A friend read a review of a novel and asked if I’d seen it. I hadn’t, but I found it at the library and read the first chapter.
The writer knew what he was doing. He created a world — in another country and another era — that I could picture. The characters were interesting. I was engaged.
I’d invested an hour in that chapter and wondered how long it would take to read the book: 19 hours.
That’s the length of the audiobook, the time I’d spend having the book read to me.
I returned the book to the library and went on to other things.
I find some of the published information about the length of books to be misleading, which is why I’ve learned to check the audiobook. People who read professionally — broadcasters, for example — tend to read about 150 words a minute, while some sites that estimate reading time assume you’ll read twice that fast.
People listen to audiobooks and podcasts at faster than recorded time. Some people use the old technique of speed reading, and others use the even older techniques of skipping, skimming and browsing.
I think the evidence suggests that a lot of people besides me find length a problem.
If someone invited you to the movies and mentioned that the running time of the exciting new film was 19 hours, would you go?
Or, if someone told you about an interesting new book, and said that it could be read in two hours, rather than 19, would you be more likely to give it a try?
I would. Using 150 words a minute as the pace, that works out to 18,000 words.
To test the idea, I have been playing around with a story to see whether I could fit it into that length.
The exercise was interesting. You can keep learning as a writer if you follow your whims.
As to the piece of writing itself: the jury is still out. I wish I could talk a real fiction writer into trying this experiment.
• Note: This is not a new theme. For an earlier stab at this topic, see “Was the movie better than the book?” March 13, 2022, which might serve as an introduction to one-night reads.
No comments:
Post a Comment