Stella Matutina - The Sunday Salon: Chunksters

Stella Matutina

books and stories and musings, oh my!

The Sunday Salon: Chunksters

19th-Jul-2009 12:13 pm

La blog has been rather short on reviews this month, and it’s all down to the chunksters.

I don’t know what it is, but I’m craving long books right now. I read 24 chunksters in all of 2008, but I just hit the 25 mark for 2009. I’m making shoddy progress on la TBR, which is rather distressing, but I’m really enjoying my reading material. I just spent two weeks with Jacqueline Carey’s second Kushiel trilogy, which I loved to death, and I began the thirteenth YEAR’S BEST FANTASY AND HORROR this morning. (So far so good). After that, I figure I’ll plod on through THE ANGEL’S GAME by Carlos Ruiz Zafon; then I’ve got my sights set on both THE AMAZING ADVENTURES OF KAVALIER AND CLAY by Michael Chabon and THE SECRET HISTORY by Donna Tartt. That should take me well into August.

Even though I’ve finished very few books this month, I find that I’m reading more than ever. We’re talking 250-300 pages per day, easy as anything. (I normally read 100-200 pages per day. I envy those of you who read that per hour). The thing about chunksters is that they’re generally really, really good. I have this theory that publishers are unwilling to release longer work that doesn’t deliver in a big way. Shorter books require such a piddly time commitment that I, for one, am willing to plod on through to the end even if I’m not much enjoying the story. That’s hardly the case with a chunkster. It’s gotta draw me in in a big way, or I’ll get fed up and move along to something else. I don’t mind losing a day to a bad book, but four or five days? No thanks. I abandon very few books in the course of a year, but almost all of them are chunksters that annoyed the hell out of me.

So yeah. That's why I've written so few reviews lately. Chunksters, chunksters and more chunksters.

Do you ever find yourself craving longer books? What are some of your favourites?

Tags:musing, sunday salon

Comments

19th-Jul-2009 05:56 pm (UTC)

zenleaf.blogspot.com

I haven't read a lot of modern chunksters unless you count Harry Potter. Most of the long books I read are classics, which are sometimes good, sometimes not. Because they were often published serially at the time, they have both good dand bad points. It seems to depend on the author.

Quick question - how exactly do you define Chunkster? 400+ pages? 500+?

19th-Jul-2009 06:02 pm (UTC)

xicanti

I've got to admit, I tend to steer clear of classic chunksters, mostly on account of the serialization issue. I can never forget that these writers were getting paid per installment and so were eager to draw their stories out for as long as humanly possible. I often find that the pacing suffers for it. I do hope to try a few during the second half of 2009, though. THE WOMAN IN WHITE has been on my TBR for a while now, and I've heard so many good things about it that I'm hoping it'll help me overcome by prejudices.

Regarding definitions, I've been going by 450+ pages, which is the definition the Chunkster Challenge uses. I do include YA novels and short story collections in my personal tally, though, and those are banned from the challenge.

19th-Jul-2009 08:58 pm (UTC)

deslily

well now.. i consider a "chunkster" over 400 pgs.. and I love a good one as much as anyone, but cannot do more than one and then smaller books and then one chunkster.. i have a few sitting in my tbr and really need to get to them..actually I am reading one that's about 500 pgs now, The Sorceress, I guess i see books 800 pages and better and THOSE i really consider chunksters lol

20th-Jul-2009 02:24 am (UTC)

xicanti

I always used to alternate chunksters with shorter books so I didn't feel like I was getting bogged down, but lately I just can't keep myself away from the longer books! The last three I read were all of the 800+ page variety, too. They took me forever to get through, but they were oh-so worth it.

19th-Jul-2009 09:05 pm (UTC)

damnedconjuror.wordpress.com

Chunksters are more expensive to produce so the publishers have to be careful with them. They have to make sure they're worth it plus they have to think how they'll market it because most people tend to stay away from long novels, especially if it's by a unknown. Of course, classics such as Dickens and Elliot are mainly exempt as their canonical and not likely to be difficult to sell.

