Very Long Books...to read or not to read

[Kasuya]

I'm having trouble thinking of a good reason why I should bother with Very Long Books that are well over 1000 pages long. Examples include Musil's Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften (ca. 2159 pages) and Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu (ca. 4194 pages). They are clearly important books, but there are thousands of canonical and non-canonical works out there that deserve my time so I don't see what could justify reading À la recherche du temps perdu when I could have read ten other books in that time frame. If they have a special relevance to you besides just being classics then it's understandable that you'd read them.

Do you read Very Long Books and if so how do you justify the time investment?

[Varislintu]

Do you read Very Long Books and if so how do you justify the time investment?

These questions went through my head when I was reading Shogun. I read slowly, so this book took up very much of my time. And when I was finished, I couldn't help thinking the author could have told the same story with much fewer pages. I hate to skip pages in fiction, though, it's sort of against my principles, so I read the whole thing to the end.

Last summer at the Finncon (fantasy & scifi conference) in Helsinki, there was a panel discussion about whether publishers steer authors to write long fantasy & scifi books just because there's an idea that they're supposed to be long, and that the natural set for an author in this genre is the trilogy. Whether the story justifies it or not. Consumers expect it. G. R. R. Martin was on that panel, and unfortunately I think he's one of those authors who easily gets distracted and starts rambling. The last volume in his series contained some completely functionless sidetracks that could easily have been covered as hearsay. At times like this, I as a reader can't help but think the usual "So many books, so little time", and feel that my time was just wasted a bit. Another person on the panel said he almost never reads long books, he has just decided they are too time consuming. Lately, I've started to think more and more in the same way. I still prefer the sturdy novel over a short story for my entertainment and escapism kick, but I've definitely started to appreciate brevity more over the years.

[modus.irrealis]

Although I've never read an extremely long book -- it seems the longest I've read is War and Peace -- but I have reread a number of books, including long ones like the Brothers Karamazov, so the idea that I could be spending my time reading new books doesn't have too much influence on me. I think in the end it's that I don't value originality all that much. I do enjoy revisiting literature that is well-done and engaging the same book. Although rereading a book a bunch of times is not exactly the same as reading a single long work, I imagine that they have a similar appeal, which just comes down to be able to "lose yourself" in the book.

But speaking of fantasy series, that genre takes it too far and I can't think of any series that wouldn't benefit greatly from massive cuts and editing (in my opinion of course). Like with the Wheel of Time series, which I want to finish just because I invested so much time in it when I was younger, but the latest book's sitting there on my desk and I've barely touched it because I don't remember anything that's happened and I couldn't survive a reread. In the end, I don't feel there is enough value to justify the time it would take.

Then again, unlike when I was younger, I have no problem abandoning books, so I would at least try a long book and if I can't lose myself in it, I probably wouldn't slog through all the way to the end.

[KingHarvest]

I'm usually reading 4 or 5 books at the same time, so I don't particularly care how long a book is.

[hashi]

I don't tend to read anything more than 300 pages unless I know it's particularly good.

[Śrāmaṇera]

French　literature has very long novels. Among them, I read Les Misérables by Victor Hugo (about 1500 pages) and Belle du Seigneur by Albert Cohen (1200 pages). But these are classics I fell in love with. I don't know if I can read very contemporary writings if they are that long.

Oh, I also kind of read James Joyce's Ulysses. Was painful !

[linguoboy]

If you like an author enough to read most of their oeuvre, how much does it matter what proportion is presented as a single work as opposed to being distributed among several? Most of Balzac's novels are linked up into a larger piece called La Comédie humaine. If you read them all (which plenty of people do and which I'd like to do one day), then you'll've read the equivalent of a novel running into the thousands of pages.

[Kasuya]

If you like an author enough to read most of their oeuvre, how much does it matter what proportion is presented as a single work as opposed to being distributed among several? Most of Balzac's novels are linked up into a larger piece called La Comédie humaine. If you read them all (which plenty of people do and which I'd like to do one day), then you'll've read the equivalent of a novel running into the thousands of pages.

The difference is that after finishing every piece of an oeuvre, you can easily decide to stop reading. However with a Very Long Book, you might realise after reading 1500 pages that you don't have much desire to read further, but there remain 1000 pages. If I've already invested the time and effort to read 1500 pages of it, and it starts to suck, I can't easily quit it, and I can't easily continue with it either. If it was a book of normal length and I had read 200 of 300 pages at the point when it started to suck, it wouldn't be a problem to just muscle my way to the end.

Note: I have no qualms about quitting a 300 page book during the first 100 pages or so if I'm not enjoying it. After having read 1/3 of the book it becomes increasingly uncomfortable to quit it even if I'm not enjoying it.

[KingHarvest]

I don't really understand the conundrum. If you no longer enjoy the book then stop. As the great novelist John Williams said, "Reading without pleasure is stupid."

[Kasuya]

I don't really understand the conundrum. If you no longer enjoy the book then stop. As the great novelist John Williams said, "Reading without pleasure is stupid."

To me it's not that black and white. For the first 1/3 or so of a book I follow that maxim. But once I have invested a lot of time and effort into reading a book, then I feel a strong desire to finish it, even if I stop enjoying it at some point. For average length books this doesn't pose any problems. For Very Long Books it does.

