I find long books more difficult

[Waylander]

I don't find them more difficult in the sense that they are harder to read, but because I grow bored and either skip to the end of just give up, missing out. For instance, I had Malice by John Gwynne on my Kindle, which is a pretty heft book of over 600 pages. I thought the story sounded interesting, but the though of all those pages ahead put me off. When I read the Mistborn trilogy, I did not have this problem, probably because it is better paced. Does anyone have any tips for reading longer books?

[cfrizz]

I actually prefer long books, I don't consider the page count I focus on the story. The only time I'll abandon a book is if it doesn't capture and hold my interest regardless of the number of pages it has.

[calvin-c]

I've got to agree that what holds or loses my interest is the story, not the length. That being said however I do think there is a slightly greater percentage of 'poor' stories in longer books. I attribute that to the room the writer has to 'play' with. As an example I just finished re-reading the Fuzzy series started by H Beam Piper and 'finished' by William Tuning & Ardath Mayhar. Piper learned his craft writing for the pulps, of course. His stories were both significantly shorter & better paced than the others. The other writers, presumably because they knew they could write longer books, added more details to the background & included more characters-coming much closer to the point where I'd lose interest. I never did, quite, but I do suspect that if the whole series had been written by the posthumous writers it would have been significantly worse. Was it that the writers simply weren't as good as Piper? Possibly, but I've also heard that when a writer's room is constricted, i.e. writing short stories, the writer learns to focus on what's important & drop the extraneous stuff that just gets in the way of the readers' enjoyment.

[Ripplinger]

If it holds my interest, I sometimes don't want a book to end because I've enjoyed it so much. Length doesn't figure in at all to me. If it's a boring book, I have a hard time reading even a short story then.

[Tarana]

Pace yourself and give yourself a break. If your mind starts wandering, set that book aside. Read a short story or two. Then go back. Sometimes you just hit a snag in the story that just doesn't keep your attention. Sometimes, the rest of the story simply sucks. I mostly listen to audiobooks, but I've had that issue now and then even with those. I nearly gave up with Bad Monkey (and that wasn't a long story!) for this reason, but I'm glad I pushed through since I did enjoy the story. On the other hand, I gave up with James Michener long ago. I just can't stand his writing style although the STORY he tells is good.

[Jessica Lares]

I get lost with longer books. I start forgetting what's going on. So I jot notes and pace myself like someone else said.

I prefer shorter books because I read books for the story, and feel that it's important for the author to stick to the important elements of their story.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Waylander

I don't find them more difficult in the sense that they are harder to read, but because I grow bored and either skip to the end of just give up, missing out. For instance, I had Malice by John Gwynne on my Kindle, which is a pretty heft book of over 600 pages. I thought the story sounded interesting, but the though of all those pages ahead put me off. When I read the Mistborn trilogy, I did not have this problem, probably because it is better paced. Does anyone have any tips for reading longer books?

Perhaps you're just a short story reader? That's my favorite, though I do enjoy a novel now and then, but it's short stories that ring my chimes. I'd suggest you check out some of the anthologies, collections and single stories I've posted at various places in the reading recommendations thread.

[Istvan diVega]

I love fat tomes. If the book is good, then the longer the better. The Lord of the Rings in a single volume is about the perfect length (1300+ pages, including appendices), although another few hundred pages would have been even better.

If it's "not too bad" or just so-so, then 3-400 pages is probably enough. If it's worse than that it can be as long as it wants, as I won't be reading past page fifteen.

[HarryT]

Yes, a good long book is wonderful (and "The Lord of the Rings" is an excellent example); a bad long book can be dire.

[Yapyap]

I've noticed that I'm finding it much harder to start long books these days - and that I do get restless if I don't finish a book within a day or two.

It's almost as if I see every book as a goal these days, and that goal is to get to the end of it, preferably not taking too long to get there. Which really isn't what it should be - surely the goal is to enjoy what I read...

It troubles me. Usually, once I get going and actually enjoy the book, once I've got into it, I'm quite fine with enjoying the process and the progress, no matter how long it takes, and towards the end of a good book (regardless of length) I often find myself wishing there was more to go, but starting long books - keeping my attention on the book without grabbing my iPad to play something, or get to the computer, or distract myself in some other way, is a lot more difficult than it used to be.

Some people say kids these days have shorter attention spans - I'm not sure it's just kids; I have a feeling that the last decade of information barrage and overwhelming amount of available distractions affects quite a few adults, too.

I think I need to make a conscious effort of including more 500+ page books in my reading again, because it's obviously something where I need to get back into the habit. At least this year has so far already included two ~1000 page books in my reading list, after quite some time, I believe, so it's a step in that direction.

I do prefer 300-500 page books in general, but I used to be perfectly happy with longer works as well (I've never been a short story or novella reader, though) and I don't like the idea of ending up rejecting books that I might enjoy just because they look uncomfortably long.

[gmw]

Short novels are something I tend to slide over in the shops (which is one of the reasons why I still like shopping for paper books, you can see at a glance what you're in for). When I was younger I read a lot of short stories and short novels, but these days I find that very often, with shorter stories, I'm just getting into it when it closes, and I feel cheated. Of course, it does depend on the story. Some things are just made to be short, they wouldn't work any other way. And then there's also a mood thing. When I'm in one my easily distracted moods (which, thankfully, don't happen too often) then a collection of short stories is just the thing. But for sheer pleasure, give me a book that I can lose myself in for some significant time, and if it's good, the longer the better.

[kennyc]

Well everyone should read Steinbeck's short novels, particularly Cannery Row!

[DiapDealer]

I've read short-stories that were too long, and massive tomes that were too short. Every story needs to find its own "proper" length--whatever that may be.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I've read short-stories that were too long, and massive tomes that were too short. Every story needs to find its own "proper" length--whatever that may be.