Say No to Fat (Fat Books, That Is)

[Liam]

Why modern novelists need to watch their weight
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/19/novels-size-robert-mccrum)
Some great books have no more than 200 pages, so why do we now think that big is best? Robert McCrum asks...

In these lean times, fiction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/fiction) is putting on weight. Take three of the major novels out in the next few weeks. Never mind the quality, which is variable, feel the width.

Angelmaker (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/fiction/9780434020942/angelmaker) (Heinemann), Nick Harkaway's second novel, weighs in at 576 pages. My copy of Capital (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/fiction/9780571234608/capital) (Faber) by John Lanchester tips the scales at 577pp. The Bellwether Revivals by Benjamin Wood (S&S) is a 420-page debut. Even the Costa winner, Andrew Miller's Pure (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/fiction/9781444724257/pure) (Sceptre), runs to a chunky 352 pages. When last year's Booker winner, The Sense of an Ending, was first shortlisted, there were some who said that, at 150 pages, it wasn't really a novel. Whatever happened to the slim volume?

You can blame the computer for the contemporary writer's reluctance to cut. Again, you can blame the decline of editing at the big imprints, which is actually more apparent than real. Or you can point the finger at the pressures of the marketplace, especially in America.

The jury is out on all these charges. Fatter novels are the outcome of these and many other factors. What's hardly in doubt is that where novelists used ascetically to follow a regime of "less is more", now they're piling on the carbs.

This trend towards fiction of between 350 and 500-plus pages is new. Graham Greene, whose prose was always pared to the bone, wrote of learning his craft as a subeditor on the Times: "A sprawling style is unlikely to emerge from such an apprenticeship." For much of the 20th century, novels averaged 75,000 to 80,000 words, making a book of fewer than 250 pages and sometimes barely 200. Further back, the picture becomes more complex.

While we can doff our caps to Thackeray, Trollope and the triple-decker Victorians, we should recognise that some of English literature's best-loved classics are exceedingly short. The recent celebration of Dickens's 200th birthday has given a new lease of life to Nicholas Nickleby (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/classics/9781853262647/nicholas-nickleby) and Bleak House (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/history/9780141198354/bleak-house), which are 800pp and more than 1,000pp, respectively. But the Dickens story everyone loves is A Christmas Carol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/unclassified/9780141324524/a-christmas-carol), which is 160 pages, even with illustrations.

In the minds of many readers, Henry James is associated with orotund monsters such as The Wings of the Dove and The Golden Bowl. Actually, the master's masterpiece, to which generations of readers are drawn like iron filings, is The Turn of the Screw (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/classics/9780141194370/the-turn-of-the-screw), which is just 128 pages short.

James's brilliant near-contemporary, Robert Louis Stevenson, defied the gravity of the age with a sequence of short classics, notably Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Treasure Island. Stevenson used to say that "the only art is to omit". Tell that to Messrs Harkaway, Miller and Wood.

The more you look for brevity, the more you find it flourishing in the shadow of fiction's spreading oaks. Herman Melville is now celebrated for that archetypal long novel, the baggy Moby-Dick, his American masterpiece. But Melville is also the author of Bartleby the Scrivener (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/classics/9781843911562/bartleby-the-scrivener), well under 100 pages, an existential thriller.

Possibly the greatest short novel ever written, the haunting, hypnotic pages of Conrad's Heart of Darkness (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/comics/9781906838096/eye-classics-heart-of-darkness) are as rich, strange and savage as anything since. Conrad wrote it in a just over a month in December/January 1898-9. It's about 38,000 words. EM Forster, another Edwardian, nailed the vanity of discursive novels with this note in his Commonplace Book. "Long books," he wrote, "are usually overpraised, because the reader wishes to convince others and himself that he has not wasted his time."

Short books, in brief, form a vigorous alternative tradition. This is a line of fiction that runs deep into the last century and illuminates the reputations of many great writers. Animal Farm is short, and so is Beckett's incomparable Ill Seen Ill Said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/stage/9780714538952/ill-seen-ill-said) and Muriel Spark's The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.

