Please or to access all these features

What we're reading

Find your new favourite book or recommend one on our Book forum.

"I found it slow ..."/"... too much detail"

34 replies

ImJustMadAboutSaffron · 14/04/2024 10:29

I see these comments often in reviews. I just finished a light read by Lucy Diamond and it was described as "slow". It wasn't. It was 372 pages which I think is average. I'm one of those who likes a story to develop properly and I like a lot of detail. I see the Cormoran Strike books get criticised a lot for this - I know they are very very long - but it's necessary to the plot I feel. I like to know about characters, back stories, details - if it's done well.

Why do people want surface skimming stories that are disposable?

OP posts:
TheYearOfSmallThings · 14/04/2024 13:03

It has nothing to do with the length of the book, or even necessarily the level of detail. It has to do with whether the quality of the writing keeps you engaged and moving eagerly through the book, or whether it flags and you have to make an effort to keep plodding wearily on.

TonTonMacoute · 14/04/2024 13:00

Some detail is just not necessary. I had to give up reading the last Shardlake book because it was so full of completely unnecessary description - butchers coming out of shops with sheep carcasses, people emptying buckets, women at market stalls. It goes on and on and on.

His first books didn't need all that guff, we know Tudor life was pretty basic, and it completely diverts attention from the plot and destroyed any tension.

GinandGingerBeer · 14/04/2024 10:45

I can't even remember the book I was reading recently but it was soooo boringly descriptive I had to keep skipping it.
Descriptions about putting a pan of pasta on to boil, the water bubbles the steam.... oh just fuck off! kinda mind numbing stuff!

EventuallyDecluttered · 14/04/2024 10:39

The Strike books are long not slow IMO. They are completely engrossing with lots of detail and it all feels relevant, the plot is always moving on. Whereas some long books just don't grip or engage me, the characters maybe don't seem realistic or whatever. Everyone likes different things.

WhiteLeopard · 14/04/2024 10:35

It's personal taste. Some people like lots of plot, others are happy with not much happening and the focus is on the characterisation. Neither is right or wrong, just different.

DreadPirateRobots · 14/04/2024 10:35

This is not a criticism I've ever had of a book not written by Dickens or a Russian but it's as legitimate as any. Sometimes people just want something lightweight they don't have to give their full attention to, and that's fine with me.

Me, if I'm really engaged in a story, I want a richness of detail and for it to go on forever, but not everyone is me.

mynameiscalypso · 14/04/2024 10:33

When I say something is slow, I mean that I'm struggling to get into it and for it to capture my attention. It's not about length per se - I'm very happy to read long books but only if they're not a slog.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 14/04/2024 10:33

Depends on context. For example, pretty much everything I read in first lockdown was stuff I had read scores of times before because there were enough nasty surprises going on outside my head without having them inside as well. Sometimes I want to read myself to sleep so I choose something light; and sometimes I want to be challenged or informed.

ivs · 14/04/2024 10:30

Because people are different.

Some people have too much going on in the day to day lives, and just want entertainment

Some people think that books where nothing happens are dull and boring

Swipe left for the next trending thread