« Restoring Brad DeLong's belief in NAFTA? | Main | Germany fact of the day »
Which are the books with the smallest print?
Editions of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy often have excessively small print. Why? The major works by those authors are long. Larger print will make the volumes too long and thus too expensive. Perhaps more importantly the volumes will appear too forbidding to the average buyer.
But isn't miniscule type for Raskolnikov hard to read? Ah...most of the people who buy the book don't read it. If miniscule type gets them to stop reading sooner rather than later, you might even call it a Pareto improvement.
Self-help books almost always have reasonably large print or even ridiculously large print. The author doesn't have much to say and the publisher wishes to pad the book so it looks real. Furthermore most self-help books are read (at least in part), so to keep the reader happy the print should be large.
Can you think of other generalizations?
Which books are most likely to go into "Large Print" editions?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 14, 2007 at 07:13 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
"Which books are most likely to go into "Large Print" editions?"
Some obvious answers: Children's books, books aimed at an elderly audience, books the text of which is short. As an example for the latter, my edition of "Twelve" has 244 pages, but could easily have been printed on 150. (It's not only the large print; it has very short chapters and each new chapter begins with almost half of the page left blank)
In my impression, publishing houses have a notion along the lines of an "ideal page count" which is somewhere between 250 and 400 pages. Who knows, it might be based on market research, too.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Jul 14, 2007 7:47:59 AM
"Which books are most likely to go into "Large Print" editions?"
Some obvious answers: Children's books, books aimed at an elderly audience, books the text of which is short. As an example for the latter, my edition of "Twelve" has 244 pages, but could easily have been printed on 150. (It's not only the large print; it has very short chapters and each new chapter begins with almost half of the page left blank)
In my impression, publishing houses have a notion along the lines of an "ideal page count" which is somewhere between 250 and 400 pages. Who knows, it might be based on market research, too.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Jul 14, 2007 7:48:54 AM
>> the volumes will appear too forbidding to the average buyer
That's my guess too..
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl at Jul 14, 2007 8:47:09 AM
>> the volumes will appear too forbidding to the average buyer
Can I split hairs here? [A: Yes, it's a comments section.]
I don't think it's the average buyer that is the concern. When I first got my "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (aged 14) you could buy it in hardback (three vols), paperback (three volumes), or paperback (one volume of small print). Knowing how keen I was, my parents bought me the 3-vol hardback for Christmas. Now there are many more editions.
I suspect that for a certain type of book, including out-of-copyright "classics", there is room to cater to different types of buyer from the collector to the budget-minded. The one-volume-small-print-spine-buster caters to one of those markets. There is a certain type of buyer for whom the volumes will be too expensive/forbidding, but it's not the average.
Posted by: tom s. at Jul 14, 2007 9:02:33 AM
"My Thoughts", by G.W.Bush
Posted by: Big Al at Jul 14, 2007 9:36:03 AM
Hardcovers from Harvard Business School (HBS) Press. They are punchy, to the point, and well suited for the business environment because they read like a continuous version of a Powerpoint presentation.
Posted by: Yan Li at Jul 14, 2007 9:46:00 AM
Is there some sort of publishing rule that the smaller the text, the thinner the paper?
It seems like the small-print stuff I've had to endure was made even worse by being printed on tissue paper.
Posted by: fustercluck at Jul 14, 2007 10:43:24 AM
Your post is most interesting because it reminds me of a common argumentative weakness (at least in targeting people with my level of critical thinking) -the kitchen sink approach.
Your argument for why self-help books have large type:
1. The author doesn't have much to say and the publisher wishes to pad the book so it looks real.
2. Furthermore most self-help books are read (at least in part), so to keep the reader happy the print should be large.
Seeing you throw in completely different reason #2 after reason #1 makes me more skeptical as a reader that you're on target with easier reason. It would probably be more compelling to someone at my critical thinking level if you throw in a mix of motivations for self-help book type size selection, some providing incentives for them to go bigger, some providing incentives for them to go lower, and then say on balance, the incentive structure is for them to go bigger. Or alternatively, say that, interestingly all the incentive structures are for self-help book publishers to choose larger type size.
But the way you wrote this blog post, it's like someone is starting with an observation "hmm, self-help books have larger type size", and then brainstorms all the different possible reasons why that could be true, and then uncritically lists them as all the unconnected reasons self-help books have larger type size.
