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

In praise of the hundred page idea

tracydurnell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#41

Post by lifefeed »

I think this author is talking about a subset of non-fiction books, and we may as well call them "non-fiction idea" books, where the writer has a single idea they want to convince you of. On Tyranny does that. And sure, maybe books like Checklist Manifesto and The Goal could have been reduced to a hundred tight pages.

The hundred page idea definitely doesn't apply to non-fiction in general though. I can't imagine a history book or a biography covering what they need in a hundred pages. I don't think Chip War could be reduced.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#42

Post by adamgordonbell »

theboywho wrote: post #35

I think a lot of comments are missing the point : it’s not about page size. Today, most book writers are following a template of about 300-pages imposed by their editor, this (non justified) rule sold as a sweet spot is being (blindly?) applied by most authors and seems to be producing books that are unfocused. What should be understood from the blog article is not that 100-pages books are inherently better, but that…

It varies by book genre, but there are clearly page number requirements for each sub genre.

A history book will not be best selling if its not a giant doorstop of a book. A narrative non-fiction book will be shorter and snappier because different expectations hold.

A fantasy book should be a tome, etc etc.

For non-fiction, editors very much do enforce these limits. A short history book won't be taken seriously, unless its repackaged as a different type of book.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#43

Post by cauch »

karaterobot wrote: post #12

> Part of why I dislike essay collections is their neverendingness; I’ll read two, three, four essays in a volume and I still can’t cross it off my list. An incomplete task, it becomes a mental weight, an obligation. I’m deprived of the satisfaction of finishing. Not being able to close a book without reading everything in it is a problem. People need to get over this, it's compulsive behavior. You don't have to read…

I understand for a novel or something. But for an essay, not finishing it is sometimes not finishing the argument and therefore not understanding the point at all.

I guess the article's point is that an essay is presenting one idea in the smallest amount of sentences possible. Imagine you do that and get an essay with 100 pages. It means that 90 pages is not enough to understand the idea. Now, imagine I uselessly triple the number of pages by repeating each sentence in 3 different ways. In this case, if I just read the first 100 pages and stop, I did not understood the idea, and reading these 100 pages was at best useless (the situation is the same as if I did not know the idea at all) or more realistic counter-productive (I have badly understood the idea).

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#44

Post by Tomte »

lifefeed wrote: post #41

I think this author is talking about a subset of non-fiction books, and we may as well call them "non-fiction idea" books, where the writer has a single idea they want to convince you of. On Tyranny does that. And sure, maybe books like Checklist Manifesto and The Goal could have been reduced to a hundred tight pages. The hundred page idea definitely doesn't apply to non-fiction in general though. I can't imagine a h…

> And sure, maybe books like Checklist Manifesto and The Goal could have been reduced to a hundred tight pages.

The Checklist Manifesto came from a New Yorker article. The article was perfect, the book is repetitive and full of stuff (building plans for a office tower are a checklist — sure, and at that point the word has lost all its meaning).

Read the article! Really, it‘s great. Skip the book.

And the book is rather thin already, not some 600 pager.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#45

Post by _t9ow »

aguaviva wrote: post #37
kome wrote: post #28

kind reminder that timothy snyder isn’t held in great regard by other historians, even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp. especially on methodological grounds, omer bartov and richard evans have called out his use of chronological juxtaposition, saying it implies connections between events without enough evidence. this, along with other critiques, makes it an entertaining hundred page maybe, but not great…

even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp Snyder isn't right-wing at all. Where did that come from?

> Where did that come from?

His ass.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#46

Post by Maxamillion96 »

karaterobot wrote: post #12

> Part of why I dislike essay collections is their neverendingness; I’ll read two, three, four essays in a volume and I still can’t cross it off my list. An incomplete task, it becomes a mental weight, an obligation. I’m deprived of the satisfaction of finishing. Not being able to close a book without reading everything in it is a problem. People need to get over this, it's compulsive behavior. You don't have to read…

if im reading a big sci-fi anthrology, i just search for key-terms that interest me and read the stories that contain them (eg, robot, colony,planet etc)

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#47

Post by ergonaught »

I've been leaning in this direction for several years, now. Longer books generally are a) trying to do too many things at once, or b) demonstrate that the author doesn't understand their topic very well, or c) are filled with padding, usually as some form of Social Proof or similar, with irrelevant "case studies" or 500 irrelevant footnotes/references so on.

Quite similar with 2 hour long "podcasts". There's little to no respect for the subject, the audience, or the "author" on display in most of these. Exceptions tending to prove the "rule".

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#48

Post by johngossman »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #30
kome wrote: post #28

kind reminder that timothy snyder isn’t held in great regard by other historians, even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp. especially on methodological grounds, omer bartov and richard evans have called out his use of chronological juxtaposition, saying it implies connections between events without enough evidence. this, along with other critiques, makes it an entertaining hundred page maybe, but not great…

Snyder is right-wing? News to me! (Speaking of right-wing historians, does anyone have thoughts on Richard Pipes? Specifically his book on the Russian Revolution. I found it fascinating, but it has been criticized, and I'm not sure how much credence to give the critiques.)

While we’re on the subject of reading advice, here’s mine. If I really want to learn something, like the history of the Russian Revolution, I have to read it three times. So, I’d read Pipes, then read Antony Beevor, then read China Mieville, then triangulate. Pick any three authors. Pipes was definitely conservative, but there is no such thing as completely objective history, especially on a topic like the Russian Revolution (arguably the most political event since the French Revolution)

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#49

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

cauch wrote: post #43
karaterobot wrote: post #12

> Part of why I dislike essay collections is their neverendingness; I’ll read two, three, four essays in a volume and I still can’t cross it off my list. An incomplete task, it becomes a mental weight, an obligation. I’m deprived of the satisfaction of finishing. Not being able to close a book without reading everything in it is a problem. People need to get over this, it's compulsive behavior. You don't have to read…

I understand for a novel or something. But for an essay, not finishing it is sometimes not finishing the argument and therefore not understanding the point at all. I guess the article's point is that an essay is presenting one idea in the smallest amount of sentences possible. Imagine you do that and get an essay with 100 pages. It means that 90 pages is not enough to understand the idea. Now, imagine I uselessly tri…

An essay collection is multiple essays.

As for one 100-page essay, you should definitely be able to understand the idea within 90 pages (hopefully 10 pages). The author might need 100 pages to close off all major counterarguments, cite precedence, explore some second-order tradeoffs, underscore the importance of their argument using evidence, and lay the groundwork for future areas of investigation.

We could say "just cut out that stuff" but that weakens the essay and makes it shallow. Instead, it's uo to the reader to skip it if they don't have time or interest. But then they should also hold off on dismissing it based on counterarguments for which they declined to read the provided rebuttals.

Re: In praise of the hundred page idea

#50

Post by pessimizer »

Tomte wrote: post #44
lifefeed wrote: post #41

I think this author is talking about a subset of non-fiction books, and we may as well call them "non-fiction idea" books, where the writer has a single idea they want to convince you of. On Tyranny does that. And sure, maybe books like Checklist Manifesto and The Goal could have been reduced to a hundred tight pages. The hundred page idea definitely doesn't apply to non-fiction in general though. I can't imagine a h…

> And sure, maybe books like Checklist Manifesto and The Goal could have been reduced to a hundred tight pages. The Checklist Manifesto came from a New Yorker article. The article was perfect, the book is repetitive and full of stuff (building plans for a office tower are a checklist — sure, and at that point the word has lost all its meaning). Read the article! Really, it‘s great. Skip the book. And the book is rath…

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/12/10/the-checklist
Post reply on HN