I don't have any preferences, but on average I read more shorter books around 200-300 then 500+ books. I'm not consciously choosing shorter books but that's how it goes.

20th-Jul-2009 02:26 am (UTC)

xicanti

I figured that was the case. I read a lot of fantasy, so chunksters were the norm until very recently. The market seems to have changed now, though, and a lot of shorter books are making their way into bookstores.

I'd say that in a typical year I read mostly 200-350 page books. There must be something in the air this year that's making me crave the longer ones. :)

19th-Jul-2009 10:34 pm (UTC)

deb_nance

I'm a quirky reader. I like to read short books. Lots of short books.

Oddly, I cannot remember a single chunkster that I have not loved. And I mean wildly loved.

Wonder why?

20th-Jul-2009 02:26 am (UTC)

xicanti

Maybe you just know how to pick 'em? I've run across a few that I really disliked, but I think I've enjoyed most of the longer books I've read.

19th-Jul-2009 11:11 pm (UTC)

bright_lilim

When I was younger I loved Robin Hobb's Assassin books. But the Liveship Traders where a lot longer (about 900 pages each) and they sort of burned me out on Hobb.

Now my favorite longer books are Carey's Kushiel books, Sanderson's Mistborn (I got the last Mistborn book as an Audible download and they had to break it into four parts!), and of course the Three Musketeers which I'm planning to reread this year.

I'd love to read more longer books but I just don't have the time. The last one was Sanderson's Warbreaker which was very good but took me two weeks. I love to listen longer books as audiobooks but they aren't always available.

20th-Jul-2009 02:29 am (UTC)

xicanti

Carey and Sanderson are big ones for me, too, and I'm eager to read THE THREE MUSKETEERS one of these days. Come to think of it, I've been planning to read more Dumas for several years now. I read and loved THE BLACK TULIP in 2000 or so. I really need to make some more time for him.

19th-Jul-2009 11:59 pm (UTC) - "The Book Thief" and "The Historian"

Anonymous

I recently completed two 21th century chunksters, "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak and "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova. I loved "The Book Thief" and would have been happy if it was twice as long. I liked "The Historian" but think it could have been edited down quite a bit.

20th-Jul-2009 02:29 am (UTC) - Re: "The Book Thief" and "The Historian"

xicanti

I agree with you on THE HISTORIAN. I read it several years ago, and I felt like there was a fair bit of padding in there. It was good, but it could've been tightened up quite a bit.

20th-Jul-2009 06:45 am (UTC)

shanra

I have this theory that publishers are unwilling to release longer work that doesn’t deliver in a big way

Is it still a theory if I can give you a link wherein an author says that that's exactly the issue with them? (Well, okay, perhaps not exactly, but her bottom line is "Chunksters cost publishers more money. If yours is not very, very, very good, they will not publish it because they will lose money. And they do not like that.") I'm pretty sure I linked it before and 100% positive I can find the post again if you're interested. ^-^

I suppose I do actually have a preference for shorter books - they're easier to carry and on shoulders that protest against a day of carrying a bag and a book of around 300 pages already that makes a huge difference.

But then my definition of a chunkster is something like 'The Count of Monte Christo' rather than something like 'A Song for Arbonne' which is the second-last book I read and that qualifies as a chunkster by the rules of the challenge. So. I suppose I should've got the definition first. There is one exception I'd make for omnibus volumes. I like the idea of them, but I've discovered that I don't like them in practice. They're too big for me. I like reading my books to be individual books. Guess I'm odd like that. ^-~

20th-Jul-2009 07:49 am (UTC)

myflutteringheart.blogspot.com

I love chunksters! they're the best. but you do have to be in the right mood for them. I mean you cant just read them one after the other or I'm sre most would get frustrated on how long it takes to finish! I am sad that I am halfway through War & Peace after about a year reading the same page over and over - its so incredibly tedious.

