A gratuitous post

For some reason, it came into my head to write about (fiction) books which appeal to me. For a little while I had that simplified to "books by authors whose work I have a track record of enjoying", but I would rather say what I had started the thought with.

I like collections of short fiction, which is a sort of book I have been told is quite difficult to sell to publishers because they don't sell well. But, whether it be a compilation of a particular author's work, or a set of stories solicited around a theme, or just an anthology of the stories an editor or two believe to be the best of the year, I love getting to open a book of so many stories. Sometimes I think the people who say it are right, that science fiction (in its 'literature of ideas' mode) is at its purest and most impactful at short length; certainly, short fiction of whatever style seems to be often better at the 'kick to the gut' style than longer forms, although often correspondingly weaker at satisfying the urge to know what happens next. Bah, anyone reading this probably already knows what short fiction is and how often they enjoy it. I just know I love a good new (to me) collection. I ended up buying a lot of those on my first (and so far only) visit to Powell's in Portland, and there were plenty already sitting on my shelves. But not as many as I would like there to be.

Similarly, I tend to love omnibus editions. Those can blur into short fiction collections, such as the volume of Edgar Allan Poe's work I have, in which only one component is considered a novel on its own. But mainly I mean the sort in which a couple of novels and maybe some related short work is bound together. The fewer volumes I can get a series in (while still maintaining its status as a non-disintegrated book), the better. I have all ten volumes of Zelazny's Amber books in one volume, for example, the first seven Shannara novels in two (although I suspect I won't ever read them again unless I am entrusted a child who enjoys bedtime stories), and I was very disappointed when the only paperback copies of A Storm of Swords I could find were split into two parts due to its length. Which would be an advantage of ebooks, except I am still in love with books as physical objects.

I suppose that all stems from an irrational excitement about holding a volume and thinking "There is more than one story in here", although it is definitely more convenient than having every story bound separately. Or maybe it is a sort of imprinting - among the earliest non-picture books I read were my parents' huge bound collections of stories by H. G. Wells, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Isaac Asimov.

But then, I also love multi-volume series, which are often the reverse. One story spread out over several volumes. Sometimes that can be fixed by omnibusing them but of course not always. I think what I love about longer stories is getting to linger, witnessing a fuller exploration of the setting and characters. To get to enjoy a story which is truly so huge it cannot reasonably be smaller.

I suppose I like stories which are the right length for themselves. I tend to say the the appropriate size for a novel is at the smaller end, that if it fits at a hundred pages, or fifty thousand words or so, then that is where it should be. When I say I like longer stories, I mean ones that cannot reasonably be shorter. Not minimalist writing necessarily, but unpadded. Let it be big because you had to fit all the story in. Let it be small because that's all you needed. I try to follow that in my own writing.

Not so much in reading, I suppose. I tend to describe myself as someone with low standards, or lacking in taste. Often as a pre-emptive deflection of presumed criticism for reading stories considered trash by many (or such is the impression absorbed - I don't recall encountering it as a personal obstacle, although I've seen others testify to suffering for similar), also to try and remind myself not to aspire to snobbishness. I want not to look down on others for what they enjoy, nor disown what I enjoy to seem or become more snobbishly intellectual in the matter of reading [1].

It seems to work out well for me, being of low standards. I get to read a lot of things and enjoy them, including some that are stereotypically without value (tie-in fiction) or, again stereotypically, dull, such as older classics. Perhaps I should more say 'being generous and willing to be entertained', as when specifics are involved I don't like to suggest it takes low standards to enjoy a Spelljammer novel or the work of Thomas Hardy, but it probably does help to be willing to enjoy them as themselves [2].

I also suppose I must admit to having standards of sorts. The early work of Sara Douglas would be at the low end of what I can read without quitting [3], at least when I read it in late high school, and I'm not willing to find out if that changes later. Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Identity would be below that line. I had to return it lest I edit it. This is all starting to sound a bit objective, but the point is it is not quite honest to declare myself without standards. Might be useful enough to keep doing. Better stick to low standards or lacking taste, if accuracy there isn't space for (there usually isn't).

So I like short story collections, omnibuses, and series. That mostly leaves out the single volume novel and doing a quick survey of my shelves shows they are indeed underrepresented. Especially if you count Discworld books and similar running settings as a series, and also exclude from the count any author who is on my automatic acquisition list.

Perhaps I should fix that. Oh, but books are exciting!

[1] 'snobbishness' reused because it means better what I intend, to hold in a classist sort of contempt, than to use more usual words such as 'intellectual' or 'literate' which would both be literally inaccurate and colloquially tar the innocent with accusations of social misdeeds.

[2] We can remix them later

[3] Also, the incest wasn't fun enough