« Civil society | Main | "Markets" in everything »
Are books overwritten?
...having said that, spending a lot of time on the internet, as I have since 2002, has rubbed my nose in something that hadn't really bothered me before then: namely just how overwritten so many books and magazine articles are. Seymour Hersh? He's great. You could also cut every one of his pieces by at least 50% and lose exactly nothing. And I'm not picking on Hersh. At a guess, I'd say that two-thirds of the magazine pieces I read could be sliced by nearly a third or more without losing much. That's true of a lot of books too.
Here is the full piece, by Kevin Drum. My view is that many readers want overwritten books to tranquillize themselves, just as they enjoy dull, soothing voices on the radio.
Readers, do you agree that most books are overwritten? Please write your opinion of Kevin Drum's point in the comments and feel free to refer to specific books. My favorite rock star, the extraordinary Hillel, would like to again create a song from your opinions. I will link to the song once it is ready. Hillel assures me that the quality of his song will reflect the quality of your input. Be poetic! Think music! Overwrite, if you wish!
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 29, 2008 at 07:05 AM in Books, Music | Permalink
Comments
Absolutely.
Look at what John Maeda did with his book on Simplicity. He forced himself to keep the book simple; less than 100 pages. The result was a clear and focused book that was very readable.
Great editors know what and when to cut, which is why writers need editors.
Posted by: Jed Christiansen at Jul 29, 2008 8:02:52 AM
They're overpadded partly to reassure you that the money you've spent getting the same information you could've researched for nothing but your own time and skill, has been spent wisely. I mean, it must've been worth spending real money on, look how thick it is! I've even read the first chapter (well, the first 10% of it) and if the rest of it is anything to go by, it looks like it's a good book.
[note to self when writing my next book: don't put anything meaningful or substantial in the 33% to 95% portion of the manuscript, just pad it with nonsense, nobody ever gets that far in.]
Posted by: Ian Tindale at Jul 29, 2008 8:09:40 AM
"Retribution" by Max Hastings is definitely overwritten. An enthusiastic post here at MR made buy the book and I don't regret it, but it could've been 200 pages shorter and no substance would've been lost.
Posted by: Diogo at Jul 29, 2008 8:10:41 AM
If you go to a used book store, it is striking how thin the paperbacks from the 1970s and earlier are. Nowadays, publishers give directives: they want 600-page books from up and coming authors and when you're in Anne Rice or Stephen King territory they insist on 1000-page doorstops. The heftier the paperback, the more they figure the buyer is willing to pay.
Perhaps Kindle will change this by eliminating the physical product altogether. Who knows, novellas might even make a comeback.
Posted by: at Jul 29, 2008 8:12:00 AM
I didn't find Retribution over written -- in fact I often wished that there was more detail, it covers so much ground. It certainly could have described the course of the last years of the war, and explained why Japan lost, in many fewer pages, but I enjoyed the atmosphere as much as the facts.
I have been re-reading some 1970s science fiction recently. Then it was acceptable to tell a story in less than 200 pages, compared with 400 today.
Do people have more time to read today than they did 30 years ago?
Posted by: Tom Davies at Jul 29, 2008 8:18:59 AM
I don't know about books in general, but I've long suspected that Neal Stephenson gets paid by the pound.
Posted by: Alan Gunn at Jul 29, 2008 8:20:15 AM
Michael Blowhard has made this point a number of times:
"The whole book-length thing is one of the stranger cultural fetishes people have, it seems to me. Let's get over it. What's so special about 250-400 pages, the length of most books? Absolutely nothing -- except that it's the length of a typical book. And why is it the length of a typical book? For reasons having to do not with expressive need or even readers' pleasure or convenience, but with binding, shipping, and tradition. Many pieces of book-writing, in other words, aren't the length they are because they need to be. They're the length they are because, well, they wouldn't have been published as books if they weren't."
His controversial recommendation:
"A four-tape abridgement is the equivalent of about 150 pages -- which is the length I think most biographies should be.
I think most novels, especially literary novels, should be about 50 pages long. Or even shorter."
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Jul 29, 2008 8:26:50 AM
Black Swan/Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Yes, really big events in our world are rare and unpredictable. Good point. Do we need hundreds of pages to belabor it?
Posted by: b at Jul 29, 2008 8:33:09 AM
Alas... we'd lose Norbert and Tom Bombadil if we cut substance for the Hollywood version.
Posted by: Dan Lewis at Jul 29, 2008 8:34:11 AM
I so agree with this, especially the comment regarding Stephenson.
One interesting thing I have started to see recently is that when a book is short they use a bigger font and thicker pages to make it look like 400 pages. A good example is the $12 million dollar shark book you recommended. Great book, well written, edited to an appropriate length for the subject... Huge font and odd pages.
Posted by: stuart at Jul 29, 2008 8:36:56 AM
"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."
Posted by: at Jul 29, 2008 8:42:19 AM
A motto for economists, from Ariel Rubinstein:
"I have not seen any paper in Economics which deserves more than 15 pages (probably even 10)".
Posted by: OZ at Jul 29, 2008 8:45:22 AM
Totally agree on the overwriting angle.
