Do you shy away from long books?

As a counter to the thread, (what is the longest book you have read), I thought I would ask, how many of you shy away from long tomes?

I know I do. I know I have had some experiences with so called classic literature that just seems to drone on and on with endless description of trivial scenes and events that I start getting really annoyed in their reading. For instance, Moby Dick, the endless rambling descriptions for me takes away from the enjoyment of reading. A recent book I was reading in which I literally threw the book, ran on and on with a description of walking in the rain in the dark! I get it! It’s raining! Move along please! 52 pages of this was torture! Some of what seems to be defined as classic, for me seems to be of these vain, endless ramblings, over done detail that doesn’t allow my imagination to take over.

I’m also someone who reads every where, so it gets annoying carrying some of these books around with me. I did recently buy “The Idiot” however; I’m looking forward to it as I like Dostoyevsky, but have shied away because as I have said, most of his books are well, how should I say, long. We’ll see.

Any other opinions?

It depends. I don't like getting bogged down in a book for too long, so if I know I won't have a lot of time to read I pick shorter novels, plays, poetry. When I have time to read I pick up longer books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

As a counter to the thread, (what is the longest book you have read), I thought I would ask, how many of you shy away from long tomes?

---

Not me... How thick the book is does not interest me in the least, and I never even think about it.

/Claes

Sometimes, if time is an issue, I do worry about the length of a book but not usually.

Also, I wonder if the book is worth the effort.

Not really. Though I find some longer books to run on at times which could contribute to me dropping the book for an unspecified period of time. For others I would imagine they have started reading longer book, completed them out of spite but eventually give them up in lieu of a shorter read for a similar reason.

I'm not a fast reader, so I would expect myself to shy away from long books, but in truth, I love "big, fat books." I'll sometimes shy away from shorter books, feeling that I'm not getting enough for my money, which is silly, really. If the book is well written, then length doesn't really matter.

I love short books. If a book is too long, generally I think it's a mark of either a convoluted or self-indulgent writer.

An interesting question grotto that has several facets. Some of the classics that you mention having read may have been written in the days when some publishers paid their authors so much a line; which caused them to overinflate the book in order to maximise their profit. Many people, like myself, will read a book, whatever its length, if the author is one of their favourites. A good example in WS Maugham's Of Human Bondage which weighs in at over 1000 pp whilst the majority of his work, discounting the many short stories, are between 250 - 300 pp . A short book can say just as much, or even more, than a long book depending on the author; JBI said a very prescient thing recently in connection with The Geat Gatsby when he commented that it is a 150 page novel that carries the weight of a 500 page book. Then there are those readers who would normally shy away from reading long books but feel duty bound to do so because of their classic status and plough on regardless of the length of the work. War and Peace and A la Recherche du Temps Perdu fall into this category. I very quickly gave up on Proust and have no inclination to read War and Peace but if there were another long book by, say, Emile Zola, other than those that I have already read, I would certainly read it. Your dislike of Moby Dick has been echoed by others on this forum and for much the same reason, but although I haven't read it I am pretty sure that I will not be reading The Idiot either, which your original post says you are looking forward to reading. For having read Crime and Punishment, The Gambler, and The House of the Dead, Dostoyevsky's much longer books hold no appeal for me.

Thanks Brian Bean for a good response. As far as “The Idiot” goes, oh well, we will have to see, the jury is out until I start reading it.

I have noticed that some of the shorter novels I have read, (under 250 pages) have really stuck with me. The story move along and allow me to ponder and imagine as I read. There are short works that I remember years later as if I recently read them and a few I reread because I really look forward to them the second time. Not so much with longer works, I have never reread a longer book. I think too, reading a short work gives me the incentive to keep reading it, I have longer books and find myself looking at it like work at times. Then again, my experience with long works is excessive verbiage, so that may be why I get bored.

How longs a piece of string?

I mean it completely depends upon the book/books in question. The practicalities of my life at present do mean that I would potentially shy away from a long novel if I didn’t have to read it. Right now with the stuff I have to read and write about I only have time to read poems or really short stories, and even then I feel somewhat guilty, thinking that I should be going over more course material instead.