It doesn't seem much different to me from if someone told me "the sun apparently circuits the sky because (1) the Earth is rotating, AND (2) the sun revolves around the Earth, AND (3) the sun is a fiery chariot of a god riding across the sky each day, AND (4) we sacrifice humans in sufficient quantities by removing their hearts for the Sun God."
I don't think the solution here isn't to make people of my critical thinking level feel better by stylistically just picking one of the 4 as your reason or adding in conflicting incentives and saying "on balance", but rather, if you actually desire to improve our understanding of apparent reality rather than solely meet entertainment needs, I think it would be better to avoid kitchen sink approaches or at least label more transparently that that is what you're doing.
I mention people of my critical thinking level because I'm aware that there may be entertainment value for people of a lower critical thinking level, and for people with a greater critical thinking level -that's beyond my current speculative abilithy of the value your type post may offer to them.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Jul 14, 2007 10:47:07 AM
In France, I think the multi-volume style is more common. I wonder why? It is good for people like me who aren't sure they'll ever get to the second volume of a book in French. But it is a bit of a bother keeping track of where the various volumes are in one's house.
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen at Jul 14, 2007 11:02:27 AM
In France, I think the multi-volume style is more common. I wonder why? It is good for people like me who aren't sure they'll ever get to the second volume of a book in French. But it is a bit of a bother keeping track of where the various volumes are in one's house.
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen at Jul 14, 2007 11:02:35 AM
The Communist Manifesto
Posted by: David at Jul 14, 2007 11:02:58 AM
If my local library is any indication, Zane Grey & Tom Clancy dominate the LP editions...
Posted by: patski at Jul 14, 2007 11:45:33 AM
The Tolstoy theory seems to hold true of the Bible as well.
Posted by: J. at Jul 14, 2007 12:28:39 PM
"Which books are most likely to go into "Large Print" editions? "
Err, those that people with bad eyesight would like to read? Or do we have to get complicated and say that it's the books that the publishers "think" those with bad eyesight would like to read?
Posted by: Tim Worstall at Jul 14, 2007 12:30:07 PM
In France, I think the multi-volume style is more common. I wonder why?
Wild speculation: maybe because they like to travel with books and it is easier to take a small volume than a large one? I wish they did that with college / highschool textbooks -- what's the point in lugging around so much weight when you only need to go over a couple of dozen pages?
Well that's my wishful thinking. Maybe their printing presses aren't setup to handle huge books. Maybe their bookcases are smaller. Maybe the French are more keen to writing serials for newspapers and that translated into the book world.
Posted by: BlogReader at Jul 14, 2007 12:42:31 PM
I couldn’t find the post on MR’s commenting rules, so I hope this doesn’t break any. Maybe there should be a reference link on the home page?
Hopefully Anonymous— You have quite a pompous tone for a writer who didn’t even bother to spell check their work. Furthermore, please check page 48 of Strunk and White regarding the adverb hopefully.
Dr. Cowen is implicitly considering the costs and benefits of large print to publishers—a skill burned on the heart of every economist. He thought of two benefits and no (interesting) costs and then asked readers for their thoughts. He did not “uncritically list” these two benefits, but rather he provided accompanying explanations.
Must he add redundant text such as “Interestingly there seem to be only benefits to printing self help books in large print.”? This statement is inappropriate anyway since his list isn’t meant to be comprehensive.
Posted by: living hopefully at Jul 14, 2007 12:48:02 PM
Who cares if my tone is pompous? It was unintentional, so perhaps it reveals a defect in my personality. I'm just trying to contribute to the collective attempt to construct the best models of apparent reality. If Dr. Cowen left out “Interestingly there seem to be only benefits to printing self help books in large print" for purposes of efficient communication with a sufficiently sophisticated audience, great. My intuitive sense reading his post was that it was more of a kitchen sink approach: throwing out multiple unconnected explanations for phenomenon and framing the explanations as definitive rather than highly speculative. I'm unconvinced by your explanation of the thought process that went into his post, but I do hope you're right.
Posted by: Hopefully Anonymous at Jul 14, 2007 12:54:09 PM
The earlier the date of first publication, the smaller the print in the currently published edition? (See Library of America editions, the Bible, etc.)
