"Wait just a tick," you've just said to yourself. "Didn't he recently write a blog post entitled 'Is Your Novel "Long Enough?"'" Yes, that elaborately-punctuated query is correct. I did, and it is here. But I have been perusing the book blog Book Riot (which is fantastic, by the way) and came across these two posts: "Every Book I Read Needs to be at Least 50 Pages Shorter"and "The Problem with 500-Page Books." These are two readers who, generally speaking, do not like long books. They find them fluffy and meandering. The comments to those posts consisted of those who agreed whole-heartedly and those who felt it was their duty to berate the authors for not having attention spans of steel. Comments from my post "Is Your Novel 'Long Enough'" also came down on both sides of the argument, which is to be expected.
So I'd like to ask those of you who prefer novels over novellas and short stories: How long is too long? Does it depend on the story, or will you simply pass on a book that has too many pages, no matter how good it looks? I have Stephen King's expanded edition of The Stand sitting on my shelf, which comes in at a doorstop-ian 1150 pages. And I do have to admit, I'm reluctant to begin it. I also notice that the three books that make up The Lord of the Rings are about the same combined length.
A question for all readers: If an author has a 1000-plus-page tale in the works, do you prefer it to be broken up into three or more books, or would you rather sit down with a tome in your lap? Discuss.