…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!
← Previous Comments
I have never been compelled to post here before, but I have been thinking the same thing fairly often over the past year. I enjoy a good long book(s)- the Lord of The rings was amazing, and I reread it annually, but most books I have read over 500 pages seem like a writer trying to justify their paycheck. My last few trips to the bookstore, I have been deliberately seeking out shorter books, and had secret feelings of guilt that I was being lazy or losing my attention span.
A few examples that I have read over the past year (some were mentioned earlier, but this is a much needed rant):
Atlas Shrugged- Overall it was an enjoyable read, but I ended up thinking to myself “ok, I get the point, can we just move the story forward?!” Easily 1/2 of this book could have been cut out with no loss whatsoever.
The World is Flat, Second(bloated) edition:
Nice book, some interesting ideas in there, but he repeated himself so much I felt like I was back in grade school again. When I saw that I had unknowingly bought the “expanded” edition, I really wished I had the original.
The Power Broker:
After getting a workout carrying this 1500+ page brick around with me for months, I came to the conclusion that they really should have came out with two versions of this book- a concise version for typical readers who are interested in knowing the impact Moses had, and another for historians, urban planners, and aspiring politicians who are interested in what the state and city budget looked like each year Moses was in power, what kinds of cars to drive, and how to deal with your mostly estranged brother (tip- screw him out of his inheritance).
Bill Clinton’s Autobiography:
Never has so little been said in so many words. This was one of those books that upon finishing it I was just relieved it was over. Self serving at times, tedious at most other times, they really should have assigned an editor to this who had the balls to stand up to a former president.
Second Prize Winner- Gotham:
This was an interesting book, but far too much time was spent on people who have left no lasting mark on New York.
I’ll try not to repeat what so many have already said, but yes, I have finished many books and said to myself “that would have made a great magazine article”. There are huge books that justify their length (more often in fiction than non-fiction), but many only aim to justify their price.
A few points that I didn’t see much discussion of:
1) I may read a 500-page book and think there was 200 pages of fluff that could have been excised without any loss, and you might do the same, but will we agree which 200 pages should be cut? We need some “extra” length to make sure that each person gets out of a book what he/she thinks is important.
2) Many people, I’m afraid, buy books but don’t read them. They do not demand succinct writing because the value of a book to them is in making an impression that they are intellectual. Small books do not make that impression easily. How many people actually read their copies of “Godel, Escher, Bach”, for instance?
3) Many books seem to be aimed at several audiences at once. Where a casual reader might be quite happy with less detail or fewer examples, a more expert reader might demand a more thorough analysis covering all of the permutations and exceptions that the aforementioned casual reader wouldn’t even think of asking about. I’ve found in my writing that the more expert your audience is, the fewer genaralizations you can get away with. I like Kevstev’s idea of two versions of a book – one for general readers and one for experts.
Regarding the many comments made by others: half of them are on point, but the other half could be deleted without losing anything of value.
Which was better:”Wealth of Nations + Moral Sentiments”, “Communist Manifesto”, or “Road to Serfdom”, or Friedman’s “Monetary History”?
The Manifesto is by far the shortest.
If you are convinced by a short non-fiction work, you probably were predisposed to the premise and didn’t need to read it at all.
Sorry about the thread necromancy. Just had to comment on John Dewey’s comment on another commenters comment that Atlas Shrugged was a wee bit overwritten:
and I think we should be careful about criticizing what many see as an important book
Luckily we don’t need to be careful about criticizing books in this country. Something Ms. Rand would surely appreciate in a general sense (although like most authors probably not in the specific sense of her book).
We can give you the best Sword of the New World money and best service.
it is interesting
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.