I know I've asked this before
Dec. 28th, 2008 09:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I was reading a mystery last night that turned out to be a lot shorter than I expected because the manuscript pages were single-sided. The book turned out to be less than 280 pages long. Despite this lack of length the author managed to fit an entire plot between the two covers.
It's comparatively rare for an SF novel to be that short and nearly unheard of for a fantasy novel to be under 300 pages. I've also never seen a mystery that came close to the brick-like dimensions of many F&SF novels. There seems to be a hard limit of about 400 pages over in mystery.
Mysteries also eschew the cliff-hanger ending and the book-fragment approach, which I greatly appreciate.
Does it make sense to ask why modern [1] F&SF readers appear to prefer longer lengths than do mystery readers?
1: I have a number of older books upstairs that come in under 200 pages and like the mystery they all have complete plots.
It's comparatively rare for an SF novel to be that short and nearly unheard of for a fantasy novel to be under 300 pages. I've also never seen a mystery that came close to the brick-like dimensions of many F&SF novels. There seems to be a hard limit of about 400 pages over in mystery.
Mysteries also eschew the cliff-hanger ending and the book-fragment approach, which I greatly appreciate.
Does it make sense to ask why modern [1] F&SF readers appear to prefer longer lengths than do mystery readers?
1: I have a number of older books upstairs that come in under 200 pages and like the mystery they all have complete plots.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 12:04 am (UTC)Publishers need a certain ratio of words to income as part of a spreadsheet to justify themselves to their investors. However, new authors are a chancy thing- more often then not they won't pan out. So to their eyes it is safer to have one author writing 5X words, than 5 authors writing X words.
Also (and more seriously), advertising a novel, persuading both the book sellers and the public to buy it, is a non-trivial expense. By having fewer, larger novels the publishers and sellers can concentrate their advertising dollars on a few, focused ad campaigns.
The upshot of this trend of course will be a single book published each year, approximately the size of the entire world-book encyclopedia set.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 01:09 am (UTC)CommunistJohannine threat (a Satanically inspired counterculture/faith): Kind of verbose, no? Ham-handed; telling not showing; and I thought *I* had an ax. But here's the introductory paragraph to the first Operation Chaos story: In the first nine paragraphs, there are eight new analogies but only one explanation, which in fact is tangential.Anderson is far from the only author who became more Clavin-esque with time; but many SF authors became Clavin-esque at around the same time. I'm not sure why. But I think those authors formed the model for many subsequent SF writers. (The roots of the problem in fantasy are different, I think.)
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 01:19 am (UTC)Re: The way David Hartwell explained it to me ...
Date: 2008-12-29 03:49 am (UTC)The next question is, why did these publishing demands work out so differently in f/sf than in mystery? Why are mystery novels thinner than f/sf? It's not just that f/sf has *room* for doorstop novels and trilogies; I think the average f/sf book is substantially thicker than the average mystery novel.
I will also note that there are more non-series f&sf novels published than non-series mystery--pretty much every genre mystery novel is assumed to be part of a series. Contrawise, as James pointed out, mysteries are at least always complete stories rather than "whoops, reached the word count, go buy the next two novels to see how it turns out".
(I note that romance novels--outside of the disposable novels like Harlequin--have also gotten physically bigger during the period of the growth of f/sf novels.)
Re: The way David Hartwell explained it to me ...
Date: 2008-12-29 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 06:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 07:15 am (UTC)Anderson
Date: 2008-12-29 10:35 am (UTC)OC is four novellas, and three of the four are ambitious and flawed in different ways. It's not a great book, but it's a very interesting one just from the how-does-the-sausage-happen POV.
Frex, the infodumps in part IV are indeed awful, as is the ham-handed attempt to connect the bad guys to Current Events. (Anderson caught a bad case of dirtyfuckinghippyphobia right around the time he wrote this... in fact, this might be the first appearance of it in his writing.) (Funny coincidence: right around this time, c. 1969, the Nixon administration was coordinating a huge, illegal, covert domestic surveillance program to try to find the non-existent connections between domestic dissidents, war protesters, and ***The Communist Menace***. Its name: Operation Chaos.) And parts of that story are even worse than you've shown. And yet, there are some powerful images -- mostly the ones where he shows only a single piece of something, or just alludes.
Clavinism, first off-the-cuff guess: reaction to the New Wave. Good writing is what those weird guys are doing; it's all literary and has girl cooties now. Let's go back to cardboard characters, simple plots with wicked villains, and 'as you know, Bob' explication.
Doug M.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 12:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 01:32 pm (UTC)ergh.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 01:47 pm (UTC)Technology.
Date: 2008-12-29 01:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 03:51 pm (UTC)Re: Anderson
Date: 2008-12-29 03:59 pm (UTC)Re: Technology.
Date: 2008-12-29 05:07 pm (UTC)Your think is wrong.
Publishers will take in an electronically-delivered MS ... if it's one they already issued a contract for. (My UK editors all gleefully brandished Sony Readers at me when I dropped in on them last month: saves them lugging briefcases full of dead tree betwixt home and office if they want reading matter on the commuter run.) And they require it, these days, when it's time to send it to the (external, third-party, outsourced) typesetting department.
But unsolicited submissions are an entirely different matter. If you let folks submit electronically, then half of them -- the half who don't read your submission guidelines or don't think they apply to *them* -- will spam the entire industry senseless with megabyte sized email attachments.
PS: This is not to say that word processors haven't made it easier to write longer books, and indeed TNH has opined that this factor alone caused the average slush submission to grow by 10% during the 1980s. But it's not a primary cause.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 05:29 pm (UTC)How does that affect the analysis?
I think the books in some mystery series are growing longer.
Date: 2008-12-29 05:38 pm (UTC)It's a rare magazine story these days that I don't condense by reading until I get bored before reading the last page. Sometimes that means first paragraph and last page! If my sister and my spouse didn't also read them, I'd stop subscribing to EQ and Alfred Hitchcock. (I also no longer notice any difference between the two magazines.)
I read every last one of the old stories all the way through, even though there were more of them to the issue.
Re: Technology.
Date: 2008-12-29 05:49 pm (UTC)Though that may be because Asimov's is possibly run by idiots more than anything else.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 06:37 pm (UTC)Re: Anderson
Date: 2008-12-29 06:40 pm (UTC)I'd say that's the case here -- the whole "Johannine Church as COMMUNISM, with a touch of counterculture thrown in" is not well thought out.
Perhaps more to the point, look at the other example Carlos gave. Same author, same series, but he managed to "show" very well without any infodumping whatsoever. And fast -- that's a single paragraph. A very dense one.
Anderson even seems to be vaguely aware that he's committing a sticky; notice the "Brother, it didn't happen in one day". That's Anderson... what's the trope for when you're trying to spackle over something, and end up hanging a lampshade on it?
Doug M.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 06:41 pm (UTC)It was a useless info dump, that needed to be whacked down to two pages at most, and a sign that the author while a credible computer scientist really needed some training in how to write a book.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-29 06:45 pm (UTC)If it had been a story done today, Bolyai and Lobachevsky would have each gotten a couple chapters, or maybe a hundred pages each. Most likely starting from their conception. Or hell, if it had been Jorden or Martin writing the book, Bolyai and Lobachevsky would have been a couple of main characters for an entire volume.