volume for the family for a familiar reading of months.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, we're delving into a part of literary history, namely publishing, that I'm pretty much ignorant on. I mean, if books were so expensive, how would non-serialized tomes like the ones you listed (referring to JCamilo's mentioned books) ever gain popularity and profit in the first place? And I'm not trying to be facetious with this question, I just don't understand.

[JCamilo]

I do not think they are all non serialized. Dickens, Dostoievisky and Dumas were for most part. Heck, Dumas even got paid for more pages so he had ghost writers to fill his job...

I suspect those numbers are for a raising burgoise class to whom those guys wrote (There is no doubt that all cultural products became much more profitable from the 30's of XX century on) and because they would buy 1 volume and read for months, probally like a Sit-con, or re-reading chapters and discussing it.

Dom Quixote, I saw once a study that linked the spreading of translations of Quixote accross Europe with a significative raising of libraries in the coutries were Quixote arrived (of course, relative numbers, some places had 1 library, jumped to 5). So, volume could be popular. But again, McCarthy is obviously generic, books like Moby Dick or Karamazov are big books and dense books. It is a genre. Not the number of pages exactly.

[Hyacinthine]

I don't agree with McCarthy, but I do think many books are longer than they need to be; not only does every sentence fail to justify itself, but a good portion fail at it. However, saying nobody will read a long book? No. Obviously not everyone will, but I'll raise my hand to say, yes, I read those books.

As others have said, I'm not going to put in that investment unless I know it has a good chance of being worth it. David Foster Wallace, sure, he's great, I'll go for it. Mr. No Name, probably not so much, unless I pick up his book out of curiosity and absolutely cannot put it down. But most books aren't of the "absolutely can't put it down" type in the first few pages.

[TheFifthElement]

I can't wait for 1Q84 to be translated into English, but if I didn't know who Murakami was I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

[LuggageFan]

Stephen King has always written excessively long books. I read Duma Key, and I have to say, that was WAY too long at something like 630 pages. Lots of filler and garbage which an editor should have taken out.

I disagree on the general principle, though. Though maybe not, lol. Today, we have more distractions for our leisure time than they did 100 years ago, so reading is still important, but in a different way, i.e., not too many people anymore have time to just sit around reading a 1000 page book. Unless you read fast, and I don't - it would take me three months or more to finish a 1,000 page book.

I do love a good mystery though - Dragon Tattoo was 600 pages and I finished that in three days.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I really liked Duma Key. :nod:

[laymonite]

Thanks for posting this link, Mutatis! Mr. McCarthy is someone whom I have a fascination with. Kind of like Thomas Pynchon, so maybe chalk it up to the elusive factor. But more so with McCarthy because he writes these great novels (not that Pynchon doesn't), and then, when you do hear from him, he comes off like a crank who doesn't give a ----. There is another interview from years back where he slams the concept of originality, saying something along the lines of, "The ugly thing is that books come from other books" (paraphrase). Wish I could find that interview. This statement was, I believe, from an interview about Blood Meridian, and he spoke about how Moby Dick played a major part on the novel.

I may be too tired this morning to think clearly (plus, I'm still pre-coffee), but it seems to me McCarthy is making a distinction between genre-fiction and literary-fiction, i.e. what he calls the "self indulgent" novel. No? In this respect I agree with him. This is just a reiteration of the argument that most people seek catharsis over cerebral engagement. As far as his statement "Nobody will read it," I think his qualification of "nobody" is simply to make a stronger assertion.

[Perandorrrr]

I have some trouble reading the classics (Madame Bovary and The Brothers Karamazov). I don't think lenghty books will not be read, but the attention and interest span of modern readers has evolved since our world moves much faster. I was reading the letters Ezra Pound exchanged with James Joyce. It took months to get simple dialogue out of the way that would take minutes with e-mail (I still like Ulysses despite its length). I understand what he means but it's not as simple as he states it.