Across the Atlantic, the source today of so many long novels, Truman Capote (Breakfast at Tiffany's) and Philip Roth (Goodbye, Columbus (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/data/book/fiction/9780099498155/goodbye-columbus)) never wrote better than when they wrote short. The greatest American fiction of the 20th century, The Great Gatsby, is about 58,000 words, or 192 pages in my Penguin classics edition.

So, when book clubs in the depth of winter complain, after the humorist Ambrose Bierce, that "the covers of this book are too far apart" they should look out for something short. It's not fashionable, but it might educate and entertain.

[Eric]

I agree entirely with Robert McCrum on this one. The Peirene Press in the UK prides itself on producing short works of fiction. One of their latest is a novel translated from the Finnish by the mother & daughter team whose surnames are Jeremiah. The author Asko Sahlberg who writes in Finnish and lives in Sweden.

And there are lots of other contemporary authors, throughout Europe, such as Magdalena Tulli, Leena Krohn, Amélie Nothomb, and probably hundreds of other contemporary authors that could so easily be translated into English, were there the will and skill do do so.

There is nothing wrong with long novels, as long as they are well-structured. But you get the feel nowadays that some authors are manic, garrulous, and do not know when to stop. They tie up no ends, just keep rambling. I have not read the Norwegian author Knausgård, but I strongly suspect he is a culprit, as are several young American authors, usually male and cocky, who appear incapable of paring down and assume that every word transferred from their brain to their hard disk is holy.

[Heteronym]

You can blame the computer for the contemporary writer's reluctance to cut. Again, you can blame the decline of editing at the big imprints, which is actually more apparent than real. Or you can point the finger at the pressures of the marketplace, especially in America.

Rabelais, Cervantes, Diderot, Sterne, Fielding, Richardson, Balzac, Zola, Eça, James, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Trollope, Thackeray, Dickens, Joyce, etcetera just suffered from bad editing.

This article is so fucking inane I don't know where to start.

Mr. McCrum discovered that some writers write long novels, and some writers write short novels, and some even dare to write both types. It's good to know his college education was of some use to hone those acute analytical powers of his. In a future article, Mr. McCrum will explain how novels are actually written with words...

[Liam]

He's talking about MODERN (i.e. living) novelists, genius, not Tolstoy or Eliot. The operative word in the title of the piece being, gasp, "modern."

And he's talking about the "fashion" for long fat books that induces some writers to write these long fat books, and that's what he means by writers needing to watch their weight. Read the piece a little more carefully next time--

[Heteronym]

I have read the article carefully, and McCrum does not provide any evidence of a fad or any compelling reasons as to why modern long novels are problematic. There have always been long novels. The classics are the best defense of the contemporaries because there's no motive to deprieve them of what their ancestors had the freedom to do. Writing is a free activity, anyone who wants to indulge in thousand-page-long novels should do so; that goes for writers and readers. McCrum needs not complain: there are many novels still coming out with his approved lenght of 150-300 pages. It seems he's just sore that the writers he wants to read aren't giving him what he wants. Well, they owe him nothing.

[Eric]

McCrum may well be grandstanding, because he happens to be in a position of power where he can throw out opinions whenever he likes.

I think the argument against fat books is not whether or not people wrote such things in the 19th century (remember that Dickens wrote in instalments to get paid, so his books were bound to become fat), but whether every novel that is superhyped nowadays need be 500 pages plus.

I worry that many authors just don't know when to stop, or have been paid a huge advance by the publishing house. There is no proof one way or the other which should exclude long or short novels. But the author must keep the story going and not just tack on chapters. Surely, people like George Eliot and Dostoevsky, who were not just writing long books for money as far as I know, wrote novels with a complex story line and tended to tie up the loose ends by the end of the book. Do contemporary authors write a plot with many windings, or do they write numerous episodes, almost short-stories following short-stories? I'm loath to start reading any huge modern novel for fear of having been conned by the marketing people into thinking it's a great novel, but which I will abandon at page 150 or so. I like short novels, where the writer knows where to stop when they have still got the readership with them.

