> Part of why I dislike essay collections is their neverendingness; I’ll read two, three, four essays in a volume and I still can’t cross it off my list. An incomplete task, it becomes a mental weight, an obligation. I’m deprived of the satisfaction of finishing.<p>Not being able to close a book without reading everything in it is a problem. People need to get over this, it's compulsive behavior. You don't have to read all the essays, just close the book, nobody's keeping score.
Nowadays, reading is mostly a meditative exercise for me. I'm not an "infovore" so I don't care about the velocity of ideas entering my head. Otherwise why not just go on Blinkist and read (or better yet listen to) book summaries. I also get the sense that the 300-page book that takes a week to read probably sinks into my brain better than a 100-pager; perhaps for the simple fact that the 300-pager takes longer to finish so I wrestle with the ideas for longer.<p>That being said, I do appreciate concisely written books. I wonder if our preference for shorter, more succinct writings is an inevitable outcome of the information age. So much data enter our eyeballs every day. Maybe we just have less tolerance for "fluff" compared to our ancestors. Older writings tend to be much "wordier". One example that comes to mind is the Einstein quote about simplicity from 1933: "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience". I prefer the condensed version: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".
I think this author is talking about a subset of non-fiction books, and we may as well call them "non-fiction idea" books, where the writer has a single idea they want to convince you of. On Tyranny does that. And sure, <i>maybe</i> books like Checklist Manifesto and The Goal could have been reduced to a hundred tight pages.<p>The hundred page idea definitely doesn't apply to non-fiction in general though. I can't imagine a history book or a biography covering what they need in a hundred pages. I don't think Chip War could be reduced.
I have written four books in the 60-80 thousand word range and one (a commission) where I had a constraint of 30 thousand words or 100 pages. I know it’s a cliché, but guess which one took me the longest.
I've been leaning in this direction for several years, now. Longer books generally are a) trying to do too many things at once, or b) demonstrate that the author doesn't understand their topic very well, or c) are filled with padding, usually as some form of Social Proof or similar, with irrelevant "case studies" or 500 irrelevant footnotes/references so on.<p>Quite similar with 2 hour long "podcasts". There's little to no respect for the subject, the audience, or the "author" on display in most of these. Exceptions tending to prove the "rule".
I find PhD dissertations to be a good fit for this. They are usually required to provide background on the field, an argument for why the covered research is state of the art and some actual example of original research. 80-200 pages depending on the field.
There are two types of good books: short ones, and longer ones with indicies and summaries after each chapter. Then there is the other 95%. Or is it 99%?<p>Its hard to write a good book. That makes them so valuable.
For most self help / productivity books, I agree pretty strongly with this take. A lot of those types of books (Atomic Habits, Getting Things Done, Measure What Matters as some examples) often feel like they could have been reduced to a blog post, or series of blog posts at most. They were good books, but I did feel like there there was some padding to slog through in each chapter.<p>Usually, the point is communicated fairly quickly a few paragraphs into the chapter and then belaboured for pages with one or two anecdotes that don’t lend much more weight to the strength/validity of the point for me.
I've spent a lot of my life practicing the 300-word idea, so the 100-page idea seems pretty sensible. When I think of the 500-page+ books I've read, the intent of every one of them was to create separation and distance from something conventional or to pull apart a lot of different ideas to make room for their new one. Others are to create a set of exhaustive variations to show it the core idea is generally applicable or somehow essential.<p>A lot of it is discourse to preempt critics, where history shows almost universally that this is time wasted.
I think a lot of comments are missing the point : it’s not about page size.<p>Today, most book writers are following a template of about 300-pages imposed by their editor, this (non justified) rule sold as a sweet spot is being (blindly?) applied by most authors and seems to be producing books that are unfocused.<p>What should be understood from the blog article is not that 100-pages books are inherently better, but that books should be written in a more focused way, without the unnecessary ceremony/anecdotes mostly added for the sole purpose of filling the void necessary to reach the « imposed » 300 pages recommendation.
I am disappointed. I thought this was about an individual elucidating their own ideas across one hundred pages in a rough manuscript.<p>As far as books go, give me the 300 pagers. Inundate me. I’m ready. It’s time.<p>The internet has betrayed my intellect. 300 pages. Inundate me. I want to read the 300 pager that expands upon the 100-page idea. <i>Inundate me</i>. I’m ready. I’ve had it with the screen. Unless it can point me to the next time.<p>Nothing else will satisfy me. It’s apparent. I thirst inundation. Bring me the tome.
kind reminder that timothy snyder isn’t held in great regard by other historians, even by right-wing ones—so, basically his own camp. especially on methodological grounds, omer bartov and richard evans have called out his use of chronological juxtaposition, saying it implies connections between events without enough evidence. this, along with other critiques, makes it an entertaining hundred page maybe, but not great value.
> the hundred page <i>idea</i><p>Did they read Matthew Walther's The One Hundred Pages Strategy and not understand it?<p>Is there a 'One Hundred Page' manifesto somewhere that relates to this blog?<p>Anyway, good blog post in it's own right.<p>On one hand anyone well traveled in life can see 200-300+ page non-fiction books are padded heavily.<p>On the other hand 300+ pages is like gong to the gym or walking up a mountain in this micro-fix world.