When I am completely free to read what I want in the summer – oh the glorious, glorious summer – then it doesn’t really concern me, I take each work for what it is, not for the amount of pages it contains. You can’t really read verse in the same way as easy prose too, at least I don’t, verse is much more dense. Take Paradise Lost, it’s about 300 pages in my edition but is that the same reading as a 300 page novel, I would say not?

It's more the writing than the length of a book that's off-putting. It feels like fat books are more likely to have droning, bloated writing that gets in the way of the story. Even though I didn't much like The Old Man and the Sea, I read it through because it's a short book. Things like Gone With the Wind, Moby Dick, Bleak House.. I'd rather avoid them.

Never!

I used to be careful about the size, but that was in school and I needed to fit books in between the ones I had to read for school.

Now I don't care if I read one for a really long time.

Other than the amount of pages, something really boring of only 100 pages can become really long while something of 1000 can read like nothing.

Personally I had a problem with Dickens' Little Dorrit. It was just too long. Sometimes ranting on about the Circumlocution office, 'the bosom' of Mr Merdle and the feelings of Clennam that would have been 'if he had not told himself not to fall in love'. It is funny once, funny twice, but by the third time it smells indeed like 'I want more pages, because I get paid for it'. It just doesn't engage. I think I ight try A Christmas Carol again, at Christmas time of course. The first time I read it I didn't really understand everything. It is shorter so it should technically put everything that was in Little Dorrit's 600 pages in 200 (or something?).

I have found that shorter books are much more densely written and mostly engage more thinking. But then again in long books authors have time to expand wider ideas like intrigue and battle between several feelings. It really depends on the style of the author I think.

What I really can't stand, or very rarely, is an author who writes books ofthe same size (there are a few in Belgium like that). It just tells me that the author in question does not develop each story as it comes, but rather as he wants it (if you know what I mean).

As others have mentioned, being lost in a good book can be enjoyable.

I have never really kept clear of a book purely on its length, I recently talked myself into finally reading Oliver Twist, because it was about time I caught up on the literature. It took me longer to read that novel than it does for me to read something easily twice or three times the volume in pages.

To me, my deciding factor on reading a book is whether it "catches me in" on the story with in the first chapter or two, or roughly the first one hundred pages.

I would love to read longer books. My biggest problem is I don't have time. The only time I really have to read is when work/school is slow and even then there isn't much time for it. I won't read a book that I can't finish in a few days just because I know if it's longer than that I'll get busy again and have to put it down for a week or two. By the time I get back to reading it I'm either not really into the story anymore or I've forgotten whats going on. Someday, if/when I finish school hopefully I'll be able to tackle some longer books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Sometimes, if time is an issue, I do worry about the length of a book but not usually.

Also, I wonder if the book is worth the effort.

---

This says it all for me. I will typically disregard a book's size, but ask if the book really seems worth the time spent . . . ? I have read Moby Dick, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, almost all the works of Dostoevsky, everything by James Joyce, Remembrance Rock, Gravity's Rainbow, Critique of Pure Reason, a 2-set anthology of American Literature from colonial times to present, the complete short stories of O. Henry, Guy de Maupassant, and Mark Twain, and the complete poetry sets of Longfellow, Percy Shelley, Byron, Pope, Lawrence, Keats, Neruda, and Ginsberg, all of which had a ridiculous length, but I regret neither.
I have read some larger books, 500+, that I regretted, like Tolkein, often times for previous schooling, but it ended up only heightening my senses, and distinguishing my tastes.
I certainly agree with a lot of what others previous to me have said, that a shorter book may have the weight of a 600-page book, and may also take an equivalent amount of time, while doing a critical study. Many Greek and Roman plays and poems have taken some time for me to read, primarily due to the immense amount of research required to understand all the footnotes and fill in the gaps.

It usually depends on my mood when I'm starting a new book. Do I want to get into a large endeavor or not? I wouldn't say I shy away from large books, though,

But, I read a lot of fantasy, so the long books I read are rarely bogged down in long passages of description. I haven't read many long "classics." Those are intimidating. The longest books I have read, off the top of my head, are The Stand, It, and Shogun, all of which move along pretty good.

