Why are books so thick now?

[Guest velocipede2288]

Most books used to be around 200-300 pages long, these days, they are 500-600 pages. Why is that?

Is it because the publishers think they can sell more at a higher price?

You can put all you need to know of a story into a book 200 pages long, and that is the way things used to be.

I have hundreds of books I collected years ago, that are no longer than that. Some of the best classic detective novels were that long. Dashiel Hamett, Phillip Marlow, Maigret,Columbo, Inspector Ghote,early Dalziel and Pasco-Now they are much thicker.

It is nice to have a slim novel you can stick in your pocket, you can't any more.

That goes for many of the classics also. Sir Walter Scott, H.G.Wells. George Borrow etc. Quite short and to the point.

So how about some pocket sized books again writers and publishers?

[Kell]

I have to admit, I like a slimmer volume to slip in my handbag when I'm out and about and try to make sure I've always got a thinner book available to me to do so. That said, I have also noticed the amount of thick books croppping up on my shelves - it's getting increasingly difficult to pick up a book off my own shelves that I can stick in my bag unless I take to carrying a potato sack with me instead - LOL!

[Freewheeling Andy]

I think the same thing happened with novels as happened with CDs. At some point the technology arrived to make binding of longish novels easier. So people filled up the available space. Although with CDs they usually filled them up the rubbish, and people are now moving back to 40 minute albums because they realise they don't have 60 or 70 minutes of decent music in them.

 

Books, though, pander to the vanity of the author quite a lot, where authors often think they have brilliant magnum opuses (magnum opi?) and try and write great, grand novels. Forgetting that conciseness and preciseness is actually a skill that should be valued more than verbosity.

 

There is, also, a reader thing, I think, where there's a desire for value for money. And if a book is written in a fairly simple style you'll be through a 200 page novel in a day and perhaps feel short-changed.

[BookJumper]

I would disagree that binding technology has evolved. As someone who routinely checks the binding condition of every possible buy because I refuse to take home a book whose cover will come off first time I read it, I can't tell you the amount of times I've left the store empty-handed. If anything, the quality of binding for paperbacks is diminishing visibly.

 

That said, I don't mind long novels - when they have something to say, and say it well. Walter Moers' books average seven hundred pages of oversized paperback, and they are absolutely brilliant. If I look at my shelves however, I do notice a preference for middle-sized books (two to four hundred pages on average): they seem to be a compromise between the fluff that often fills the bigger books and the short-changing feeling one gets from the smaller ones.

 

That said, I would not feel short-changed if people didn't insist on charging me

[poppyshake]

I do hate that larger size paperback format that is common now .. that's messed up many a good trilogy on my bookshelves.

 

I prefer a slimmer book .. but then if the story is good ... I'm happy that it's long (the trouble being you don't know that when you pick the book up in the first place) .. it's just a bit off putting to pick up a great big tome without knowing if it's worth it's weight in storytelling.

 

Sometimes you feel the editor has been a bit indulgent.

[Talisman]

I don't mind the longer books either - it is true that they can be a pain to carry around, but you can always just read them at home, or keep them in the car or something. Alternatively you could get one of those e-readers and then it wouldn't matter how long the book was !

 

Like BookJumper I too have noticed the quality of binding getting worse - there are several books I have bought recently and read just once and the pages are already coming apart from the middle, which isn't good. There seems to be a trend in publishing whereby books are printed and bound in China, in order to keep costs down, where the quality isn't always what it should be. In a recession, where more books are sold at discount than at full price, they have to cut corners anywhere they can.

 

As for editors indulging writers, they are the industry experts and know what they are doing and what works. While it is true that there are more longer books available, no one has to buy them, as there are plenty of shorter ones too. It depends on the page size anyway as the larger the pages are to begin with, the less there are that are needed.

 

At the end of the day it is each to their own, as we all like different things. Personally I prefer a longer book that I can get my teeth into and that takes longer to read, as books are expensive and I can't afford to keep buying them.

[busy91]

I don't know if I agree. The mass market paperbacks have more pages because they are smaller in size. I've only seen a few hardcovers that are chunkers. I don't know if it has to do with money, because I won't buy a big hardcover. I'm not carrying it around on a daily basis.

 

I think books are different sizes. Maybe there are more 500-600 page books than 10 years ago, but the number is not vast.

[Nollaig]

They saw me coming and thought 'that girl will buy anything 500 pages plus, quick! Get printing! Go Go Go!'

 

Simples, as a meerkat might say.

[Dimitra]

Well, some books contain lots of action, but other times is like the writer thinks that if he keeps writing and writing and fill more pages, he is going to make a better book.

[Kell]

To tell the truth, I wish there was a standard format for the size of books (whether thick or thin), especially within a series. I get really hacked off when I get a book by an author I collect and find it's either taller or shorter in height than the other books in the series. More often than not it's the paperbacks that this happens with, but also occasionally with the hardbacks if the author suddenly changes publisher. It makes my bookshelves look a right mess!

[honestfi]

Well, some books contain lots of action, but other times is like the writer thinks that if he keeps writing and writing and fill more pages, he is going to make a better book.

 

Yup. Just finished one of those, yeesh. Sometimes less is more, if ya know what I mean.

 

Some interesting points here, good thread. Where binding is concerned, I'm afraid I'm rather naughty and do bend my books about a bit. Still, I have no desire to pass any of them on, so I guess in my case it's okay to be a little selfish. Haven't had any of them fall apart on me yet, but some are pretty....hmmm...battered. So the costs are kept down to the barest minimum, but also, unfortunately, we are in a throwaway society. Casual readers don't tend to keep their books any more so they figure the 'shelf life' doesn't need to be that long. Shame.