I often disagree with McCrum. As I've suggested, he's in a position to pontificate, at one of Britain's leading dalies. But the 150-300-word boundaries suit me fine (although the last thing I translated was in fact 350-pages long).

[Threetrees]

Brevity is the principal assistant to talent. Thoughts can not be squeezed but they stream to fill the reservoir. One must have a skill not to overdo with it or dilute.

(Instead of introduction of myself)

[pigeonweather]

It could be that readers in these times often conflate size with value. They want to get their money's worth, and tend to super-size everything, given the opportunity. Of course, that's from an American point of view!

[Aldawen]

I think, most of us would agree that a novel can't be classified as good or bad just based on its length. But I have to admit that many (but not all) modern 500+ novels don't carry me over their length. I often miss a convincing and stringent storyline, and I finish these books with the impression that it would have been a good idea to cut them down by hundred or even several hundreds of pages. This always reminds of the quote (attributed to nearly everyone from Goethe to Pascal and from Voltaire to Mark Twain): "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead." This covers the "problem" well enough: to keep a novel short without losing the depth and richness of the story is far more work for the author than writing a long novel, but might result in more elegant prose as an extra and I really appreciate if this effort is undertaken.

[Threetrees]

Fat Books or large format ones? ) Interesting video:

Interior text layout for large format books breaks all of the "rules" used in smaller trade and mass market formats.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_C7PYf0AT4

[Remora]

Ironically, I think a plethora of artistically dubious fat books is a good sign for civilization. It means that subsistence is no longer an issue for a vast number of people who might otherwise be struggling tooth and nail for their daily bread.

You may argue that culture may suffer as a result, but I would argue that the ratio of genius to normal folks will always be more or less the same. The fact that there are many artistically poor fat books circulating has no bearing on the one or two fat books of genius that are bound to be written now and then.

[pigeonweather]

a plethora of artistically dubious fat books is a good sign for civilization. It means that subsistence is no longer an issue for a vast number of people who might otherwise be struggling tooth and nail for their daily bread

Wouldn't it be fun to chart the statistical correlation throughout history of GDP versus words-per-story? I think it would bear out your intuition!

[Eric]

Remora makes a sound point in #11: if you have enough money to live on, you can spend your time on book projects. But the existence of the virtually total free-for-all on the internet and the emergence of blogs does not mean that editing and publisher's choice is outdated. Those publishers and reviewers that are discerning, and include quality in their work plan, are still desperately needed in the world of books, so that we people who haven't all the time in the world to plough through everything published can get some guidance. But if publishers and reviewers are mere lackeys to profit for multinational book factories, then the lowest common denominator will win out.

If, as Tom Lichtenberg says, readers equate size with value, they must be a bit thick. There are many beautiful things written in concise novels, although there is now a danger that publishers will use the 150-page genre to include any amount of junk, and obviously you can charge more for a total of 750 pages if these pages are enclosed in five sets of hardback covers rather than one set of paperback ones. So there is a danger that the artistically dubious thin book will now emerge.

[pigeonweather]

Movies have also gotten longer, it seems. The Hunger Games, for example, is nearly two and a half hours! It takes that much time to include the obligatory quantity of action and emotion, and the same might be said of popular books as well. The George R.R. Martin sagas are very long, and are turned into interminable television series as well. Not only are entertainments growing more obese over time, they are also stuffed full of special effects, like epic pinatas. I'm sure I'm carrying the 'super-size' theme too far, but it's my sense that audience expectations are driving the bulk of the tendency towards more, and more, and more (for your money)

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Such kind of subjective views and observations might be a nice basis for chit-chat or the feuilleton section of newspapers but do they have anything to do with reality? To assess something like this analyzing the hard statistics is unavoidable. Anybody knows any quantitative studies on the evolution of the length of novels or movies over the last centuries/decades? I for myself highly doubt the factual and objective content of such observations as made repeatedly above.

I have read many great short novels as well as long ones over the last few years, long novels where I do not see any compelling reason to cut away anything. From what I have read/seen, both movies and books, I cannot really see any clear trend into the short or the long direction.

Certainly there are writers who are not up to the task of writing long books (of course, there are also writers who should better find a different job...)...

