Do novels have to be half filler?

>>9485448
Most of this 'filler' has a purpose. It's intended to get you in the right mood, to be detailed so you can imagine the setting, to build up suspense, etc etc

Publishers do ask authors to "flesh out" skimpy books, because buyers feel cheated by paying the price of a book for what is, in their mind, not a full book.

That being said, >>9485496 does have a point that a lot of what you might call "filler" is mood- or atmosphere-setting for the book.

There are multiple possible answers.

If the author in your OP pic is what you typically read, then yes, I agree, the books you read are fairly empty and padded out. 1000 page books (and reading them) looks impressive, so people who don't look for actual beauty in art buy that shit.

On the other hand there's stuff like Tolstoy, Balzac and Melville. All three wrote fat books with slow plots and filled with descriptions. Tolstoy could describe so many details that seem completely irrelevant at the first glance. Yet, if you stop and think for a moment, they become very meaningful. He is building his characters in every sentence, with each adverb and adjective, it's unbelievable. Melville, on the other hand, usually deals less with the characters, but he could write a scientific text about whales that is actually a beautiful and ingenious piece of philosophy.

Sometimes you really do have to pad things out, for the rhythm of storytelling, either on a micro or macro level. This must be done carefully and deceivingly, of course. Melville wanted Moby Dick to be a story of grand proportions, but the actual fight with one whale can't be suitably lengthy and epic, so he "padded it out" with the cetology and countless digressions.

Does anyone on this shit board actually like reading?
You're complaining that the pie is too big. Don't fucking eat it then.

>>9485641
>You're complaining that the pie is too big.

It's more like complaining that, upon opening a bag of chips, half of the bag is air.

Your analogy assumes there is substance when there often isn't or isn't much.

>>9485650
Again, do you like READING?
What the fuck is substance? Literature is meaningless and wasteful if you seek concrete knowledge. You're opening a bag of chips expecting to find truffles.

I agree with OP. Most any book you pick up could be shortened 40% and still keep all the good parts and hold the plot. Particularly all the "witty" dialogue. I fucking hate books that are mostly dialogue. Or characters walking around and doing boring shit, or thinking retarded thoughts, or repeating themselves, or the author kicking a dead horse and repeating an idea 40 times.

When I write, I just never write any of that shit from the start.

>>9485641
>Does anyone on this shit board actually like reading

No. I'll like reading when the books stop being padded-out redundant hunks of shit.

>>9485641
Everyone but people like you; yes.

>>9485448
>meaningless conversation

haven't heard preston?

>>9485496
Pretty much this

>>9485650
You just blew my mind.
Upvote