[Guest velocipede2288]

My feelings exactlly Kell. There are many great thick books "Pickwick Papers," Nicholas Nickleby" for instance, but I feel that the thicker the books, the greater the padding.

I have just read a terrific detective by Reginald Hill, The Death of Dalziel. but I have rows of thrillers that are just as good and only 200-250 pages long.

Edited September 26, 2009 by velocipede2288

[BookJumper]

To tell the truth, I wish there was a standard format for the size of books (whether thick or thin), especially within a series. I get really hacked off when I get a book by an author I collect and find it's either taller or shorter in height than the other books in the series... It makes my bookshelves look a right mess!

Oh, how I share your vexation ! Dont they think of ur poor aesthetically-minded people??

[Mia]

There is, also, a reader thing, I think, where there's a desire for value for money. And if a book is written in a fairly simple style you'll be through a 200 page novel in a day and perhaps feel short-changed.

 

That said, I would not feel short-changed if people didn't insist on charging me

[Kylie]

That said, I would not feel short-changed if people didn't insist on charging me

[funrun]

Some books just ramble pg by pg. I'm sure they could be shorter if the author did not just waffle.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Maureen
Added punctuation.

[Katrina1968]

At least with a book, you can close it, not so easy with someone who TALKS like some authors WRITE!

[Scarlette]

I don't think thick books are really a new thing. There have been many classic epic novels written that look like you need a wheelbarrow to cart them around. We just notice the thicker novels more these days since everything else in general has become so much smaller.

[Sedge]

I live for thick books! I've just embarked on Robert Jordan's Wheel Of Time series and I'm in heaven!

[willoyd]

It's good to read that I'm not the only one who hates the change of format part of the way through a series. It's just happened to the Brunetti series. They've all be mass market size, and have suddenly switched over to what I think is called B format. Totally unnecessary - even my poor eyesight can cope with the smaller font size (unlike some paperbacks where the print is virtually unreadable).

 

Not just fiction either - the third volume in the Richard Evans trilogy on the history of the Third Reich has come out in a completely different style of cover to the first two (and not half as attractive either - positively boring and old fashioned in fact). Actually, the quality of the design work on paperbacks does often seem to detiorate with editions rather than improve. Can't understand why.

[SueB]

OMG tell me about it and the thicker the book the smaller the print too my eyes arent really bad (although Im a spectacle wearer for many years) but some of the pages look like an ant crawled over them...not good for me

[Guest velocipede2288]

I don't think thick books are really a new thing. There have been many classic epic novels written that look like you need a wheelbarrow to cart them around. We just notice the thicker novels more these days since everything else in general has become so much smaller.

 

This is true I agree. Dickens for the nost part wrote books around 500 pages long. But popular fiction. Detective tales, etc, were in my time slim pocket size. Just look at Dashiel Hammett, Erle Stanley Gardner, Ellery Queen,Simenon, H.R.F. Keating, Ed McBain,Ngaio Marsh, James M. Cain, I could go on and on.

But Dicken's most popular works were, Christmas Carol, Oliver Twist, which were shorter novels.

Some of my most favourite books are quite long. The Source, by James Michener,is a tome of a book, but great reading. But I still prefere the slim book I can slip in my pocket.

[chesilbeach]

I don't mind how thick the book is, as long as it's well written.

 

With regards to the various comments about the cost of smaller books, I worry that the length of a book is a deciding factor as to whether the book is worth the price. It sort of indicates that you're paying for the amount of paper and printing costs of the book, but surely books aren't sold by weight, they're sold for art and/or entertainment? Would you expect to pay twice as much to see "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" at the cinema than you to watch "WALL-E"? It's twice the length, but until you go to see both of them you can't compare the entertainment of both films, but you would still expect to pay the same ticket price.

 

And, surely an author has put as much as much effort, sometimes more, into writing their 150 page beautifully crafted novel as someone who's written a fast paced, action packed thriller when both books are priced the same?

 

Would you rather read a 500 page book that's okay or an amazing novel that's 120 pages? Which did you get better value for money from? How would you know before you'd bought and read them?

 

Don't get me wrong, I also think twice about buying a short book for the same price as a longer book, because it's in my spendthrift nature, however, usually if the book is intriguing enough to catch my eye, and sounds like something I would really enjoy, or has been strongly recommended to me, I will usually decide that it's worth investing in.

[Anika]

This is true I agree. Dickens for the nost part wrote books around 500 pages long.

 

Most of Dicken's works were written in serialized form in weekly/monthly installments. When first put into book form they comprised 2-3 volumes, though later cheaper editions emerged containing the entire book. Working-class people back then couldn't usually afford whole books, and if they really liked a serial he just kept on writing it.

 

(sorry, it's the pedant in me coming out:shrug:...... as a Victorian-lit. fiend, the urge to clarify was too great.)

 

I like to read something that's going to take me a while to finish, so I'm grateful for longer books. If I want to read something 'thin', I'll get it used so the expense & quick-reading factor won't annoy me.

[Kylie]

I don't mind larger books but I find that I have to carry around a smaller book at the same time. I get a lot of my reading done during my train commute and as I find large books too unwieldy for those times when I'm standing on a platform, I'll read the smaller book then and then switch over once I'm on the train.

 

Case in point: I'm reading the large-format, 700-page long The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear and have the much smaller The Sign of Four as my 'in-between' book. The problem with this can be that, as happened this morning, I get so absorbed in the smaller volume that I don't end up switching books once I'm on the train.