What's your preferred novel length?

[Danielleqlee]

When I go into the book store, I tend to shy away from fictions that are as thick as a phone book. I like the 300-400 range. How about you? 

[Groggy1]

must be better than 250 pages for dtb.

[Margaret]

I like to read long novels, because when I am reading a book that I like, I am always sorry to see it end.

[CaraMarsi27]

I'd say in the 200-300 page range. I sometimes like to read the shorter books, about 50,000 words, that run about 185-200 pages. I have about 200 books in my TBR pile and whenever I finish one I feel a sense of accomplishment. If I can knock out a few shorter books to one longer book, I feel good.

[jmiked]

I don't have any real preference, it depends on the book.

Mike

[Rhiathame]

I rarely pick up DTBs any more but I preferred them in the 350-400 page range. With eBooks it is more difficult to judge but recently I have been starting to pay more attention because I can end up paying a premium for a book that is only the equivalent of 250 pages which ends up annoying me. I like a book that has meat to it but is not padding the page count just for the sake of doing so.

[Darcia]

I have no preference when buying books. For me, the length has to fit the story. It shouldn't be overly wordy just to make it to 100,000 words (for a publishing requirement, etc.) or so short that I'm left feeling like I left the movie halfway through.

[Danielleqlee]

I think what turns me off of extra long books is that I find the author beefs them up with boring bits and unimportant information simply to fatten up the book. I love a fast-paced book, leaves you breathless, no lulls. 

[ellenoc]

I prefer longer. Usually anything shorter than about 70,000 words leaves me feeling something - usually characters - didn't get developed well. However, it takes a lot of story to support really long books (say, over 125,000 words) without things starting to drag.

[history_lover]

I enjoy books of all lengths but it depends what genre. Cozy mysteries and modern chick lit (Bridget Jones style) should not be more than 400 pages in my opinion (more ideally around 300 pages). Most historical fiction I prefer to be around 500 pages, if not more - the lives of some historical figures are just too epic to fit into less than that without it feeling rushed and lacking depth (unless their life is split up into a series, in which case shorter books are okay). I've read several 800+ paged historical fictions. Historical bios and non-fiction on the other hand can start to drag a bit if they're more than about 600 pages - I guess because the writing style can be a bit dry compared to a historical fiction. Lengthy thrillers and serious mysteries are only okay if they're well written, otherwise they shouldn't be more than 500 pages.

[Neekeebee]

Depends on how much I'm enjoying the book!

N

[purplepen79]

I like to read long novels, because when I am reading a book that I like, I am always sorry to see it end.

Couldn't have stated it better myself.  I'm a character-driven reader, and if I'm really enjoying getting to know a particular character or set of characters, I don't want the story to end.

[iwchris]

I really like around 250 -350 pages, but sometimes if I'm really enjoying a book, I hate getting to the end.

Chris

[Monique]

I really like around 250 -350 pages, but sometimes if I'm really enjoying a book, I hate getting to the end.

Chris

That's one of the reasons I love to read series.

[Pawz4me]

In general, the longer the better.  Assuming it's a good story, of course.  If I'm considering two books and can only buy one, I'll almost always buy the longer one.

[Carolyn J. Rose, Mystery Writer]

300-400 pages except if it's a really meaty book by an author I've read before.

[Basilius]

Of the 20 novels I've read so far this year, I've averaged just over 6000 locations each. That's around 350 pages, I believe. There's a few writers I like who can't write anything short (Neal Stephenson, George R. R. Martin, Winston Churchill...), but I do prefer things to be under 400 pages.

That said, I'm about to start reading The Passage, so it's not that I won't read long books.

[bvlarson]

I like something in the 60k words to 90k words range, which is book-average for most genres. I see thick books as a risk, as often it means there are several character groups, most of which I won't give a hoot about by the end of the book. I hate the feeling of plodding through a monster just so that I can see what happens to one or two people by the end.

As an aside, books were MUCH thinner up until around 1980. At that point, the pubs wanted to raise prices, so they demanded authors fatten books to give the consumer a reason why the prices were rising. Up until then, the 60k or so book ruled. Now, most books are 90k+
In many, many cases the book would be superior if it stayed focused and shorter.

Readers could just read more of them for a lower price to get your reading fix. The old days might return as it is harder to judge relative "thickness" at the point of purchase now. You download the sample, and you are looking for quality not quantity. I would predict that lower prices and slightly thinner, sharper stories will result over time.
-BVL

[J.R. Chase]

I prefer them on the shorter side, many longer novels don't seem to add much and could be shorter in my view.

[Tom Wood]

BV Larson - I see you put your word count and equivalent page count in your descriptions. Is that common? There's really no way to tell the length without it being in the description, is there?

[D. Nathan Hilliard]

Every book has a length that's right for it. Sadly, it seems to me that lately some big name authors are taking small books and stretching them out into big books. I prefer to let the story determine the length of the book. That's one sure way to improve the book.

[Gordon Ryan]

Most of this thread has been written from the POV of the reader, and not from the author.  I actually like writing my 100,000 word novels.  They give me time to develop a story, or character.  And from another perspective, with Kindle, it doesn't matter how thick the book is going to be.  There is no "wrist exhaustion" since they all weigh the same.

I am put in mind of a quote from some historical author.  When writing to a friend he supposedly said, "I am sorry that this letter is so long.  I didn't have time to write a shorter one."  Excellent lesson.

Cheers,

[T.L. Haddix]

As a reader, I prefer the 300-400 page range.  Anything shorter, and it doesn't seem like it feels like a complete novel - maybe a novella.  Anything longer, and I lose interest.  I have a short attention span, and I read pretty fast, so a 350 page book will only take me 3-4 hours. 

As a writer, I know that it takes what it takes.  Both my books have been 350-375 pages, the first being shorter.  That translates into 135,000+/- words for book one, 146,000+/- for book two.  However, my short stories are both under 10,000 words, easy. 

[L.J. Sellers, novelist]

82,577 words is ideal. 

[Selcien]

I really have no idea.  What I do know is that I have a natural inclination to judge the value of a book by how many pages it has, and feel that more pages is worth more money. This causes a conflict. I mean, I have six Terry Pratchett books, they're all short (hovering around the 200 page mark, according to my Sony Touch) so I feel ripped off because of that, yet I feel that they're worth more than I paid because of how much I like them.

So my answer is going to be... Long enough but neither too long, nor too short.