Life Too Short, Novels Too Long

Seemingly inspired by the fact that John Sayles was having a problem finding a publisher for his latest novel, Jean Hannah Edelstein used the news to frame a piece for The Guardian’s booksblog that suggests that contemporary readers no longer have the patience for books that are very long. At one point, Edelstein says that “we are living in an era where novels of epic length are unlikely to be of interest to most readers.” This because four short books are better than one long one? Yes, says Edelstein:

And when there are so many thousands of books to enjoy, it seems inefficient to read a single volume of 200,000 words if there’s any risk that it won’t be a work of staggering genius ... when the time could be equally spent enjoying a diversity of works from several different writers.

So Edelstein is telling us we must stick to the task at hand. It’s not about the journey, but the destination. And she who has read the most books before she dies wins? Never mind lingering over the perfect prose of a wonderful writer, there are stacks of books to be gotten through, people. We must stay on target, we must keep on track.

And that's a reading culture that has cultivated the short, snappy writing of our best contemporary prose stylists -- and, indeed, of the efforts of our best editors, the ones recognise the difference between brilliant lyrical prose and fatuous overwriting. Consider the Booker prize winners of the last few years .... Thanks to these models of modern literature, I now find it difficult to read a novel that is much longer without feeling impatient, without fighting the urge to whip out my red pen and start crossing out the extraneous bit because the editor didn't, because the author was too proud ... to accept that quantity is not the same as quality.

It seems to me that these are the words of someone who has read only childishly and without depth.

Reading for pleasure is not a race. The person who gets to the end of the book first does not win. You are not a more successful reader for having gotten through more books.

Further, the length of a book has nothing at all to do with its quality. I’ve read 1000 page books that weren’t long enough and books of barely 100 pages that were much, much too long. A story should take as long as it needs: not one page more or less. And, yes: publishing fashion will determine some of that. We’re in a shorter cycle now, a few years ago every other book I saw was a toe-breaker. Those cycles will come and go again. But to equate length with poor editing or slack author judgment is just... well, it’s silly. Should Melville have reduced his thoughts on the whiteness of whales to tweet length? Should Rand have had her Atlas merely grimace, not shrug? Should Tolstoy have edited out all the War and just kept the Peace?

If Edelstein is feeling impatient when reading books she feels are too long, she should either choose her reading material with greater care or cut down on her sugar intake. Perhaps both. But certainly anyone who can talk about “the difference between brilliant lyrical prose and fatuous overwriting” with a straight face, should not also be talking about her urge to whip out her own red pen.