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Jul 14, 2007 1:01:44 PM
... those that people with bad eyesight would like to read? Or do we have to get complicated and say that it's the books that the publishers "think" those with bad eyesight would like to read?
Yes we do, at least from my household's sample of one.
If it ain't a pot boiler or a romance or historical fiction, it ain't in large print. Looking at the LP shelves of the library (and even more at the single shelf of the book store), it seems like publishers (or buyers) have a view that a Large Print reader is a lady of a certain age who likes cozy fiction.
Maybe changing demographics will alter the pattern. Bring on the e-Readers (and books on them) with variable font size so we can make this issue go away.
Posted by: tom s. at Jul 14, 2007 1:28:57 PM
Self-help books almost always have reasonably large print or even ridiculously large print. The author doesn't have much to say and the publisher wishes to pad the book so it looks real. Furthermore most self-help books are read (at least in part), so to keep the reader happy the print should be large.
I don't see the connection between the first two sentences and the last sentence. When was it established that readers of self-help books might be happier with larger type? Furthermore it seems that the specific claim being made is that it is because self-help books are usually read that the type should be larger to keep readers happy.
But the conclusion is without any premises.
What am I missing?
Posted by: Jeff at Jul 14, 2007 2:38:25 PM
I think there certainly are areas where the 'padding it to make it look like a real book' is prevalent. Consider Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullsh*t." (it's a family blog!) Published in the journal Raritan in 1986, and then included in his volume of essays 'The Importance of What We Care About' (Cambridge, 1988). This is a 17 page essay in 12ish point font. Clearly not enough to make its own stand-alone volume. Princeton UP used really small pages, made the print a little bigger, didn't put many words on each page, and brought the essay out as an 80 page hardback in 2005. The Princeton hardback goes for $10, while the 1988 Cambridge paperback, with 12 essays in addition to OB, goes for $13 (I just checked amazon, the prices are $9.99 and $10.39 today).
Large print keeps the pages turning. This is satisfying. And, if the pages are also thicker, I can hold between my fingers the chunk I just read and feel like I've accomplished something.
Specialists (or serious amateurs) are going to buy the volume of essays (which has Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person, Alternate Possibilities & Moral Responsibility, and some other famous essays), while laypersons go for the snappy titled essay-masquerading-as-book, and feel really good about themselves for reading a whole book of philosophy. (Which, on balance, is probably a good thing if now those who read OB are also reading Frankfurt's 'On Truth' [published in a really similar way] and may even read some more philosophy past that.) This probably holds for those who really just want to read War & Peace - they don't need the false sense of accomplishment, so smaller print and thin pages (which are cheaper) work just fine.
Large print for less serious (or less specialized) works aimed at less specialized audiences.
Tyler may be on to something with the small-print vanity purchases, but the rational vanity purchase is the well-loved copy in the used bookstore. It's cheaper, and sitting on your shelf, it looks like you've read it.
Posted by: KM at Jul 14, 2007 3:34:52 PM
Jeff - the missing premise was earlier: that larger print is easier to read. (Actually, the point was made in the negative, that small print is harder to read.)
Posted by: Anthony at Jul 14, 2007 3:39:28 PM
Jeff,
Tyler earlier made the point that it doesn't matter much if classics editions are printed in a small font because nobody reads them anyway. Not so with self-help books.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Jul 14, 2007 3:45:52 PM
Large print is to a book like shouting to a person who doesnt speak your language.With higher volume is , or seems ,easier to understand a foreign language.The educational level of a self help book reader is lower than a The Demons or Sebastopol reader. BTW someone check the type of War and Peace against Sebastopol? Or Crime and Punishment agaisnt The Gambler or The Double?.
Cooking book are likely to be in large print , since you are reading it while doing another thing.You have it over the table far from you.
Farmacological guides have the thiniest print you can find , like drugs boxes.
Posted by: JEM at Jul 14, 2007 3:52:49 PM
Reference books and technical manuals are an obvious place for small print -- they are meant to provide comprehensive detail, not to be read in full. I've seen unabridged dictionaries installed with magnifying glasses.
IMHO self helf books are more influenced by their powerpoint origins than any other factor. most of these books originate as motivational speeches. Powerpoint has a way of influencing how your writing style in other contexts, for the worse.
Posted by: DK at Jul 14, 2007 4:18:11 PM
