Tozer, J.: How long is the perfect book? : Bigger really is better. What the numbers say (2019)
0.00
0.001913537 = product of:
0.003827074 = sum of:
0.003827074 = product of:
0.007654148 = sum of:
0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007654148 = score(doc=4686,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4686, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4686)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- British novelist E.M. Forster once complained that long books "are usually overpraised" because "the reader wishes to convince others and himself that he has not wasted his time." To test his theory we collected reader ratings for 737 books tagged as "classic literature" on Goodreads.com, a review aggregator with 80m members. The bias towards chunky tomes was substantial. Slim volumes of 100 to 200 pages scored only 3.87 out of 5, whereas those over 1,000 pages scored 4.19. Longer is better, say the readers.
- Type
- a
