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

[ImJustMadAboutSaffron]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Doesn't that set the scene though? I find it does and I like that sort of detail. That doesn't mean that I only read this type of books or long books @TheYearOfSmallThings I know slow doesn't just mean long - but I find some "chick lit" completely surface level and unengaging.

I've yet a meet a book that is too 'slow' for me. And in this I include the entire works of Beckett, Gwendoline Riley novels where a young woman just goes to work in a bar and then goes home again repeatedly, and Claire-Louise Bennett's Pond where an entire chapter is devoted to the declining performance of the three control knobs on the narrator's oven.

These things are down to personal taste. I'm generally not drawn to plotty novels.

Just curious, what did you read by Lucy Diamond, OP?

I loathe long drawn-out descriptions of everything, it makes me think of Dame Sally Markham, just using words for the sake of it. I prefer writing that's straight to the point.

Because different people like different things. Because different types of books need different things IMO. Because the mood I'm in directs what genre of book I'll read and what I expect from that book.

I DNFd my first book in about 15 years recently. It was painfully slow. Eg "The man got home. He opened front door. The man hung his coat up and closed the door. He sat in the armchair. It was a big armchair. The armchair was yellow"

Absolutely none of that was relevant.

'Too much detail' to me, means the book reads like they're trying to get the word-count up.

I can't remember what it was (I half think it was the True Blood books), but the author would describe every outfit - pointlessly, didn't add anything to the plot, or the scene, just felt like page-filler.

Slow, I think of things like 3-body problem - I enjoyed it, liked the ideas, but felt that it needed an editor so the author got to the point a bit better!

I don't have that issue with the Strike novels - I quite like the pace/level of detail - isn't there a technique where you know if something's had attention paid to it you know it's important to the plot/characters? I think that's done well in the Strike novels, not to obvious, not too obscure.

Why do people want surface skimming stories that are disposable?

Because they hold my interest far more than long, boring descriptions of scenery and extraneous details.

Because people are different.

You sound very judgemental

I asked a question @RadoxMoon. Nothing wrong with that. Why do you think that this is in any way judgemental?

This is "what we're reading", a discussion of what it says on the title, ie, what we're reading. It's not AIBU.

Different people like different things, and at different times, too.

@cassiatwenty It was called "Anything Could Happen". I didn't find it slow at all. Some people like drama, but it's not needed in every book, I guess.

@BlueFairyBugsBooks I'm surprised that got past the publisher!

Why do you think that this is in any way judgemental?

You don’t think calling something “disposable” and equating “surface-skimming” with disposable is judgemental? Also, in your follow up comments you make it clear that you think your opinion is the right one.

@ImJustMadAboutSaffron it was self published. An issue I'm torn about. Because I think anyone who wants to write a book should have the opportunity to do so, and not every book will get picked up by a publisher.
OTOH an awful lot of crap can be published if you do it yourself.

Edited for a typo

isn't there a technique where you know if something's had attention paid to it you know it's important to the plot/characters?

Chekhov's gun?

All books are different, as all readers are different. We all make judgements. This is a thread to discuss, not to have arguments and pick posters up.

Yes, this.

No.

It’s far, far too much information. You only need a few details, not a whole page or more.

As I said, he managed to set the scene perfectly well in his earlier books with a fraction of the description.

Sometimes I want a deeper read & sometimes I just want a quick fun detective story.
i think it also depends on what kind of brain you have - I dont have an minds eye so long descriptions are just a long list of information to me whereas my Husband & son see what they're reading in their mind like watching a tv.

(Agree both that Strike is long not slow & later Shardlake's are poorer for excess description.)

Thanks @ImJustMadAboutSaffron it seems like an interesting book 😊