Quick thoughts on long books

Join this channel or my Patreon to get access to perks:

_____
Other ways to support the channel (if you want to, honestly, just you watching my videos is amazing):
- Visit my bookshop and support me and indie bookstores
- Mail me things:
Olly Clarke
PO Box 2225
SHOREHAM-BY-SEA
BN43 9GT
United Kingdom
________
Music: Who's Afraid of Halloween by Alfred Grupstra from Pixabay

[billfreeman]

I just turned 71 and have, with much regret 😢, decided to give up on the Malazan series. I’ve read 3 or 4 of them but long ago enough that I would have to re-read them to refresh my memory and then there are 6 or 7 more complicated tomes to go through. They would simply take up too much of what time I have left and there are WAY too many other great books to enjoy.

[evapeat]

I am in my late sixties and I still read a mixture of long and shorter books. It just depends on my mood, sometimes you want to wallow in a big book. I don’t worry about how many more years I have left to read all my books, just pick up whatever you want to read and enjoy the experience. After all you can’t read everything, even though you might like to. Cheers

[CheveeDodd]

I like both, but lately I've been excited when my kindle says I'm starting a 4 hour book. 🙃

[MarinaK]

I read both equally, but I prefer longer books. I experienced two extremes recently. Last year I was focusing on reading through my TBR shelves, and in May I decided to read through as many books of 100-200 pages length as I could in a month. I ended up reading around 40 books and by the end kinda hated the experience. I enjoyed most of the books I read, but hated constantly having to start a new book. And a year later I don’t remember much from those books since I spent such a short time with each of them. This last January on the other hand, I decided to read books that were 500+ pages. I read 8 books and loved that reading month. I love the experience of being completely immersed in a long book for a good chunk of time - especially once you had time to get to know all the characters, and you are used to the authors writing style and language, and you have a good sense of world/setting and the story just flows. My favorite kind of reading.

[breehuds]

Great topic! I too used to read a lot more long books (as a fellow Stephen King fan) but now second guess books that are more than 350 to 400 pages. So I try to mix it up and only read those longer ones if they are classics. But to balance it I generally have a 2nd book going while I’m reading the longer book. This actually helps me read both books faster and not stress out about my ever growing tbr list.

[ellesreptiles]

You just articulated exactly what has been going on with my reading habits. I've always been a 1 book at a time sort of person, but recently started making sure I'm always reading a long and short book at the same time (different genres, so I don't get confused). I'm 31, but had a stroke last year, and I'm definitely doing the "not sure how many reading years I have left, and want to read them all" sort of thing. Enjoyed this video, as always! 😊

[duanespurlock]

As I've gotten older, it takes a special interest in a book for me to even pick up a volume that's more than 200 pages. Most of the longer books I've read were tackled when I was younger.

I agree with you about the optimal length for a crime novel. Most classic hard-boiled novels fall into the "right" length. Many French noirs fall into the shorter length category--the past few years I've really been enjoying Jean-Patrick Manchette's novels that have been appearing in English translations. But a recent visit to the Gallimard Serie Noire site showed that most of the current publications are fat, long novels--influenced, no doubt, by the popularity of Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy.

[inanimatecarbongod]

I'm of similar age to you (will be 50 in November) but with my crappy health I probably have a lot fewer years ahead of me than you do. As such I tend to be hesitant about starting long books that look like they might take me more than two or three days to finish... but I have so many of the bloody things on the backog that I need to just dive into some of them and get it over with. This sort of thing never used to bother me as much when I was younger, maybe I had more mental energy for them or something, but since the stroke (15 years ago today) large books daunt me more.
For what it may be worth, the longest book I've ever read is Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (about 3000 pages in my Folio Society), and the longest novel A Glastonbury Romance (just shy of 1200 pages).

[chrisgomes]

I've hesitated to committing to reading long books. It feels like a dare. But when people whose opinions I respect (e.g. You) recommend one, I put it in my public library (or Amazon) wish list. Still I want to read some longer works. More importantly, I've stopped focusing on things like the Goodreads Reading Challenge - which incentivizes quantity (i.e. more short works over longer works) and hopefully this will mentally free up some bandwidth so I'll jump into longer works. Great video as always.

