Much has been made of the length of Eleanor Catton's Man Booker Prize-winning Victorian sensation novel The Luminaries, and at 832 pages it is by any standards long, but why - for that reason alone - would anyone baulk at reading it?
I ask because I've seen various comments on this and other long books along the lines of "I couldn't read a book that long". Granted, if a book is boring, poorly written, distasteful, of no intrinsic interest, and so on, the reader is not going to stick with it beyond 50 or 100 pages, never mind 800, but if it is none of the above but instead is gripping, beautifully crafted, mysterious ... why wouldn't you wish to continue and stay the course?
Clearly, if you had to read a long book for a deadline of some sort, to discuss at a book group, say, the limited reading time at your disposal might make it impossible, but under no such pressure, why would you not just settle down and enjoy the ride?
If you are someone who instinctively passes over long books in favour of short ones, please do tell us why. Is it that you crave variety such as a constantly changing literary landscape, a wide range of voices, difference in pace and rhythm, and a fuller colour palate than that which one book read over what is necessarily a long period might offer? And conversely, if you're drawn to long books over shorter ones, can you explain their essential charm?
For those who are interested in such things, here is an article by one of this year's Man Booker judges on the judging process, and regarding another long book, Donna Tartt's third novel The Goldfinch (784 pages) is out soon, and here she is talking about it with Kirsty Wark on The Review Show.