different lengths are suitable for different books. Les miserables benefits from it's great length, but it would be a detriment to a Hemingway novel, for example. some things need to be concise, whereas others are improved by lengthy digressions. there is no ideal length
Thanks to the digital medium, we can finally write single volume works in the million page range. In the future authors will not write multiple novels or series but only ONE book in their whole lifetime. This will usher in an utopian era of literature.
Enough pages to get the story told, or enough pages to deeply inform on subject.
Lower than that and you run into stupid trilogies and incomplete info pamphlets.
that's not a fair attitude anon
if I am say an editor and say 200 pages, the author could probably distill 400 pages into 200 without any loss... or expand 100 into 200 without any dilution
but when we come to stuff like "Enough pages to get the story told, or enough pages to deeply inform on subject" then we get into the hairy issue of CONTEXT which gets automatically resolved in the first case I mentioned
resolving the issue of context is a very hairy subject, evidence being that science needed 200 years to do so (if you don't believe me, read any scientific work from 1800 or 1900: same rigor but major difference in "para-content")
so yeah, I prefer shitty authors writing stupid works (trilogies or pamphlets), at least I can more quickly judge if I should read or not
Enough that I can finish it in under 3 days
How many pages per day can you read
300-500, depending on a number of factors
I don't believe that.
Ask me how much I care
How much do you care?
A lot
I don't believe that
400-600
Books more than that are usually heavily padded with lots of nothing
a little bit longer if i enjoy it and a little shorter if i don't
180 pages in the English language, anything more speaks to a deficit in logocognitive optimization.
short story: <50
novella: ~180
novel: 200<x<700
play: ~140
poetry/epic poems: any
essays and philosophy: any
200<x<700
x<<700-200
x<<700+(-200)
x<<(700 +/- 200)
x<<(700 / (±200))
x<< ????
I’m stuck bros
200 pages, so I am able to carry it everywhere while not looking like a fricking nerd
250 pages give or take 50%
1079 pages
different lengths are suitable for different books. Les miserables benefits from it's great length, but it would be a detriment to a Hemingway novel, for example. some things need to be concise, whereas others are improved by lengthy digressions. there is no ideal length
300 pages
Thanks to the digital medium, we can finally write single volume works in the million page range. In the future authors will not write multiple novels or series but only ONE book in their whole lifetime. This will usher in an utopian era of literature.
A few thousand pages.
Who the hell is Casanova and why would I want to spend so much of my free time reading about his life
>he does not know
I love reading memoirs especially of the 18th century. This is one of the great first hand sources of life in that time.
he introduced syphilis to central europe
singlehandedly even
Imagine the smell
150 pages
350 pages. An hour of reading a night, 50 pages, and you can get through a book a week without trying.
1-2 pages for the synopsis so i can pretend to have read it and shitpost on IQfy
25-34 honestly is the only pages IM happy to see in a novel. Up to 90-126 if it's any good. Any more and I won't read it.
As long as it takes to divulge a soul.
For a novel? 250-350 pages, ideally.
Over 400 is a bit long. Over 500, too long.
It's not the size of the book that counts, it's how much you read it.
On an e-reader the "percent done" should click up 1% in less than three "pages".
300.
As long as it takes.
more than 100, not more than 200
fiction: 150 to 250 pages
non-fiction: around 200 pages if by a single author, no more than 500 pages if by multiple authors
also
daily newspaper should be less than 12
weekly less than 24
bi-monthly less than 48
monthly less 64
less than 15% surface occupied by pictures
Enough pages to get the story told, or enough pages to deeply inform on subject.
Lower than that and you run into stupid trilogies and incomplete info pamphlets.
that's not a fair attitude anon
if I am say an editor and say 200 pages, the author could probably distill 400 pages into 200 without any loss... or expand 100 into 200 without any dilution
but when we come to stuff like "Enough pages to get the story told, or enough pages to deeply inform on subject" then we get into the hairy issue of CONTEXT which gets automatically resolved in the first case I mentioned
resolving the issue of context is a very hairy subject, evidence being that science needed 200 years to do so (if you don't believe me, read any scientific work from 1800 or 1900: same rigor but major difference in "para-content")
so yeah, I prefer shitty authors writing stupid works (trilogies or pamphlets), at least I can more quickly judge if I should read or not