I actually enjoy long books. When I see a HUGE book I get really excited because then it seems like it will never end. I also think it depends on my mood. After reading large textbooks, I prefer a well written light read.

but once you have such skills you can get through them without too many problems. I too had problems with Moby Dick in the longish dissertations on the various types of whales. But that aside, it's a pretty good book. I've gotten through Don Quixote, The History of Tom Jones, Les Miserables, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov. When you can't get through a book universally acclaimed as being a Classic, it is generally not the books fault,
but the fault of your reading skills.

Do I shy away from long books? NO
Why not? It's all the same to me if I read 800 pp of short stories and/or novellas, or one James Michener or James Clavell novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

but once you have such skills you can get through them without too many problems. I too had problems with Moby Dick in the longish dissertations on the various types of whales. But that aside, it's a pretty good book. I've gotten through Don Quixote, The History of Tom Jones, Les Miserables, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov. When you can't get through a book universally acclaimed as being a Classic, it is generally not the books fault,
but the fault of your reading skills.

---

Well, I see this as a bit of an insult I need to say. Because someone doesn’t find the current accepted norm of what is defined as “classic”, doesn’t mean that they have poor or no reading skills, but I thank you kind citizen for showing us how we can improve our selves!

Heaven forbid we should have someone swim against the current of the sheep who dictate what it is we should read! Many of the books now deemed as classics were considered trash when first published, some weren’t even published.

I see comments like this as a snobbish form of censorship, hardly enlightening or an attractive way to bring anyone to literature of any kind. Reading should open ones mind, not close it or to become a tool of control by those of, how should I say,” Higher reading skills”.

Just a thought from someone who’s a non-conformist and isn’t afraid to ask why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

but once you have such skills you can get through them without too many problems. I too had problems with Moby Dick in the longish dissertations on the various types of whales. But that aside, it's a pretty good book. I've gotten through Don Quixote, The History of Tom Jones, Les Miserables, War and Peace, and The Brothers Karamazov. When you can't get through a book universally acclaimed as being a Classic, it is generally not the books fault,
but the fault of your reading skills.

---

I understand what you mean. Many an ignorant person condemns a book because they can't understand it- and so we get the rush of schoolchildren who think that the classics are boring.

It also breeds the reverse-snobbery:the trend of condemning everything considered a classic, generally on dubious grounds.

Of course, there is something to be said for personal taste. You may not be into Dickens just because you don't find 19th century London society particularly interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

I think too, reading a short work gives me the incentive to keep reading it, I have longer books and find myself looking at it like work at times. Then again, my experience with long works is excessive verbiage, so that may be why I get bored.

---

That is for sure relevant. I also have found longer works to have more words in them. I think everyone should read literature for its entertainment value, and in this day and age, I simply don't have time for long bouts of the same narrative. I think I will just finally stick to Samuel Beckett's fiction, and when I get to to Fizzles, I will just re-read it until, well, I fizzle out. That would be appropriate....

It depends on the subject matter, i.e. Harry Potter had me riveted for two days of straight reading, stopping only to use the bathroom. I usually don't read anything else quite so large unless it's a reference book I can skip around in.

I have ADD, which makes reading a bit...interesting, shall we say. I love to, but my brain bounces.

I'm re-reading Vanity Fair- 950 pages in my copy! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

Well, I see this as a bit of an insult I need to say.

---

Why am I not surprised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

Because someone doesn’t find the current accepted norm of what is defined as “classic”, doesn’t mean that they have poor or no reading skills, but I thank you kind citizen for showing us how we can improve our selves!

---

"Classic" has nothing to do with it. It's just that typically, the classics are long and written in very different styles than we are accustomed. Furthermore, when someone cannot get through a novel is different than when someone chooses to stop reading a novel. Finally, I think, reading skills was meant to mean somemthing akin to experience, not the actual ability to decipher symbols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

Heaven forbid we should have someone swim against the current of the sheep who dictate what it is we should read! Many of the books now deemed as classics were considered trash when first published, some weren’t even published.

I see comments like this as a snobbish form of censorship, hardly enlightening or an attractive way to bring anyone to literature of any kind. Reading should open ones mind, not close it or to become a tool of control by those of, how should I say,” Higher reading skills”.

Just a thought from someone who’s a non-conformist and isn’t afraid to ask why.