[country doctor]

the doc feels that mccarthy is talking about the 'business' of book writing w/ the wall street journal...if you want to make money, there is a formula he's seeming to say...

now the literary artist shouldn't have to feel that his work has to bend to the economics of book writing, but oughta be and be are two different things...

a 'big, big' book can probably still be written, but it might have to be from a writer that has already created a 'bankable' reputation w/ his or her publisher...

and considering the publication that he was speaking to, it very well could be that he wanted to discuss the 'business of writing'...

[grechzoo]

I think if you take McCarthy's exact quote and insinuation too literally then of course he is wrong. Everyone knows there are many people out there who will read big books.

He is generalizing because that how the question was put to him. Therefore in a general perspective, at least for the mainstream market, he is probably more right than wrong.

A good debate for sure, but I see some opinions voiced like they thought Cormac is vehemently standing by the "fact" that no-one has ever read a 1000+ page book in the past 20 years. Which I'm sure isn't his true opinion. ;)

In terms of his own work as well, He writes stories at a quick pace, never padding his passages with superfluous paragraphs, so his view on long novels is also going to be a bit affected by his own methods in writing.

My opinion is I tend to agree with the overall point. the mainstream audience want books they can rush through in a matter of days.

[Syd A]

There are plenty of long Fantasy and Sci-fi being written, along with long Novels. Stephen King just put out a 1000+ page novel...

Yes, but you can't compare a 1000+ page King novel to a 1000+ page Dostoevsky or Melville novel. If you write a serious, sophisticated literary novel that is 800 pages long, no one would read it, except for some New Yorker reviewer who's lookingto show off.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If you write a serious, sophisticated literary novel that is 800 pages long, no one would read it, except for some New Yorker reviewer who's lookingto show off.

You speak for everyone?

I'm not saying a large amount of people would read a book like you describe, but these blanket statements just really irk me.

[Syd A]

You speak for everyone?

I'm not saying a large amount of people would read a book like you describe, but these blanket statements just really irk me.

Your ire means nothing to me. Not all statements were meant to be taken literally. Nonetheless, one might argue that literally no one would read such a book, because no one (literally) would publish a book that appeals to a tiny minority.

[mal4mac]

There are plenty of long Fantasy and Sci-fi being written... Stephen King just put out a 1000+ page novel (Under the Doam), and the very popular Pillars of the Earth is just over a thousand pages.

He would probably classify these under "any damn thing", along with mysteries. Can you name a "serious" modern novel that is over a 1000 pages long?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He would probably classify these under "any damn thing", along with mysteries. Can you name a "serious" modern novel that is over a 1000 pages long?

No, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere, and if it were, I wouldn't be the person who would no, most likely :).

[WyattGwyon]

He would probably classify these under "any damn thing", along with mysteries. Can you name a "serious" modern novel that is over a 1000 pages long?

Yes, three of them off the top of my head:
David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest is well over 1000 pages.
Thomas Pynchon's Against the Day is also well over 1000.
William Gaddis's The Recognitions is close enough (high 900s) to round up.
Vasily Grossman's Life and Fate is over 900.

All of these have had wide reading. Sometimes it just takes a while. Gaddis's The Recognitions (in the opinion of many, one of the greatest novels of the 20th century) was panned by 52 out of 55 critics who wrote reviews after its initial publication. Very few of the critics, as a study by Jack Green (Fire the Bastards!) suggests, actually read it. It has been finding more and more readers every year by word of mouth alone. The other three are more widely read.

Another point:
"No novel needs to be 1000 pages"(?) Have you ever read a 1000 page novel? And what does need have to do with it? You must think novels have a certain amount of business that must be transacted and anything beyond that essential business is superfluous. If so, what is the essential part and how do you decide what is superfluous?

General comment: If you don't want to invest the time to read a 1000 page novel, don't. But it is unseemly to justify your unwillingness to do so by issuing blanket statements about literature you haven't read.

[DougSlug]

[...] It might be considered presumptuous, but I don't see how it is pretentious.

Speaking of presumption, I would argue that long novels are a tad presumptuous regardless of when they were written. The author is saying not only should you read my novel over other books/texts, but you should forgo the opportunity to read 2-4 other "average length" novels in doing so (since we all have finite lifespans).