The Next Best Book Club discussion

No not that size...get your heads out of the gutter this is not spam for a male growth pill. I just finished a bunch of December stuff and was all excited to start my new January list - I tend to read about 5-6 books simultaneously. After enjoying Mistborn last month I figured I would read some other fantasy that has been highly rated so I had 3 books at the libary that are available.

Name of the Wind by Patrcik Rothfess
The Eye of the World by Robert Jordon
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell

OMG - these things are huge!! (661, 670, 782!) What's worse is I read a bit of each and they are boring me to death!! I could not "get into" any of them...My depression grew...My hubby went upstairs and brought down two YA books..

Faerie Wars by Herbie Brennan (367) but large type and small sized pages

The Bartimeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud - 462 pages but again large type, good line spacing etc.

I'm on page 107 of Faerie wars and really enjoying it. Has all the YA reading I've done of late ruined me for more traditional "heavy fantasy?" Do I now have a short attention span? Or are these books just "old school" and they really don't need to be this long?

-- Wife of GR Author Michael J. Sullivan | The Crown Conspiracy | Avempartha

I do not mind a book with a lot of pages, but it has to interest me... three that I recently read that are long are Sophie's Choice, East of Eden, and The Hour I First Believed. The first two seemed to drag on and on, but the last one flew for me and I did not want it to end.

I also prefer 300 pages or more... if I see a book is only 200 and something, I will usually pass on it.

I must be getting a short attention span - the 2 books I've really enjoyed recently are "Flight" and "Gursney" both are really short.

For me size matters with my schedule. If I have a lot going on, I generally try and stay away from the books that have a lot of pages. I'm a stickler for font size. If I see a book has small font size, I generally put it back.

I'll read anything, but I have a secret love of long individual books. "The Stand" is an absolute favorite, "Gone with the Wind" is another.

I am really looking forward to "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell" and "Tigana", both of which are longish books at 1006 pages and 670 pages respectively (in paperback). Another that has been recommended to me is "Imajica" by Clive Barker, which is 854 pages.

However, after I finish "His Dark Materials" and "Tales of Beedle the Bard", I will be starting 2009 off with a whopper: 1600 pages worth of "The count of Monte Cristo".

Not a big fan of huge books, although I did enjoy The Name of the Wind and Shogun. If the story is enough to fill the book then fine, but my first thought with books that long is that they're full of filler. That's not something I would accuse King of, but he's such a dense writer I wouldn't dare read a thick book by him.

The size of the book isnt what scares me, its usually the type of novel that it is.... Russian lit used to terrify me, Dickens also.....

But Ive tackled some of the most scary authors IMO and havent looked back since! So does size matter....

not for me it doesnt!!!
Its all about what on those pages that matters.

In my opinion, it all depends on what's on the pages, as many other people have said. For example, I read Ken Follett's two historical fiction novels, The Pillars of the Earth and World Without End in about five days each, and they were both over 900 pages. I have also read many books over seven hundred pages in less than a week where it took me two weeks to read a book barely more than 200 pages, so it all depends on how the author presents and writes the story.

Well said Callista!!

Short and long books both need to be interesting, otherwise even a 100 page story can be difficult to get through.
But I adore books over 500-600 pages. When I saw Sepulchre adn it hasd 732 pages I think, I adored the thought of having that book. I will aslo go faster to the thicker books...they look gorgeous and the idea that, if it is a good story, I can read soooooooooooooo many pages and get in a long story s wonderful.
I remember I couldn't get through Kim by Kipling easily and it was a short one. I read Sepuclhre, so probably about 732 pages, in about a week...which was less than it took me to read Kim.

Jeane, I know exactly what you mean. If the story is good, a long one gives you more to enjoy! I gravitate towards longer books too.

I love a GOOD LONG book. Not a bad long book. But any good book will do.

The story has to be good no matter what the size in order for me to stick with it.

I have never really been deterred by the size of a book, I do use it to judge when I will read it though. I don't usually try to start a 900 page book at the end of a marking period, because of how much grading I will be doing. However, if it's a good book I am all for lots of it!

For me, it both depends on the degree to which it interests me and also on my mood. Sometimes I am just not in the mood to handle something over 400 pages, but usually length doesn't deter me (I slaved over all 1000+ pages of The Stand for an entire summer while simultaneously reading shorter books, and it's one of my favorites). I like short and long ones alike - but I'd say most of what I read is 300 or more pages. If any book doesn't hook me by page 50, I give up. In one case though, a long book bored me and I skipped some chapters. That was The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle... it just dragged on so much!

Robin, I used to be a died in the wool Fantasy reader, that has changed over the years , but I do dip into them again on occasion ( Yes I have your Hubby's Books tbr)!! Regarding The Name of the Wind I devoured it, and think it was quite the amazing book, page numers be Damned I say!!! read it you won't be sorry , and I bet you could finish it faster than you think.

I don't mind the book being long only if it has legnth for a reason and it better be damn good. My book EveryDay Life is short, but it's packed with so much stuff you have to read it more than once. I don't get critized for it's shortness actually reviewers have been craving more.