---

You seem to make a lot of posts from this point of view? What are you so scared of that you must always defend the "non-comformist" while also proclaiming your independence? Is the foundation of your being that easily shaken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uberzensch

Why am I not surprised?



"Classic" has nothing to do with it. It's just that typically, the classics are long and written in very different styles than we are accustomed. Furthermore, when someone cannot get through a novel is different than when someone chooses to stop reading a novel. Finally, I think, reading skills was meant to mean somemthing akin to experience, not the actual ability to decipher symbols.



You seem to make a lot of posts from this point of view? What are you so scared of that you must always defend the "non-comformist" while also proclaiming your independence? Is the foundation of your being that easily shaken?

---

Thanks for paying attention to me Uberzensch, I’m flattered that you find me interesting enough to waste your time on! I’m hardly easily shaken, but thanks for asking. If you feel my comment came from a scared little corner where I weep for attention, you would be sadly mistaken.

I am not bashing all well known literature. I had asked a general question from my personal experience. (Do you shy away from longer books?) I am no stranger to forums, someone asks a question and the bashing starts, so be it!

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

It is the ideas that we aim to discuss, not the participants.

Off-topic posts and posts containing inflammatory/personal remarks will be deleted without any further notice.

My apologies to the forum!

Do I shy away from longer books? Nope. Can't say I do. I'm a fairly fast reader, so it doesn't take me years to finish something. That's kind of the reason I tend to go for them. Short books are finished way too quickly and I often feel as though I wasted my money. But usually, the length of the book isn't what scares me away or attracts me. I read what the books about and perhaps the first couple pages and decide if its worth my time.

I'm the equivalent of the pre - Dorothy Lion when it comes to long books. Well, perhaps not that bad but i do tend to avoid them. Thats not to say I haven't polished off some decent sized works. "The Brothers Karamazov", "Underworld" and "Anna Karenina" spring to mind. To put in rather crudely, i can't recall reading a over 800 pages and not saying "Bit long". That obviously says more about me than it does about these novels. Doubtless it has something to do with the fact that i'm a slower reader than most and thus even well drawn and interesting characters and narratives tend to wear out their welcome. I've recently suffered a TKO at the hands of "Infinite Jest" and even a mid bout withdrawal against the relatively slender "London Fields". To make matter worse, my girlfriend is a regular David when it comes to fat tomes. Last month she took down "Les Miserables" and before that "War and Peace" and "Middlemarch". Now she is into "Infinite Jest".

Time is an issue for me so I do tend to stay away from them when I am studying but during the holidays it doesn't bother me.

Time is also an issue for me, but I do notice that when I go on vacation, I usually find a long book to read as I have more time to devote to it. Not to mention only having to taking one book with me.

Never. In fact, the longer a book is, the more I enjoy it.

I always look for good books in our college library and some of them are thick ones. I must admit that I shy away from them, especially if I'm busy at the moment. But I did borrow "Dream of the Red Mansions" last year and finished it. It's got 120 chapters in 3 volumes of 40 each. I'm looking forward to reading Proust's "A la recherche du temps perdu" soon. (That is, if I get to find a copy here in my country.)

I tend to shy away from small print more, but this often goes hand in hand with the thick classics.

I love the longer novels; however I'm in the 500s of Bleak Houses' 800+ and am finding it a little wordy at parts. I read Gone with the Wind at 18 yrs and thought it ended too soon. not the fastest reader, but I do feel gyped if I finish a novel too soon. Loved Dostoyevski, esp the brothers K.

When I was younger and a student, absolutely...

Now that I'm back into reading literature @50(ish) I find myself reactive to our too fast-everything lives. So I try to stake-out my time, be more selfish/contrarian. I find I LOVE long books now. After Proust's In Search of Lost Time's 4300 pages, length is relative. All 19th century novels now look slim to me..;) The amount of time it takes me to read certain works is only sometimes related to their word count or page length. Beckett's 240 page novel Watt took me much longer than any Dickens I have read...

(BTW, my earlier post was meant to be ironic, and I apologize if the "longer works have more words" pun was taken personally..

Current read: Gargantua & Pantagruel by Rabelais (slim little 1000 pager :D)

------------