[Rumpelstilzchen]

One more thing, I guess that modern technology with computers, spell checkers, the internet and stuff makes it easier to speed up the production process of mass market books (come to think of it, I guess the general obstacles for publishing are lowered for the average person) such that there might be a trend to longer works, dunno (I would still inist on getting some statistics on this). Or take electronic books for example, no real need to cut anything from books for economic or other reasons, right? On the contrary, if fat books are in fashion, people might even prefer them, hey it is long, so it must be important (one of the main indicators for books getting the opus magnum tag is the length right? it is sad, but that's the way it seems to work quite often in reviews). But I would be very surprised if such a trend is visible for high quality literature for example. Take your favorite literature prize, check the books of the winners, and see if they have been getting longer in the last decades... I doubt it.

[Hamlet]

I can't say no to fat books

Here's why:-

They look good on my bookshelf.

How would you reach up to certain cupboards?

I enjoy them, it's art, not a statistic.

They keep out the wind in winter.

If it's not art, and only a statistic, I'll cast them aside.

Baggy Monsters was Henry James' epithet, I don't warm to James.

Many short novels are just as hard going but for different reasons.

"Underworld" by DeLillo is a big book, but for a single reason.

Platitudes and writing don't fit together very well.

If you place three side by side and two on top, you can reach the cupboard above the cupboard I mentioned earlier.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

I can't say no to fat books

Here's why:-

They look good on my bookshelf.



It is nice to see that you are not as gloomy and melancholic as your namesake :D

Btw, I am a fan of thin paper, which is unfortunately not really used in English publications (apart from certain religious books). Because with this it does not matter if the book has many pages or not, it is not taking much space on my shelf in any case. I love that some German publishers are using this kind of paper for classics with many pages (Hanser for example), because if you really want to read those books it is much easier carrying thin paper books around or holding them in your hands, say because Anna Karenina has basically the thickness of a normal 300p book. And I think such books are much more elegantly and sophisticatedly looking on my shelf than the average bulky and fat SF pulp hardcover.

[Liam]

I am a fan of thin paper...I'll send you some used Kleenex next week, luv, kindly disregard the snot, I've been a little sick lately, ;).

[Threetrees]

Hamlet, you've made the day.*;) Now the task is how many volumes of "Hamlet" do you need to reach for the upper shelf? )

Original printing of Hamlet (the first and the last page)
384385

[Rumpelstilzchen]

I'll send you some used Kleenex next week, luv, kindly disregard the snot, I've been a little sick lately, ;).

:D how do you call this stuff then? Ah, I just checked an online dictionary, it says onionskin paper, smelly... (or leight weight paper???)

[Hamlet]

It is nice to see that you are not as gloomy and melancholic as your namesake :D

Btw, I am a fan of thin paper, which is unfortunately not really used in English publications (apart from certain religious books). Because with this it does not matter if the book has many pages or not, it is not taking much space on my shelf in any case. I love that some German publishers are using this kind of paper for classics with many pages (Hanser for example), because if you really want to read those books it is much easier carrying thin paper books around or holding them in your hands, say because Anna Karenina has basically the thickness of a normal 300p book. And I think such books are much more elegantly and sophisticatedly looking on my shelf than the average bulky and fat SF pulp hardcover.

Hello Rumpel', how are you?

I think that if we're being fair to Hamlet he'd had a pretty rough year by the time we meet him discussing ghosts with Horatio.

After all, his mum had re-married after only a month to his father's murderer who was formerly his Uncle. And yet, he still managed to put on that "antic disposition" and have a few laughs!

Books-

This is interesting.

So, if I've understood you, in Germany the paper used for English books is quite thick, but that appears to be relaxing as more become available? Is this because they are translations or classics or both?

In England, we tend to be used to the lighter paper, especially if you purchase paperbacks by either Penguin or Oxford University Press.

I like the better quality paper with a few volumes, Arden Shakespeare paperbacks are printed on good paper. Not thick, but it doesn't tend to yellow!