Popular on this blog (and I actually liked The Fountainhead) is Ayn Rand, whose screeds are about 75% too long.
Even Vonnegut, whose books are fairly short can stand to be shorter.
Posted by: meter at Jul 29, 2008 8:48:48 AM
If we're talking fiction, probably on average books are too long. But the same is true for movies and music albums, too. I think there are people who would feel ripped off if they got a short book for the same price as a long book (I've heard that one of the reasons Bollywood movies are so long is that filmgoers in India want to get their money's worth), but at the same time, a publisher wouldn't choose to cut down the length of a book if he were going to be forced to charge less for it. The incremental cost of adding fifty to a hundred pages to a book is probably pretty small compared with the better deal people who might buy it think they are getting.
Posted by: Nick E at Jul 29, 2008 8:56:02 AM
put your money where your mouth is.
give me the five or so tyler alex books in the side bark, all cut down to 100 pages, in one 500 page compendium volume...thats value add...
Posted by: c8to at Jul 29, 2008 9:04:57 AM
I can't speak to recent fiction, but recent popular economics and even not popular economics / science (e.g. black swan or some I might avoid mentioning) often takes a narrow point and fills a book when a paper or two would have done.
Of course, you can't bring it to such a broad audience as a paper. Still, if its poorly written or dry, it will just drone on and on.
But books can do something else that papers can't do - they can engage a topic from many angles and allow the reader to spend time with it. In this way books can often open a reader's eyes to something when the wisdom of a paper would have slipped past them unrecognized, unable to penetrate the assurance of the learned mind.
In any case, I have found older books to have more content than newer books, but my comparisons may be bad.
On a side note: is it not cheating that we know that a song may be made of this? Someone could sneak in funny words on purpose.
Posted by: liberty at Jul 29, 2008 9:14:56 AM
Longer books give people the illusion that there is more content in the book, thus increasing the value. It's fairly simple logic.
Unfortunately, Strunk and White will never sink in.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Jul 29, 2008 9:16:22 AM
If I read a good New Yorker or Atlantic piece, I know it will become a book — 50 times as long with perhaps twice the information.
The physical book is a souvenir; you've already digested all the ideas inside by the time you've picked it up to buy it.
Posted by: Isegoria at Jul 29, 2008 9:18:47 AM
word.
Posted by: josh at Jul 29, 2008 9:18:51 AM
I don't see overwriting as much of a problem with fiction, because I read fiction for the joy of reading. With nonfiction, however, the situation is completely different. With nonfiction I am seeking information only, and I am frustrated by having to sift throuch all the chaff to get the grains of useful information. Look at Guns, Germs, and Steel as an example. The thesis would have made for a good magazine article, or even a short paperback, but it certainly didn't support such a long book. Diamond spent most of the book repeating himself over and over. Also, it is really frustrating in news articles when the author buries three interesting facts in a dozen paragraphs of uninteresting descriptions and quotations. And look at this comment! It could have been half as long.
Posted by: Rob at Jul 29, 2008 9:28:53 AM
I agree, many things are overwritten. The economics of book publishing seems to be factor. But, I see inflation in non-published works as well. In business, unfortunately, volume signals hard work. Effective leaders, however, demand the more noble hard work of short and effective communication.
Weight loss books are notoriously overwritten. It shouldn't take very many pages to say, "Burn more colories than you eat" It only took me 21 pages.
Posted by: Seth at Jul 29, 2008 9:42:31 AM
Yes
Posted by: floccina at Jul 29, 2008 9:43:33 AM
Oh, I agree as well. There are definitely exceptions, but most new novels I read require a good deal of skimming to keep me in the mood and feel of the book. Nick E brought up Bollywood movies, but I think Hollywood movies are starting to suffer from this too. I was dragged to Sex and the City movie and couldn't believe how long it was. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but will not ever again sit through the 10 goodbye scenes at the end. I wonder at what point people will start balking at going to see longer movies in theaters and wait until DVD when even movies that are supposed to be fun and simple are over 2 hours. Value added meets my bored behind.
On the other hand, I keep thinking of my favorite Sci-fi writer, C. J. Cherryh. Her books often feel overlong when I come to the end and realize just how little actually happened in them. At the same time, I don't know what I'd cut because I enjoy every sentence of it. (She does have a collection of various length short stories and they are unapologetically amazing).
Posted by: Megs at Jul 29, 2008 9:45:19 AM
1. It is easier to write more words than fewer words
2. The perceived value of more words is higher than of fewer words
So why would anyone write fewer words?
The brevity of the web is generally because web pages generally address more targeted concepts, not because anyone exercises better discipline in expressing them.
Posted by: Steve at Jul 29, 2008 9:45:57 AM
i don't know whether i would call it overwritten, but sometimes i feel that way about biographies. for instance, i just (almost) finished titan, by ron chernow. i got to the end and i was reading about how john d. rockefeller's daughter was having some psychological issues and meeting with carl jung in switzerland. i wasn't interested in that so i skipped it, and ended skipping most of the rest of the book. i never would have done that except that i just listened to tyler's podcast with russ roberts where he mentioned that he rarely finishes books.
Posted by: hutch at Jul 29, 2008 9:56:02 AM
