This is not about a particular book, so apologies to Mods if it’s in the wrong forum.
I have for as long as I can remember generally steered away from books with large print, or even books that are shorter than average on pages, i.e. less than 250.
If I am browsing for books and see something that looks interesting, my first step is to flick it open and see how large the type is and if it’s big and spaced generously, nine times out of ten I’ll put it back on the shelf. I guess there’s something inside my head that makes me think I’m not getting value for money, or maybe it’s because I don’t feel like starting something which I know will be over fairly quickly.
Generally speaking I’d agree with you, but there have been times when I could only get the book I wanted (especially through inter-library loan) with large type. Then I just shrug and go ahead and read it.
I think the OP is referring to the common practice of padding books out to “book length” by playing with the typography, rather than formal “large print” books.
On a few occasions I get annoyed by this myself, but only when it seems excessively done. Most of the time I find myself comparing them to the latest 900-page small-print, low-leading biography or novel and saying to myself, Yes! A book I can finish in a reasonable amount of time!
Of course, I read a lot of books. Most don’t have 900 small-print pages worth of stuff that fascinates me. I’d rather read several short ones that say something new and different instead.
I’ll admit to a bias against books with pages that look like something I typed myself, back in the 60’s on an IBM Selectric, double-spaced, with 2 inch margins all around.
A nice font and just the right amount of white space goes a long way toward convincing me that I’m reading something of high quality.
I’ve accidentally bought large-print books on-line, and reading them took some getting used to. I don’t like them.
I’m hesitant to buy “skinny books”, too. Books are expensive, and I don’t use the library. (Bastards want the books back.) A naturally indecisive person, I agonize for long periods of time between particular titles-- does the shortness of the book override my desire to read it, or should I get the book that I’m not as eager to read, because the experience will last longer? “Skinny books” are often just as expensive as longer ones, so I’ll almost always go with the longer one to satisfy some latent desire to “get my money’s worth.”
No, I don’t usually look at the font size critically, though now that strikes me as a good idea. The only time I can remember ever noticing a large font size and overly-generous margins was when, out of morbid curiosity, I picked up Jessica Lynch’s book in a store and glanced through it. It looked much like some of the term papers my husband’s students turn in!
It’d be interesting to see if market research has been carried out to see feelings on this on a wider scale. Depending on the results, maybe a publisher will stop padding out books, use less paper (which on large print runs could be quite significant), and maybe even start pricing shorter books more competitively than longer books.
I doubt it. Some newer mass market(paperback) books are coming out now in new, larger “easier to read” or some crap size. It’s slightly bigger than the normal paperback, has larger type, more white space and costs two bucks more.
Look up Deep Six by Clive Cussler on Amazon for reference. Barely one inch larger, and almost $10. (The links both point to the newer, more expensive version).