I have really enjoyed some chunksters in my time though - The Secret History was definitely one of them, and Fingersmith by Sarah Waters, and I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. Oh, and Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett!
I agree the Historian couldve been edited a bit better, but Im not sure i would consider the Book Thief to be a chunkster...or maybe it just seemed smaller to me because i loved it to bits and read through it like lightning.

I have Woman in White by Wilkie Collins on my bookshelf right now and can't wait to get to it...reading Wild Swans at the mo which is also pretty chunky, but not really exciting me very much :(

20th-Jul-2009 11:50 am (UTC)

xicanti

I'm mostly eager to get to THE SECRET HISTORY because of your recommendation. :) I'm really looking forward to it right now.

20th-Jul-2009 11:49 am (UTC)

xicanti

Me = interested. Publishing stuff is fascinating. (Also, scary. I get all worried that ARVORE breaks, like seventy million rules).

I'm not a fan of omnibi either. I own a couple, (most notably the one-volume edition of BONE, since it was so much cheaper than getting the individual volumes), but I hate hauling them around. I generally try to replace keeper omnibi with each individual book as soon as I can.

20th-Jul-2009 12:48 pm (UTC)

shanra

There you go. From memory, you've got the word count right, at least. ^-^

Mmm... The Bone omnibus might be too big for me indeed, but there are some which have a decent size. My editions of CLOVER and Girl Genius vol 1-3 are examples, but usually they're just all sorts of huge asnd scary. O_O

21st-Jul-2009 12:38 am (UTC)

xicanti

Thanks for the link! That's a really interesting post, and I feel much better about my word count now. When I started writing ARVORE, (which was longer ago than I care to recall), 100-150k was considered standard for fantasy. I'm SO glad that standard word counts have gone down for all genres. Puts less pressure on those of us who write shorter books, especially since it looks like Draft #5 will be around 90k. :)

Random: you know the problem with having a name that's also a common word? I read the first line of your reply and thought, "From me?"

20th-Jul-2009 11:11 am (UTC)

forever_meg

I think I agree that chunksters are usually really good books. It occurred to me last month sometime that most of my absolute favorite books are actually gigantic volumes with lots of plot and depth and character development. I wanted to read more this month and I did read a few, but it seems my need for longer books was much less keen than yours!

20th-Jul-2009 11:51 am (UTC)

xicanti

Now that you mention it, I'm the same way: most of my ultimate favourite books qualify as chunksters. I've got one shorter book and a whole sea of hefty tomes on my list.

20th-Jul-2009 01:38 pm (UTC)

nymeth

I do crave a good chunkster every now and then. I can think of several amazing ones - Possession, Fingersmith, The Blind Assassin, The Book Thief, The Mists of Avalon, American Gods, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - but sometimes I also come across a terrible one that I still can't bring myself to put down. That was my experience with The Forgotten Garden recently. I guess it does say something about it that I felt compelled to finish it, though. I have several chunksters lined up for August, and one of them is Tigana. Can't wait :)

21st-Jul-2009 12:39 am (UTC)

xicanti

Ooh, I can't wait for you to review TIGANA! (Insert obligatory ramble about how it's my favourite book ever and I give it seven stars and I love it and want to adopt babies with it). I do hope you enjoy it.

21st-Jul-2009 08:33 am (UTC)

shanra

Cutest fan raving ever.

20th-Jul-2009 11:22 pm (UTC)

classicvasilly.wordpress.com

It's not very often that I crave chunksters though I have many of them on my shelves.Right now I'm craving short works, so for the last two weeks I've been reading many short stories and essays. Two of my favorite longer books are The Book Thief and Stones from the River by Ursula Hegi. I also have The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay waiting for me to read.Happy reading.

Vasilly

21st-Jul-2009 12:41 am (UTC)

xicanti

I think that part of the reason I'm craving chunksters right now is that I spent so long craving short books. My brain was ready for a change. Thankfully, my months-long short books binge left me with a wealth of TBR chunksters to choose from.

Leave a Comment to the Entry

This page was loaded Nov 21st 2009, 6:24 pm GMT.