Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bestselling books have been getting shorter

wordsrated.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#111

Post by dredmorbius »

elmomle wrote: post #16
yojo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my first thought. Maybe it’s not “books are getting shorter,” but “publishers are getting cheaper.” Decreasing margins, decreasing font size, etc could all explain a diminishing page count to save on printing costs. That said, from looking into publishing, it seems like consensus is anything over 100k words (approx 400 pages) is basically unsellable unless you’re Stephen King or something. It’s not clear to…

Many of the longer novels in classic literature were originally serialized, and only later compiled into the lengthy tomes we know today.

Specifically, works published from roughly 1830 through the first quarter or half of the 20th century, driven by falling publication costs and rising literacy. Charles Dickens on particular developed the model, with The Pickwick Papers, published in 1836. Another notable work, the Sherlock Holmes series debuted in 1887 ("A Study in Scarlet").

Earlier novels (relatively few in number) tended to appear as their own works in whole form, so far as I'm aware. Though many may have been adaptations of other works --- sagas or legends (e.g., the Faust legend), plays, and other forms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_(literature)>

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#112

Post by d0mine »

klodolph wrote: post #57

IMO most popular non-fiction books don't have enough content to justify their length. I'm not saying that the content is bad, or you shouldn't buy the book. The book is just padded out so you feel better about buying it. Who would buy a 40-page book for $15? The book gets padded out to 200 pages by repeating itself, adding filler sections, anecdotes, graphic design choices, etc. I am happy to see books get shorter if…

If you think there is not enough information density in books, then books is the wrong format, use google/page hopping instead.

A book is more like a slow conversation/an opportunity to think about a topic.

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#113

Post by dredmorbius »

rqtwteye wrote: post #62
klodolph wrote: post #57

IMO most popular non-fiction books don't have enough content to justify their length. I'm not saying that the content is bad, or you shouldn't buy the book. The book is just padded out so you feel better about buying it. Who would buy a 40-page book for $15? The book gets padded out to 200 pages by repeating itself, adding filler sections, anecdotes, graphic design choices, etc. I am happy to see books get shorter if…

That's something I have noticed with a lot of programming books. They are super long and are just pages of unfocused blablabla and screenshots. I miss books like K&R that are well written and concise. Problem is that padding most non-fiction books is really easy while padding a fiction book is hard. So expect non-fiction to get longer and fiction to get shorter.

I suspect K&R may have been written initially as an internal reference (for AT&T).

Though it also pre-dated the era of mass-market computer books, say, 1995--2010 or so.

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#114

Post by dredmorbius »

WalterBright wrote: post #64
klodolph wrote: post #57

IMO most popular non-fiction books don't have enough content to justify their length. I'm not saying that the content is bad, or you shouldn't buy the book. The book is just padded out so you feel better about buying it. Who would buy a 40-page book for $15? The book gets padded out to 200 pages by repeating itself, adding filler sections, anecdotes, graphic design choices, etc. I am happy to see books get shorter if…

Many books are padded by: 1. using thicker paper 2. using a larger font 4. more spaces between lines 5. larger margins 6. a bunch of blank and/or pointless pages at the beginning 7. ad pages at the end I see it all the time. A book's contents can vary 2:1 in length compared to another one of the same physical size.

And listicles!!! ;-)

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#115

Post by greggarious »

chrisbaker98 wrote: post #50
TylerE wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be a heavily abridged version. My full edition of RaFotRE is over 2000 pages in 3 volumes.

Are you sure you're not thinking of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"? That book is extremely long. I haven't heard of the book "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" but it might be this one from 2015: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25686327-the-rise-and-fa...

Can you post the ISBN? I suspect I got the wrong one, and Amazon owns goodreads.

(You'd be amazed the adventures you have at the library if you tell them you're doing a series of inter library loans because you're worried the Saudis owned your phone and Bezos can't be trusted.)

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#116

Post by pavon »

gumby wrote: post #59

I don't see the conclusion in the data. 30 years ago people were complaining that best sellers had become too long (think of A Suitable Boy or Infinite Jest). The data are interesting, but the conclusion of "because Internet" is neither supported or overturned by the data -- they don't explain that at all

It would have been nice if the data had gone back more than 10 years. When I read a classic I’m frequently stuck with how short they are - typically 200-300 pages. I don’t know how the authors felt when they were writing it - if they were pressured to cut what they thought was important material to fit publisher page limits. But I rarely feel like they are cramped or rushed, rather it is a breath of fresh air to read such good content in a small package rather than 400-450 pages that are merely okay.

Re: Bestselling books have been getting shorter

#118

Post by mathattack »

yamtaddle wrote: post #78
mathattack wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall someone saying “Most non-fiction books really just have a 15 minute message.” At least with fiction there can be some beauty in the extension.

I think that's true of most popular nonfiction. It gets less true fast as you move into more-serious writing and genres. But, to be fair, that crappy airport-nonfiction self-help/lazy-(auto)biography/pop-business/pop-hustle-science almalgam-genre may well be most of the non-fiction that people actually read. [EDIT] Well, that and True Crime, if we're counting that.

To me one definition of Great is that I get additional value in a second reading. In fiction Tolkien is the prime example. There are very few non-fiction authors this holds for. When I find them it’s a dangerous path as I want to read everything they ever wrote.
Post reply on HN