[Steve_Stowers]

I appreciate what you say about enjoying rthe experience of being immersed in a novel over a longer period of time. But I also think that some books, long AND short, work best when read relatively slowly and in smaller doses (like, a chapter or two a night), where you keep coming back to the story and that way you keep coming back to the world of the book and watch the story progress over time. Whereas other books work best if you read through them relatively quickly and continuously, like binge-watching a TV series.

[georgebrown]

I read The Adventurers and loved it. I gave up on The Moon Pool. Trying it again on audio. Totally gave up on the second book of Imajica.

[SamAlbertMorrisonMusic]

Couldn’t agree more about the benefits of short books!
Currently, I’m on a break from the dark tower series for this very reason. The shorter books I’ve been reading in between (flowers for Algernon, annihilation, shrinking man) have been so much more enjoyable as a result of their shorter length!

[ginabeena]

Longest fiction book I ever read was Ken Follet's The pillars of the Earth. Nearly a thousand pages but I loved it so much! ❤️

[duffypratt]

Always fun to check my data for something like this. Not counting rereads, I’ve read and recorded approx. 2200 books. Of these, 500 were over 500 pages (23%), while 900 were under 300 pages (42%). So, as I expected, I spend more time reading longer books. If I enjoy the book, its length will only be a virtue. Thus, I’m much more likely to reread very long books. For example, I’m nearly done with my third read of the Malazan books - that’s to very big books. I’ve read Moby Dick about 10 times, and I’m working my way through a reread of Trollope’s bigger books.

Nothing against short books, but they are over so fast, and rarely stick with me. But there are some series of shorter books that I love — mostly mysteries, though I rarely read them anymore.

[sheriffflynn]

I'm fine with both. If the book sounds intriguing, if the cover pulls me in, if a Booktuber I trust recommends it, I'll check it out. That said, I do have a general amount of pages I give the story before I put it down and move on. It used to be 75-100 pages, but I've shrunk that down to 50-75 pages. If a story feels like it has some potential despite my struggles, I'll push closer to 75, but if it's meandering, boring, or just not clicking in some way, then it gets around 50 pages until I DNF. That's time I can spend on many other things, whether it be reading a book that calls to me more, a project I wanna get off the ground, or even just catching up on something like chores. So a book's really gotta do a good job early to hook me, then maintain that hook to keep me going, no matter the size. If it's a bigger sized book, though, it's gotta make sure it can justify every page. I haven't thought on it yet, but maybe I should consider middle of the book sagging and how many pages to give that. I don't know, though. Can someone feel intense middle sagging and say no to finishing a story? Is that a faux pas? I don't think so, but now I'm rolling that around in my mind. Thanks, Olly, haha.

[ReadingIDEAS.-uzxk]

Best wishes with what people read, long or short. I hope you get some great stories.

[RyanLisbon]

Am in love with the Elizabeth George Lynley and Havers mystery series and John Connolly's Charlie Parker series. Many entries are over 700 pages which must make any reader pause. I try and read 200 pages a day whether it be Crime and Punishment or the lighter stuff.

It's fun to watch you progress through long books but as a major influencer it's understandable your need to finish novels. You got a few thousand books left in you Olly, mostly prickly weird ones no doubt.

[nedmerrill]

I tend to gravitate _towards_ longer books, especially the classics. I'm currently reading two: _Martin Chuzzlewit_ by Dickens and Lady Audley's Secret by Mary Elizabeth Braddon. Longer books have a bigger payoff. I expect it will take me a couple of weeks to get through _Chuzzlewit._ I'm reading _Lady Audley_ in installments over the phone, that will take until mid-July.

[AllenFreemanMediaGuru]

I have read some long books: Swan Song, Lonesome Dove, The Talisman, etc. But more of the time I completely lose interest in some long books. I could not finish -The Stand, IT, 11/22/63. Around midway the story just flattens out with very slow progress. I feel like I failed but I stop reading anything until I surrender and move on.

[jeffnewbery]

I read a lot of James Michener and Edward Rutherford in the past but it has been quite some time ago. I enjoyed the pace although I suspect some folks would find them slow. They worked well for me at the time but my recent past has included books that are in the 350-700 page range. Not sure the reason why.