[modus.irrealis]

I used to think like that but then I read a book (can't remember which, but not a long one by any measure) and with maybe thirty pages left or something, the book just turned incredibly stupid and I just put the book down and never read those thirty pages because I couldn't care less anymore. Maybe you need an experience like that.

[Varislintu]

I used to think like that but then I read a book (can't remember which, but not a long one by any measure) and with maybe thirty pages left or something, the book just turned incredibly stupid and I just put the book down and never read those thirty pages because I couldn't care less anymore. Maybe you need an experience like that.

Usually thirty pages indeed is a good sample size -- if you don't like it after that, give up, but not before, either. But lichtrausch said he has the quitting problem with long books, and I sort of feel the same. It's unpleasant to just stop after hundreds of pages. Not impossible, but unpleasant.

[modus.irrealis]

I agree, but I meant that there were only thirty pages remaining in the book, and it was the first time I abandoned a book being that close to the end, and after that, I no longer have any problems with tossing a book aside if it reaches a point where I'm not enjoying it at all. (Although I always reserve the right, of course, to return to a book, since I've found that my enjoyment depends on a lot of factors besides the book itself.)

[Giovanni]

To read a normal sized book written in an aulic elevated style or with an avantgardistic attitude so that you find technical, aulic, desuete words and constructions together with low registers, well, this requires more time than reading a long book which is a very normal novel written in an ordinary or even colloquial style.
Not to mention the opposition poetry - novel: I need more time to read Of The Sepulchres by Ugo Foscolo or The Day by Parini than a long crap written down by De Carlo. The question is not just the time one needs to read a given text, but the time one needs to be able to understand it for real.
For these reasons, your doubt seems pointless to me.

[Varislintu]

I agree, but I meant that there were only thirty pages remaining in the book, and it was the first time I abandoned a book being that close to the end, and after that, I no longer have any problems with tossing a book aside if it reaches a point where I'm not enjoying it at all.

Oh, I see! I think I'd need an experience like that as well, then, because I'd find it very difficult to quit with 30 pages left. Rationally I understand how useless it is to voluntarily read something one doesn't enjoy, but still I like the feeling of completion that comes with finishing a book. It's officially over and concluded. Hard decision to make.

[Zorba]

It depends what your goals are. If your goals are an overall familiarity with the canon (know as many great writers as possible), I can understand why you might want to choose a shorter work rather than one of the 1000 pages + marathons. For example, I'm not sure if I would recommend reading all of War and Peace to get to know Tolstoy. Reading Hadji Murat (only 150 pages, and very enjoyable) and the second epilogue of War and Peace will serve as a fine introduction to Tolstoy.

On the other hand, if your goal is simply to read great books, with the emphasis on the pleasure that comes from the reading experience, rather than the acquisition of knowledge, you may well choose to read all of War and Peace. It's a riveting read, both as a yarn and as an intellectual meditation. However, you'll add some 20 hours to your time with Tolstoy in comparison to the Hadji Murat + second epilogue situation.

Both options are fine and rewarding. The important thing is to know what you want. You probably can't read all the great works of literature in detail in your life, so make informed choices. When I start with a writer that I want to get to know, I try to read something short to begin with. That tells me if I want to pursue the work of that writer further. In general, I advise approaching an unfamiliar writer through a shorter, lesser-known work and then moving to the masterpiece if you're still intrigued.

[Kasuya]

It depends what your goals are.

My goals are to enjoy myself and to learn something from what I'm reading. I enjoy science books the most these days, but I still like becoming more familiar with "the canon".

If your goals are an overall familiarity with the canon (know as many great writers as possible),

I pay more attention to which works are considered canonical, rather than which authors are considered canonical. If that makes sense...

I can understand why you might want to choose a shorter work rather than one of the 1000 pages + marathons. For example, I'm not sure if I would recommend reading all of War and Peace to get to know Tolstoy. Reading Hadji Murat (only 150 pages, and very enjoyable) and the second epilogue of War and Peace will serve as a fine introduction to Tolstoy.

For example, in this case, since I've heard War and Peace mentioned a million times, but never heard of Hadji Murat until I saw your post, I would want to try my luck with War and Peace rather than Hadji Murat, despite the length difference.

On the other hand, if your goal is simply to read great books, with the emphasis on the pleasure that comes from the reading experience, rather than the acquisition of knowledge, you may well choose to read all of War and Peace. It's a riveting read, both as a yarn and as an intellectual meditation. However, you'll add some 20 hours to your time with Tolstoy in comparison to the Hadji Murat + second epilogue situation.

Both are important to me.

You probably can't read all the great works of literature in detail in your life, so make informed choices.

Yeah, and it's best that way. It would be a shame to ever run out of good literature to read. hehe

In general, I advise approaching an unfamiliar writer through a shorter, lesser-known work and then moving to the masterpiece if you're still intrigued.

It works so long as the author wasn't a one hit wonder whose only quality book(s) was a long one.

[Trapy]

I used to avoid them, because of all the "empty space". But, i started reading some "Omnibuses" from the black library (cheesy sci-fi). Basically, take 3 or 4 short books (250-300 pages) and cram them together, and sell them for the price of 2 books. It's a big value thing. I'm on my 4th one like that, and it's good.

Although i admit it was very daunting at first. But once you get "hooked" you want it to never end.