[Hamlet]

Hamlet, you've made the day.*;) Now the task is how many volumes of "Hamlet" do you need to reach for the upper shelf? )

Original printing of Hamlet (the first and the last page)
384385



I think we have a number of options Threetrees.

It's tricky, but we'll be okay.

If we're going for height, we have to be careful about safety.

If anyone was to fall off a Hamlet and injure themselves during this dangerous exercise we could also injure Shakespeare's reputation.

I don't think the question "excludes" the use of an original folio volume?

Hamlet is only one of 36 plays, but as there isn't any part of the question which excludes a collected works approach and HAMLET is in there we'll be okay methinks.

It will have to be a folio.

We need three volumes, at least!

I don't think we'll persuade many millionaire collectors to part with their precious volumes just so that we can step-up on them to reach a cupboard, so we'll just have to improvise.

Okay, so let's say we acquire three heavy and rigid hardback copies of the famous Norton Facsimile (which at 960+ pages should be sufficient?)

However, if a pedantic rules-bandit turns up we'll have to beat a hasty retreat and quickly substitute the Norton's for, say, the latest Third Series Arden?

It's full of notes for one and thick so we get rigidity again.

We need at least two piles of ten, we could get up to the upper shelf safely by placing those side by side.

But I'd say, we also need to use string to tie-up those shaky paperback piles of Arden Hamlet's very carefully indeed.

As I mentioned before, one slip, a sprained ankle, a bump on the head, and Shakespeare's reputation could and probably would suffer! :cool:

[Threetrees]

Rumpel'? )))))))) (I laughed so heartedly, Hamlet). You've even contrived to shorten this fat German name.*;););) Shortenings like that can save the paper. "Shrek 4" would be extremely proud of having you as a friend and consultant. )

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Hello Rumpel', how are you?

I think that if we're being fair to Hamlet he'd had a pretty rough year by the time we meet him discussing ghosts with Horatio.

After all, his mum had re-married after only a month to his father's murderer who was formerly his Uncle. And yet, he still managed to put on that "antic disposition" and have a few laughs!

Books-

This is interesting.

So, if I've understood you, in Germany the paper used for English books is quite thick, but that appears to be relaxing as more become available? Is this all translations?

In England, we tend to be used to the lighter paper, especially if you purchase paperbacks by either Penguin or Oxford University Press.

I like the better quality paper with a few volumes, Arden Shakespeare paperbacks are printed on good paper. Not thick, but it doesn't tend to yellow!

That's right, I think in the end he is a sympathic guy...

about the paper... no (I am not sure if you are making fun, but anyway) what I meant is that most books, be it in Germany or England or wherever, are not printed on this very thin kind of paper, which is for example used in many bibles, see here (i.e. therefore Bible Paper seems to be another expression for it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_paper

It is so thin that you can pack 500 pages on one or two centimeters. You never have paperbacks with this kind of paper (certainly not the cheaper stuff from Penguin), only expensive hardcovers. In any case it is very convenient in case of books with many pages, because as I said a hardcover made from this paper with ~1000 pages is as thick as a normal paperback of (lets say) 300 pages.

There are some publishers who use it for their classics series (at least in Germany, never seen it in the US or England). I don't know if this kind of paper is very expensive per se, but it is likely. All I wanted to say is that I prefer slim books for reading convenience, it does not matter if they have few or many pages. I do not like fat books. And I would prefer if more books were printed on this kind of paper.

[Hamlet]

@Threetrees

I'm sure I'll get to be called Ham' around here my friend!



@Rumpelstilzchen

Not making fun.



I understand now.

Yes, some of the bibles here have the very thin type of paper.

The type of book you also see in thin paper is legal texts, especially legislation, huge volumes which require wafer thin paper.

I don't think we're seeing this sort of paper used with Anna Karenina, or a classic novel, at least, I haven't seen any which are on this paper.

Oh, btw, I only shortened your name as it's difficult to type within these boxes and my keyboard keeps missing out letters.

nb, where I typed that Hamlet 'had had a pretty rough year' that was 'wry' or in fun, as it plays down how serious the play is.

We have to adjust for humour from Englsh to German, and vice-versa, but it's always respectful!

