
This is an old expression from the rag trade that was used in a
British sit-com of the same title. I'm not totally sure of its meaning but it seems to fit what I want to talk about here.
It's topic I have touched on before, the length and size of books, current crime fiction in particular. Friends who read fantasy tell me I have nothing to worry about. The tomes they read are much bigger.
But I am not sure that I understand what is happening in the crime fiction genre. Should I be grateful that many books are that much longer? I am getting more pages for my $, but am I getting quality? Is the case, as one of
my fellow bloggers said of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (533 pages),
There was an excellent 400 page novel in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and it is a pity that no one dissected it out from all the padding and extraneous detail. I myself referred to it as a
"turducken", a novel with many parts, and many flavours and styles.
I think that, back in the good old days, of Christie, Marsh etc., books were not only smaller, easier to hold, but shorter. Was the shorter novel a sign of the times, an effect of economies where paper and printing were much more expensive?
Were they as good?
These days I almost breath a sigh of relief when I pick up one, like
ROCK & ROLL HOMICIDE, that is less than 300 pages. I'm looking forward to Laurie King's TO PLAY THE FOOL which is only 260 pages!
Here are the lengths of some that I have read recently.
Can I point out too that they are mainly in trade paperback size?
THIS NIGHT'S FOUL WORK, Fred Vargas, 409 pp
A CURE FOR ALL DISEASES, Reginald Hill, 535 pp
CARELESS IN RED, Elizabeth George, 532 pp
THE CLEANER, Brett Battles, 353 pp
THE FORGOTTEN GARDEN, Kate Morton, 490 pp
VOODOO DOLL, Leah Giarratano, 303 pp
SHATTER, Michael Robotham, 466 pp
NEMESIS, Jo Nesbo, 474 pp
WHEN WILL THERE BE GOOD NEWS?, Kate Atkinson, 348 pp
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, Stieg Larsson, 533 pp
So you can see that TGWTDT is amongst the longest.
We've been discussing TGWTDT this week over on
oz_mystery_readers and length is one of the topics.
I guess the point is whether these novels are not only long in length but also long-winded.
Could they have done with better editing?
Do some authors get away with murder, so to speak?
Given that a longer novel must cost a publishing house more to print, ship, store etc. I wonder how much pressure there is to cut long manuscripts back.
Perhaps if you are an author you might like to comment on whether there are guidelines etc.
Do you have to fight hard to keep extra length?
I suspect that what happened with TGWTDT is that the publishers were dealing with a deceased estate, a dead author, and the decision was made to go largely with the manuscript as they had it, apart from obvious typos etc.
The structure of the novel would also make it difficult to decide what and where to cut. About 100 pages before the end, I thought "that's it!" and then realised that not everything was tied off and I still really didn't know the final answers.
The other effect of longer novels might be that readers would read fewer books altogether.
But my recent records don't support that idea.
2000 - 72 books, 2001 - 73 books, 2002 - 79 books, 2003 - 86 books, 2004 - 110 books, 2005 - 132 books, 2006 - 114 books, 2007 - 124 books, and already in 2008 - 78 books, more than in 2000 and 2001.
I don't actually find the length of a book offputting if it is a good read. What happens though sometimes is that the extra material, that should have been trimmed, makes it harder for the reader to appreciate what the book is about, keep track of charcaters and threads. What do you think?
In the right hand margin of this page you will find a poll where you can tell me the size of the book you are currently reading. Do give it a go! It will be fun to see how many people respond.