First I must admit that, being an extremely slow reader, long books scare me a little!

I agree with the poster above who stated that if a book is long, there had certainly better be a good reason for its length. I have no patience for long-winded authors. (Say what you mean and be done with it already!) And overly descriptive and/or flowery prose also irks me. However, if it is a fun, engaging, action-packed novel, bring on the extra pages!

For me it entirely depends on how much time I have. I'm currently reading The Name of the Rose, which clocks in at over 500 pages. I'm planning on reading The Tale of Genji some time early in the new year, and it's over 1000 pages. Long books generally don't bother me (hell, I'm a Harry Potter fan for pete's sake! ;)), but if I don't have much time I'll stick to short reads until my life calms down some. I also prefer smaller books when I go on trips. Smaller books = more books I can drag with me in my carry-on. ;)

The book had better be really good if it's that long. But when I sit down to read a big, fat book, I sort of feel like I'm sitting down to a feast! If you love it, there's so much of it to read!

Robin, The Name of the Wind is a fantastic book. I think you'll like it.

Becky, I love Tigana and just about anything by Guy Gavriel Kay.

JG, I agree. Sometimes I feel like when I start a huge book, that somebody thought about us readers and spoiled us. Of course if it really absorbes you. If not, it is a wasteof the pages. But it is party time when it is great and long. Kate Mosse seems to do a great job with that.

There are some books that you WISH were over 1000 pages because you just can't get enough of the characters and the storyline! Those are the books that you hate to see end!

But in general I think that I like my books in the 300-500 page range! The stories are good, they are fairly quick to read, you can enjoy them, and then get on to the next book on your TBR!!

I really enjoyed the Eye of teh World. It was a quick read. I couldn't put it down.

JG wrote: "Becky, I love Tigana and just about anything by Guy Gavriel Kay."

Oh good, I'm sure that I will be reading it fairly soonish since I've banned myself from further book-buying until I've read the 107 I currently have. A number of those are fatty books. I'm looking forward to every one of them!

Agreed - I devoured the Harry Potter books in days. I loved the Stand, Pillars of the Earth, etc., etc. Now I'm reading The Poisonwood Bible which is a respectable 600 pages or so and really liking it. I don't get scared by a long novel, but I will not read a story that drones on and on with no purpose.

Long books do generally kill your goals though! I am currently trying to average at least 1 book a week and The Poisonwood Bible is making that an impossibility, although the holidays may also have something to do with that.

Marc wrote: "Not a big fan of huge books, although I did enjoy The Name of the Wind and Shogun. If the story is enough to fill the book then fine, but my first thought with books that long is that they're full..."

King's Stand is a long book - but definitely worth it. I don't mind a long book if it is good - which the Stand is. And I've heard Name of the Wind is good - but I'm just having problems "getting started" with it.

JG wrote: "But when I sit down to read a big, fat book, I sort of feel like I'm sitting down to a feast! ..."

I think you hit the nail on the head JG. It seems like I had too many "feasts" and not enough "snacks" I now added a few shorter ones to do simultaneously and I think that will make me feel better.

I'm actually the opposite, I'm less likely to consider a book if its short :P If a book is less than 300 pages, it better REALLY look interesting or I'm done. I'm MORE likely to consider books over 500 pages, or even over 900-1000.

Size never made much difference except whether or not I will travel with it, or how long it takes me to get through. I read a lot of Stephen King in highschool and it was hard to juggle something like The Stand with my stack of text books, unless I couldn't put it down. I remember reading Wizard and Glass (896 pgs) in about 3 or 4 days when I was 15. I only took breaks to go to school and I didn't sleep much.I also took it with me and read every chance I got. LOL. I always have a boook in my bag now, but usually it is something smallish at 600 or less pages. I walk a lot, so I can't have a really heavy bag. If a book is real big I leave it at home, so they usually just take me longer, unless I can't resist reading strait through. I recently finished Sopie's Choice and it took me 8 months. I read the first half in a bout a week but got bored and put it down until about two months ago. Then I finished it in a few days. Actually, that's why I prefer paperbacks. I do read a lot of large books and 900 page hardbacks seem to wiegh about 20lbs *snicker*

For me I can never decide how I feel about the size of the book until I'm done. I think it's all abot how the size is used. The Hours by Michael Cunningham is relatively short but one of my favorites. George Eliot's Middlemarch, on the other hand, kind of needs all 900 pages to incorporate all of the romance, politics and societal conventions alogn with a plot which I think actually goes somewhere. I read The Bone People by Keri Hulme last year and was disappointed with the end so I felt like I'd read a long book for an anti-climax. Sometimes books that are only just about 100 pages and leave you hanging bother me.

Abigail wrote: "Size never made much difference except whether or not I will travel with it, or how long it takes me to get through. I read a lot of Stephen King in highschool and it was hard to juggle something l..."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who attempted Sophie's Choice then put it away.