[Threetrees]

@#23 Post. I keep on chortling but I can not control it, Hamlet. Excellent, subtle and buffoonery stuff. ) I lack in this one here. Nice to meet you. TTT. ... and I enjoy your ham' style.*

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Oh, btw, I only shortened your name as it's difficult to type within these boxes and my keyboard keeps missing out letters.

nb, where I typed that Hamlet 'had had a pretty rough year' that was 'wry' or in fun, as it plays down how serious the play is.

We have to adjust for humour from Englsh to German, and vice-versa, but it's always respectful!

No problem, for this reason the others here call me Rumpy or something like that :rolleyes:. I understood the fun in your Hamlet remark :o.

Yes, adjusting to people from different cultural backgrounds is sometimes a bit tricky, a lot of the heated discussions that you can find on internet fora are based on misunderstandings due to different languages and culture. I guess the step across the channel is rather easy in that respect , so we do not have to worry :D

[Hamlet]

Ahh yes guys, good to meet you both. Hello and look forward to catching up with you later.

Manly handshake.

[Threetrees]

The thread is getting thicker and thicker (curiousier and curiousier), Liam. We spin it. Butchers and birches. It's gaining weight. Obesity. Enjoy the feast. We are doomed.

[Hamlet]

Stephen King in his book On Writing says that 200k is a goodly length for a novel, and that the size of a novel can be its main strength as a delivery system.

We're back on track Liam.

[Threetrees]

Hi, Hamlet. There's a technique of converting book-kilograms into book-kilobytes.
ScanRobot 2.0 MDS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdipuAuWsEs
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

[Threetrees]

Instead of this ...*387

[Hamlet]

Three'

(I'm at it again. . . must be a gene thing?)

Isn't technology wonderful, but there's another spin-off, the OP, I assume was aiming at actual "words on the page".

Stephen King speaks of 200,000 as a good length for fiction. He wasn't being overly-specific.

Reading the article it refers to BLEAK HOUSE and Dickens' longer works, the 800 pagers, personally, I don't prefer Christmas Carol, it is what it is, I sit down with a large Dickens and look forward to moving through it, I don't think - 'this needs a good edit'. We know he was serialised, and that this had a lot to do, perhaps, with "length". But Dickens is Dickens, his mind, his way of expressing himself, plot development, galaxy of characters. Shortening him would potentially leave one wishing for more.

Okay, so does changing the appearance and shape through technology, such as with a Kindle, in some way change the reading experience, or the sense of the reading experience, for longer fiction? The EXPERIENTIAL aspect. Like the way people experience time, it differs, apparently. Children to adult, readers?

Or, is it just harder to see how far away the end is? :cool:

[Threetrees]

I review Chekhov now. I remember he squeezed his works (due to publishers' requirements) along with Bunin. They both tried to be austere and direct. But they remained to be perfect even so.

"Try to be original in your play and as clever as possible; but don't be afraid to show yourself foolish; we must have freedom of thinking, and only he is an emancipated thinker who is not afraid to write foolish things. Don't round things out, don't polish but be awkward and impudent. Brevity is the sister of talent. Remember, by the way, that declarations of love, the infidelity of husbands and wives; widows', orphans', and all other tears, have long since been written up. The subject ought to be new, but there need be no "fable." And the main thing is father and mother must eat. Write. Flies purify the air, and plays the morals." A.P. Chekhov.

[Hamlet]

I particularly like what Chekhov says about being foolish and not polishing too much.


Hey Threetrees,
I'm baffled! You've defeated me. What is the meaning of "Threetrees" and the cryptic picture which has, well, three trees arranged side by side within it?

I was going to do a web search, but decided to just ask?

[Threetrees]

Perhaps, it's a bit "not of the thread", Hamlet. I am flattered and embarrassed. I knew that I'll meet you here (don't get it in the wrong way :) ). It's kinesthetic and inexplicable. If you only knew how many beautiful things and people went and go my way, you'd be more baffled than I am. There are no mysteries in this world, they exist only for those who are blind. Nature reveals its simple secrets only to those who look and want to see, who listen and want to hear. It knows and it is selective. You have the powers, the Gift - I've noticed it immediately. Search the web, you'll find the answers. Now all it may look as a "Matrix" movie :) but matrix has its unique meaning among others. Do you remember sonnet #3? What is Time? Beliefs of nations? Now I consider you as my friend. Thank you. Your words are powerful, use them and bring to. Sincerely, 3 T. (Instead of my second introduction in this thread).

