Short books are better than long books, or are they?

Aye so, I wrote something over on the Faber blog The Thought Fox about how short books are better than long books. I stand by that, of course, but needless to say, for the purposes of getting the rise out of folk, I was slightly ‘coming the cunt’ as Begbie might put it. This was pointed out to me by some author friends who write longer books. Bless ’em.

In the interests of balance and fair play (neither of which really have any place on the internet, of course, but still), here are some fantastic long novels from the last few years (with page counts):

Nick Harkaway, The Gone Away World (532)
Jane Harris, Gillespie & I (605)
Brady Udall, The Lonely Polygamist (602)
Christos Tsiolkas, The Slap (483)
Glen David Gold, Carter Beats the Devil (560)
James Ellroy, The Cold Six Thousand (711)

How about them apples?


About Doug Johnstone

I write things
This entry was posted in doug johnstone and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Short books are better than long books, or are they?

  1. short is best – The Outsider – Camus, Crime and Punishment – Dostoevsky, Catcher in the Rye – Salinger.

  2. Marianne Kozlik says:

    I just finished reading Gillespie & I and am very confused. I got on the internet to see if I could find someone to enlighten me. I’m a 64 year old and I read about two books a week. I do not have an opinion about which I prefer, a long or short book. I just want to spend time with the “people of the book”.. In the case of G&I I enjoyed the people very much, I just “MISSED” the clues that would lead me to understand the last paragraph.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s