Why does it take every book 150 pages to get started?

[RHWright]

It seems every book I read that was written in the last 15 years takes forever to get started. Doesn't seem to matter what genre: sci-fi, mystery, thriller.

And I'm not talking a slow build to take off, but a slower than glacial set-up with practically zero plot advancement.

It doesn't seem to matter the number of characters or plot threads that need to be introduced, it could be 2 it could be dozens.

And I like a good, complex character-driven story with lots going on, I don't need a constant roller coaster of plot. These books take forever to get to a simmer. And they're often books, that in the end, I enjoy.

Makes me feel like if I was an editor, I'd just toss the first 100 pages of every manuscript that crossed my desk.

I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Sure, there are notable exceptions—books that grab you right away and won't let go. But so many books seem to take their sweet time. I've even had people note this in their recommendations to me: "oh, it may seem to start off slow, but once you're about 100 pages in..."

Should it really take that long for the average book to lock you in?

What do you think? Am I just being crazy here?

[orb9220]

Yes tend to agree with you on that point. As found it a chore getting started and warmed up to a book. And am sure I probably missed some good stories of the result of that and me not in the right frame of mind to stick with it.

Worst for me than that is rehashing. Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time"  series comes to mind. As way to much rehashing of back story,character in every volume.Why? it's a series if you want to know what happened in the past then damn it read the earlier volumes. Don't waste my time on info I already knew.

Like he had a compulisve need to make sure every volume ended up in the 1000+ pages category. And 30% of those pages being retelling and rehashing back story and characters happenings from earlier volumes.

.

[MacMcK1957]

The first thing I thought of when I read this was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  Everyone I know either loved it once they got past the first 150 pages, or gave up on it before getting that far.

I blame the publishers.  Publishing has become a yes or no decision, with no editing.  Most books are at least 50% longer than they need to be, because publishers don't want to invest the money (and it is expensive) to have an editor go through the book and tighten it up.

[Htom_Serveaux]

I wonder if pricing comes into the picture.

When I was but a wee lad, reading all the science fiction I could find, paperback prices were all over the place, with slim volumes selling for a fraction of the price of hefty epics.

Now it seems like all paperbacks are 7.99 to 8.99, so maybe publishers feel the need for all of these books to have a minimum amount of physical heft to justify the price, instead of printing shorter works for a lower price.

Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke would often have "normal" sized novels, but Zelazny, Stableford, Bradbury, Norton, and a host of other talented folk would write a tale just as long as it needed to be and no more.

[patgolfneb]

I suspect all of the posts I have read have part of the reason.  I would suggest that most writers began by writing and publishing short storys in past generations, often expanding ideas into novels with future efforts.  The miniscule market for short storys these days and the lack of prestige means writers don't develop the skills and discipline required to get to the story quickly. Including needed background as its needed during the book requires extra effort, so dumping it into what is really an expanded introductory section is easier.

The focus on book series may mean writers are more focused on getting it finished and the next one in the pipeline. Perhaps fewer writers spend the extra time polishing their efforts.  Is it possible that to make a living a new book every 6 months is necessary now?

Another possiblility is selective memory, like movies and music we may tend to remember the best of older efforts and forget the the ordinary 

[RHWright]

Glad I'm not the only one. And I think you've all it on reasons for it. Also mentioned a few of the books I had problems with:

Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (never got back to it)

Wheel of Time Series (stuck somewhere in bk 2)

Other on my slow-starters list:

Game of Thrones (loving it after 175+ pages)

Meltzer's The Inner Circle (finished and enjoyed)

And just so you don't think it's only modern books: Jane Eyre. Liking it but the pacing is quite slow early on.

[MacMcK1957]

Lately I've been re-reading some older books, some SF from the 70's and earlier, as well as some older classics: Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, Agatha Christie, Mark Twain.

Most of the novels were 150-200 pages total, not much longer than what might be considered a novella today.  Yet nobody would have considered them incomplete or short.

There came a point in Stephen King's career when he became big enough that he could tell the editors to shove it.  Since that time I have chosen to read his work less and less.  It's just not worth my time.  The Stand was plenty long at 800 pages.  It didn't need to be 1300; the editors had been right to trim it.  Gerald's Game didn't have enough content to justify more than a short story, yet it was released as a novel,  Insomnia was easily three times as long as it needed to be.

It's probably unfair to single him out because, lately, his type is not the exception; it's the rule.

[Patrick_Skelton]

Good question.  As an author, my first and formost goal is to capture the reader's attention within the first page. However, what qualifies as "attention getting" is generally up for debate.  One man's interest is another man's boredom. 

[RHWright]

Hey, Patrick, good to see you pop up again!

Agreed, what will capture any particular reader varies.

While I have fairly developed taste in writing (or so I like to think), that means I tend to give authors more leeway in drawing me in, not less. It doesn't have to grab me by the metaphorical collar on page 1 and not let go. Though that is nice on occasion.

I'm just kvetching because I've recently encountered too many books with pacing problems at the start.

Not to suck up—this is my honest opinion—one of the things I liked about your book, The Device, was that it was paced pretty well. A decent unfurling of elements that did a good job of balancing the need to build character, supply enticing hints and details, and move the plot/action forward.

So many writers (not just first-timers) seem to spend lots of time on 1 & 2 before they ever get around to 3.

Meltzer, for example. Really liked The Inner Circle, but the first 150 pages felt like so much placing of all the complicated domino arrangements on the table before knocking over a single one. It kind of paid off once it started going, but would have been that much enjoyable without that slightly-off pacing.

Well, on the upside, I suppose they are object lessons as I try to bring projects of my own to fruition.