Isn't it long and thick by the way, Liam?*

[Hamlet]

The Tale of Three Trees, Parable/folklore.
Sonnet3 - I know it, but how is it applicable here?

[Threetrees]

I'll be short and tripple-equivocal, a bit insane, an innuendo-maker, as the tread requires, Hamlet. (...Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee calls back the lovely April of her prime...) Proper nourishment can not destroy. Even Angelina Jolie knows it and keeps it on the skin above it. Womb, matrix - its child reads food there. (For where is she so fair whose uneared womb disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?) Time comes thrice. (Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest, now is the time that face should form another,whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest, thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother.) Then it strikes for the third time. (Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.But if thou live rememb'red not to be, die single, and thine image dies with thee.) Trees born, grow and fall.*

Frog was bored.
There was nothing to do.
‘Don’t be bored, Frog,’ said Mouse.
‘We can go to the seaside, see?’

(A touching depiction of friendship between a timid Frog
and an adventurous Mouse. Mouse gently encourages Frog
into a world of discovery.)

Tracey Corderoy. She now lives in a hidden valley surrounded by sheep, wild deer and cows with big fluffy ears. Along with her husband and two daughters, she shares an ancient cottage with a huge Golden Retriever called Dylan (from Pontypool), several cats, guinea pigs and a teeny mini-lop eared rabbit who makes loud ducky noises.

[Hamlet]

Metaphorical Dialogues
by Hamlet

Sonnet 73
That Time of year thou mayst in me behold,
When yellow leaves, or none, or few do hand
Upon those boughs which shake against the cold,
Bare ruined choirs where late the sweet birds sang;


Have you seen the old man in the closed down market
kicking up the paper with worn out shoes?
in his eyes you see no pride, and held loosely
at his side yesterday's paper, telling yesterday's news
Refrain
So how can you tell me you're lonely, and for you that the sun don't shine...

Streets of London. The Beatles

[Hamlet]

I'll be short and tripple-equivocal, a bit insane, an innuendo-maker, as the tread requires, Hamlet. (...Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee calls back the lovely April of her prime...) Proper nourishment can not destroy. Even Angelina Jolie knows it and keeps it on the skin above it. Womb, matrix - its child reads food there. (For where is she so fair whose uneared womb disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?) Time comes thrice. (Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest, now is the time that face should form another,whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest, thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother.) Then it strikes for the third time. (Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.But if thou live rememb'red not to be, die single, and thine image dies with thee.) Trees born, grow and fall.*

Frog was bored.
There was nothing to do.
‘Don’t be bored, Frog,’ said Mouse.
‘We can go to the seaside, see?’

(A touching depiction of friendship between a timid Frog
and an adventurous Mouse. Mouse gently encourages Frog
into a world of discovery.)

Tracey Corderoy. She now lives in a hidden valley surrounded by sheep, wild deer and cows with big fluffy ears. Along with her husband and two daughters, she shares an ancient cottage with a huge Golden Retriever called Dylan (from Pontypool), several cats, guinea pigs and a teeny mini-lop eared rabbit who makes loud ducky noises.


Thank you for clarifying TTT,
I'm reading you now.

The triple- equivocal, selectively from your cryptology-

"Womb" - you're referring to my children's fiction thread, you've adopted that genre.

Angelina eludes me for now ... she's a tricky one.

However:-

Frog doesn't have to be bored ... he'll eventually see the sea for herself.

Literary Criticism. Reversal and Anagram are a frequent Elizabethan trope deployed in sonnets.

Sonnets often answer one another.

I like The Beatles, don't you?