So I started this whole post - and at the time I had a ton of very big books in front of me that had me totally overwelmed. With my current reading load I have a mix of both longer and shorter works - and I think for me "mixing" it up a bit is helpful. Sometimes I do a small one back to back in the middle of a few other books while I plod along at them

Robin wrote: "So I started this whole post - and at the time I had a ton of very big books in front of me that had me totally overwelmed. With my current reading load I have a mix of both longer and shorter wor..."

I like to mix it up too! But sometimes I read a series and I just have to read all of the books, despite the length.

I have to admit that long books tend to intimidate me. I, too, am a slow reader. I also agree with M.G.. There had better be a darned good reason for it to be that long if you want me to read it. If it doesn't grab me in 100 or less pages, out it goes (big or small). I recently ordered The Stand, and when I got it, it was 1100+ pages. I didn't care how good it might be, I just didn't feel like reading anything with that many pages. It was intimidating me. I couldn't get in the swing of it, because it was so long. Right around 300 pages is a good length for me.

I tend to gravitate toward longer books. When a story is good, I don't want it to end. Often, with short books, I may love the story, but I am frustrated there wasn't more. I try to pepper shorter ones in to break it up, but on the whole, the longer the better.

I usually wait until summer to read long books because then I don't get called to work and thus slowed down.

I tried reading this once (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell) because I saw it in a People Magazine list of best books for that year. After 2 chapters I found this thing so bloody boring I gave it back to the library. It might get better, but I wasn't about to read any more of it to find out.

I usually prefer to read longer books because I feel like I've accomplished more after reading them and because a lot of fluff books are short (not to say that all short books are fluff!). But during the semester, it's definitely wisest for my to steer towards shorter books because I can get through them and that's encouraging to me.

Perpendicularandi wrote: "I have to admit that long books tend to intimidate me. I, too, am a slow reader. I also agree with M.G.. There had better be a darned good reason for it to be that long if you want me to read it...."

Really sorry to hear you couldn't get into the Stand it is one of my favorite all time novels - the length of this one did not bother me a bit as I was captivated through the whole thing.

Briansgirl wrote: "I tried reading this once (Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell) because I saw it in a People Magazine list of best books for that year. After 2 chapters I found this thing so bloody boring I gave it b..."

That particular book is a bit hard to get into - though many people love it just as many struggle with it.

I'm DEFINITELY a BFB fan ( Big Fatty Book). 350 pages is just getting into a good story.... Probably why I loved the Outlander series. uh, that and Jamie .. ;)~~

This has already been said, but, for me it depends on the book. There is a huge attraction to a nice fat book, but only if it's a good one! Otherwise it seems such a chore, although slogging through a not great read and finally finishing is such a sense of accomplishment!

A slim volume with a great story line and a few sequels is fun too!

Leora wrote: "This has already been said, but, for me it depends on the book. There is a huge attraction to a nice fat book, but only if it's a good one! Otherwise it seems such a chore, although slogging thro..."
Even books that are good can require a bit of slogging as well though. A lot of people say, and I would agree, that The Lord of the Rings picks up a lot after about the first 220 pages of The Fellowship. The first 200 pages are good and itneresting, but the story moves faster afterwards.

I don't think the size of a book puts me off either way - as long as it is enjoyable. I do get annoyed sometimes when books are unnessecarily long, when it includes stuff that really didn't need to be there and just seem to drag it out. But if the book is good, it is good regardless of size.

One thing that does put me off (and I think I read this somewhere on this thread) is the font size. I would definitely rather more pages with a decent font size than tiny writing but less pages!

Yup on the font size. I remember I had to switch copies of a Dickens I was reading for school, once; the shorter one had such teeny tiny print that it was driving me nuts. The longer one had readable print, even though it was about twice as heavy and took up a great deal more space in my bookbag.

Fontsize has yet to bother me, but it could only be a matter of years before it does.

OMG I'm glad you brought this up. Aye font size is a huge issue - and the amount of space between the lines. If it is too tight and too small it really makes it hard to read. I would much rather have more pages and have slightly larger text and more room between lines - definitely.

I agree. My 14 year old son just began reading Atlas Shrugged and was not put off by the 8" depth, but when he opened it he had to show me the 6 pt type - he was flabbergasted at how small it was. It would have been better to add 2" than require a magnifying glass.

I'd say that if the book is one I really want to read, I wouldn't particularly care how thick it was. For other books--ones I wouldn't normally pick up--I'd be much more likely to give it a try if it was thin, rather than fat. (I'll be reading Of Mice and Men shortly, and was intimidated until I found out how ridiculously short the book is.)

For Jon's task over on the Spring Challenge (read a nonfiction book about the British Monarchy of at least 400 pages), I ordered The Life of Elizabeth I through the Interlibrary Loan system. When the librarian pulled that book off the shelf for me, my jaw dropped, and it's only 2 inches thick, maybe.

It wasn't just that though--it was the overall dimensions and weight. Amazon says 9.5"x6.5"x2". (How can it only be 1.6 lbs??) It's massive!! And worse, yet, the font is TINY!! I'm beyond intimidated now. I'm just plain scared!!