> I agree with Bill's comments about the length of the
books. I noticed this
on
> the Elvis Cole book LA Requiem. He is also right on
about the Parker book
> treatment but I will admit I like the thicker pages
and larger print even
> though from a publishing stand point it is more
expensive.
A friend of mine just finished his first novel, and since
mailing it out, has been worried that the length (just over
60,000 words) wasn't enough. So one of his "hobbies" right
now is, when visiting bookstores, to go around looking at
short novels, seeing who write and publsihed them, trying to
convince himself that it will turn out just fine.
I like both the short ones and the long, depending on the
story. I read Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, all 918 pages,
without complaint. BUt about 300 pages into Connelly's Trunk
Music, when "something changed" (as to not spoil it for those
who haven't read it), I was really frustrated and thought he
could have done this more quickly. I find something about the
shorter books appealing, especially Stark's Parker series,
Dominic Stansberry's Last Days of Il Duce, some early Elmore
Leonards, Jim Sallis's Lew Griffin novels.
Still, there is a problem with editing. Grove Press's Morgan
Entrekin, in an interview I saw, thinks it has something to
do with word processors and computers, since people tend to
write more and edit less when it's easier to just keep going
without changing paper in the typewriter, without doing it
with a pen, when you can cut and past big blocks, etc.
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Feb 2000 EST