Books and what is considered small.

[mycoltbug]

So recently a friend posted on facebook recommendations for book recommendations. They said that Stand Alone books are optimal but a short series is ok. I recommended Night Angel by Brent Weeks which to me a trilogy at 800 pages each is short. Something I could read in less than a month and be good with it. But that made me think more on what is considered short. Thus the poll. Tell me what you think about the size of a series/book. Does size matter or is it subjective individually?

[Eerongal he/him]

I guess i'll go ahead and add my 2 cents.

I voted for 4 (combination of 1 & 2)

For me to consider a book "small", if it's an individual stand alone book, i would say the line would be drawn somewhere in the 300-500 page count.

If it's an entire series of books, i would consider it small if all of the books added up to probably less than 1000 pages in total, divided up over however many books.

I consider 600-800 pages in a single book to be a good-sized, mid range sort of read, and up to and over 1000 pages to be a long read.

Edit: also, i suppose it's important to distinguish, we're referring to novels, right, not like novellas? since novellas usually don't go more than like 100-200 pages. Because a novella is certainly a short book, and if we include those, I would say i would consider "short" a novella, and then medium would be novels up to 800 or so.

[Joe ST he/him]

I went for the first one, since I'm a little pedantic and distinguish between the book and the story. klol, so the book is the physical dimensions of (part of) the story

[Adrienne she/her]

I think it's the overall page count that determines the size. Someone could write three 100 page novels and that's still short!

[Ego]

Yep - I'd say it's the size per story that counts,because that's where you stop: you've got your resolution (for now). For example, I'd go with the Dresden Files as 'short' (fantasy terms).

[Oditogre]

I picked 'Other', for reading time relative to page count. This makes allowances for books that have lots of pages but still feel like a 'fast read', or the opposite case.

For series length, assuming more or less equivalent book lengths, I think once you get past the trilogy you can't be called 'short'. Individually, Dresden Files books are short, but the series as a whole certainly isn't, IMHO.

[guess]

books have gotten a lot longer over the last 40-50 years in general. I remember reading that in the 1950s books needed to be short enough so people can finish them on a train or bus ride. Books may continue to get longer as more go to ebooks since this eliminates the printing costs. Yeah I know, printing costs now are a smaller percentage of publishing, but there are limits.

Sometimes I really like shorter books. I get in and I get out. I like to sample different authors. This is a good way to do it.

[Joe ST he/him]

books have gotten a lot longer over the last 40-50 years in general. I remember reading that in the 1950s books needed to be short enough so people can finish them on a train or bus ride. Books may continue to get longer as more go to ebooks since this eliminates the printing costs. Yeah I know, printing costs now are a smaller percentage of publishing, but there are limits.

Sometimes I really like shorter books. I get in and I get out. I like to sample different authors. This is a good way to do it.

You are correct in that the printing overheads are the problem with big books, I doubt they'll get significantly thicker/larger due to the binding limitations.

[dj26792 he/him]

I voted for the number of books in the series, because when I read it doesnt tend to matter how long the book is, I will read it in a day, 2 at the absolute most, at least the first time through. So I dont consider the length of the books when Im looking at a new series, except that longer is generally better, up to a point, because it means the story will tie me up for longer (I nearly died when I picked up tWoK, that good, and that long... it was a two day book, I forced myself to make it last that long, also only started at like 8pm)

[Feloxia she/her]

You are correct in that the printing overheads are the problem with big books, I doubt they'll get significantly thicker/larger due to the binding limitations.

What about books that are sold digitally? If a book is only sold digitally, then the only limit is data storage.

[Joe ST he/him]

What about books that are sold digitally? If a book is only sold digitally, then the only limit is data storage.

indeed, ebook only can be as big as you want, as long as the file format and any reading software can deal with the size. Some (bad) software might try and load the whole book in one, which would be a bad idea.

[Musicspren he/him]

I voted for Word Count, because, although it is harder to find out, it is more realistic as to the length than page count. For example, on Amazon, the TWoK Hardcover is listed as 1008 pages, while the Mass Market Paperback is listed as 1280. The same book "grew" by over 25% in page count between forms. Books in a series is a close second (although total word count for a series would cover that aspect as well).

However, I do think there should be an option of "Amount of Damage Inflicted When Thrown," which would encompass all factors somewhat. The Way of Kings hardcover could give an Inquisitor pause.