SONG
Who is Silvia?
Two Gentlemen of Verona

[Threetrees]

I knew you'd decipher it, Hamlet. Therefore I like you. )

Sonnet # 155 (a new Shake cocktail to make it more abundant)
by Threetrees

Let's shake the Shakes' spears
And wake this little Love-god.
Rough winds will shake the darling buds of May.
So should that beauty and acumen which you, Hamlets, hold in lease
Bring breath and breeze.
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

Do we still breathe, folks? )

[Threetrees]

Tracey Corderoy was also addendum to the children section. I like her. Short-thin-rich-sensitive fiction (with corpulent and less weight animals) for children to evoke imagination. It was Mouse to take Frog there - it's funnier together. Or if you prefer Don Quixote and Sancho go to Nerja, Costa del Sol, Andalusia. ) We can take Sylvia. Do you know any?

[Hamlet]

We'll slowly coax you out from behind your metaphor. There's some good literature to be discussed.

I've spent quite a lot of time around Shakespeare's sonnets, in the last year I've tended to turn to them instead of the plays. I also enjoy the history of Elizabethan England, as well as the playwrights and poets who would have known William Shakespeare, John Donne, is my favourite, but Andrew Marvell, Spencer, Sydney, Herbert, and of course the other dramatists, John Flectcher, Middleton, Jonson, Massinger, Ford, Marlowe (my Avatar) Lyly.

[Damian Kelleher]

Resurrecting a (possibly) dead topic here, but...

When I was younger (early 20s) I was of the belief that a larger book meant a better book. I had not yet learned to appreciate brevity of thought and clarity of expression. So, I admired Gravity's Rainbow, Infinite Jest, The Discovery of Heaven, The Magic Mountain, Middlemarch and so on, while discounting the merits of works with a fewer pages. Unfortunately, this tendency led me to read some of the large, more contemporary American/English/Australian novels. It seems that writers in English need to fill out pages and "cram it all in" to give their books value. I blame the Great American Novel for this, as the implication is that it must contain everything to be relevant, which means lots of pages. Sadly, some writers in Australia have been affected by this as well (I'm Australian).

Now, I prefer smaller books. 150 - 250 pages seems to me ideal in that an idea can be coherently and fully explored. Bartleby & Co is a good example of this - Vila-Matas stops his novel once the idea has been explored fully. Would there be anything to gain by another 100 pages? I think not. Vila-Matas is a good example of the short book done well because he doesn't refrain from big themes or grand ideas, rather he just avoids writing 500 page novels. A small book does not necessarily mean a small idea.

That said, there is still some merit in larger books. I like it when a writer can keep all his juggling balls in the air - 2666 is a good example of this (and, from above, so is The Magic Mountain, Gravity's Rainbow, etc), but so often this is not the case.

One area this is often seen is fantasy literature, which tends to overpraise ridiculously stuffed books. Not content with a single thousand page book, an author is expected to write an endless series of them. And oh, the padding! Again, when I was younger (this time in my teenage years), I valued more because more = more! but, it really doesn't. I wouldn't say that mainstream literature or high-art literature is necessarily following fantasy in "requiring" enormous tomes, but it seems to be heading down that path. I groan when I see American/Australian/English writers with their new, massive books.

I haven't noticed the trend as much in European or Latin American literature, though I'm happy to hear a rebuttal in this case. Perhaps it is because there are more short novels translated into English than long? I couldn't say, but I will note that with the exception of 2666, I haven't enjoyed many of the very large novels recently translated (Parallel Lives, The Kindle Ones, etc).

[Eric]

I more or less subscribe to what Damian Kelleher has to say. While I do appreciate some big novels - and "The Magic Mountain" was a case in point - there is a lot of waffle and padding in some long novels. For instance, I won't even attempt to read the autobiographical Knausgaard (Knausgård) trilogy, narcissistically entitled "Min Kamp", trying to allude to Hitler just to make the readers more curious. That sort of fat book smacks of calculated commercialism.

People like Clarice Lispector, Sjón, Amélie Nothomb, Asko Sahlberg, and similar do pare down their books. And the short-story genre is not to be sniffed at.

Nevertheless, there are two fat books about the former GDR I hope to read, ones by Uwe Tellkamp and Eugen Ruge.