The Reading Challenge Group discussion

I read this article today, in which Ian McEwan declares he likes shorter books. I think the arguments pro and against could lead to an interesting discussion. Please read on!

Award-winning writer Ian McEwan says many novels are too long and describes how much he adores shorter books or novels that can be read at one sitting

Talking about his new book, The Children Act, author Ian MCEwan said, “I would arbitrarily put the novella at about 40,000 words and this is maybe 15,000 words more than that.

“If we can make this fine distinction, it’s a short novel rather than a novella. But I do love this form, the idea that we are sitting down to a book that you could read at one sitting, or within three hours much as you might go to a movie or opera or long play.

“You’ve got to establish characters very quickly, there’s room for one or two sub plots. It’s a form I adore actually.”

He also thinks American people favor longer novels, “Yes, the Americans especially love a really huge novel. I think they still pursue a notion of a great American novel and it has to be a real brick of an object.”

Meanwhile, literary publicist Colin Midson disagrees. "If you look at the recent success of the likes of Hilary Mantel and Eleanor Catton I would say that McEwan’s opinion runs against current trends and could be seen as rather self-justifying.

"Eleanor Catton said that The Luminaries was partly inspired by what TV can do - that the era of the Box Set suggests that people are engaged by long form stories and by the immersion this allows us. Which I find a more convincing argument.

"But in many respects, I think length is a red herring - surely the writing is what counts. Give me a well-written long book over an averagely written short book any day of the week."

If short is 300 pages...i guess short

I just checked and Goodreads lists The Children Act as being 240 pages. So I guess that's what McEwan means by short. But 300 pages is still nowhere close the giant books he mentions.

When finding a new book I concentrate more on the quality of the sorry and reviews that I have heard than the length of the book. Having said that, it seems that the books that I do pick tend to be longer in length. There are many shorter novels that I have loved but there are times when I finish the book and wish it had been longer!

If I had to pick an arbitrary amount, I suppose my ideal length is about 350-400 pages; enough to tell a story with enough useful information to the reader without getting over-encumbered in the details. Of course, I would be accepting of whatever page length is needed to appropriately tell a story.

I find I prefer a shorter read. I usually only get a couple of hours a night to read and even though I read at a significant speed i do find books more than 200 pages means i usually have to spend two nights reading rather than the one. However, if the book is good like the harry potter books and his dark arts trilogy by Phillip Pullman i enjoy them at the size they are. I find too many authors split a book so that one does not have a beginning middle and end and that frustrates me, I'd rather read the whole story in one go, not to say that I don't enjoy a good series, as long as each book within the series has a sub plot that has a beginning, middle and end. I find too many i read do not have this, I'd rather read it all in one go if there is no subplot and if that means a longer read then fine!!!

I will stop reading long books if they aren't my thing, but will persevere to the end with shorter books.

I prefer to read books that are 100 or more pages in length. I don't really know why, except that I feel like I've accomplished something if I read books that have a lot of pages.

The books I read vary between 160 to 560 pages, according to my Nook. Although I occasionally will read a book that is much longer. It comes down to quality for me instead of the length of the book. I tend to judge a book by reading it myself instead of judging it based on whether it has 100 pages or 900 pages. If it can pique my interest and hold it, then I will continue with it. Otherwise, I ditch it no matter the author, the reviews, or the length.

Also, if a book is not edited properly for grammar and content, I will not continue. A couple of mistakes is one thing but if it distracts from my enjoyment of reading, I toss it away or delete from my ereader.

I read both short and long ones.

I love quality, chunksters or light and wispy. My trend has been between 250 and 500 pages over the last 10 years, maybe due to lack of attention span. But since Aitziber gave me a list of 150 pages and under for our read-athon, I might be a convert to the shorties (attention span could get shorter). Really, my 2015 goal plan is to read a variety of both, since there are quite a few chunksters that are on my classic list.

It really does depend on the subject and how well it can pull you in...if it does, then I don't mind reading long books. The worst is when I dislike the book and there are still 500 pages to go but I can't drop it because I have to know what happens

I eead both short and long books. The novel itself interests me more than the number of pages. However, there needs o be a purpose for the writing. If there are pages and pages of useless stuff, I'm not impressed.
I also do like the feeling of satisfaction nd achievement I get from reading a short book in one sitting.

Leanna wrote: "The books I read vary between 160 to 560 pages, according to my Nook. Although I occasionally will read a book that is much longer. It comes down to quality for me instead of the length of the book..."

I agree about the quality of the writing! Error is human and typos happen. But grammar errors is a big no no in my book!

I tend to prefer shorter books (300 pages or less), but it really depends on the book itself. If it is a story that drags me into and keeps me excited about it then the number of pages doesn't matter much. If it is a book that IS a drag and sort of boring then the shorter the better.

Short or long , what matters to me is the novel,if the book works its magic on me i'll be stuck till it ends...but wait that means i read both short and long haha....sorry it was a stupid joke

Loooooooooong. I can't get into short books, no matter how hard I try. I don't get a chance to get sucked in, feel like I know the characters, feel like I'm living in their world. 800+ pages is my preferred length. Me love my books long time. ;)

I prefer shorter books as well. I'm a very impatient person, and I just give up beforehand when I get a long book. Right now, I'm reading A Feast for Crows, and it's taking me forever because I don't feel like I'm getting anywhere. That's what I don't like about long books. So yeah, I guess I agree with him, I prefer to be able to finish a book in one or two sittings.

Faye wrote: Loooooooooong. I can't get into short books, no matter how hard I try.

I hear you Faye! There is something that draws my eyes to the larger books at Chapters. Maybe it's the feeling of accomplishment when I get through it? I'm not sure what it is, but they just seem to pull me in more than shorter novels.

I liked the comparisons drawn in the article. I think the way we watch TV or consume other media also affects the way we read. So while there are some who view reading books like watching a movie, something to do in one or two sittings, there's also the idea of binge watching/reading.

But I think binge watching is more comparable to a readathon. The people I know who binge watch shows, set aside a couple days to do nothing but take in the show. I've certainly marathoned some shows that way, haha. And that's most like a readathon, in fact the tips and tricks in the readathon threads were along those lines.

So I wonder what reading a long book over the span of a week/s, could be compared to.

I don't care about the length of a book; it's all about the quality.

I used to love reading long books. But now my reading speed seems to be lagging, or maybe my concentration span is shinking, but something is going on. Could be I'm just getting old and impatient, but I find myself gravitating to shorter books, no more than 300 pages or so.

Aitziber wrote: "I liked the comparisons drawn in the article. I think the way we watch TV or consume other media also affects the way we read. So while there are some who view reading books like watching a movie, ..."

That's a good analogy, I agree. I much prefer following a TV show for 10 seasons to watching a one-shot movie or binge-watching something over a weekend, which would correlate with my love of long books. I guess I'm a long-term commitment kinda gal, heh!

I tend to pick the longer books but I hate when a book seems like its only purpose is to be a big book.

If it's a good book, I prefer a long book; otherwise I'm disappointed when I finish. If it's not that great, short is just fine.

A book has to be over 500 pages for me to consider it long.

I read both but longer books take me from a week to a few to read it and shorter ones take me a day to a few days to finish it.

I like long stand alone novels or short ones, depending on WHY the length. Like Stranger in a Strange Land had so much to say it had to be long. If a book is short but has too many unanswered questions left, I get upset. For series, I enjoy a long series with many shorter books (like Harry Potter) or at any rate books I can read in a short anount of time