[dropped all cross-posted groups]
In article <66d0huF2j1ijsU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Sean O'Hara writes:
>In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful ND declared:
>> The publisher submission guidelines are calling for shorter and
>> shorter subs, which acquit themselves well on PDAs, mobile phones and
>> the like - all set for a lunchtime read.
>
>Got a citation for that.
>In the '40s and '50s, even into the '60s, it wasn't uncommon to see
>novels that were under 200 pages --
Bloat. I have a fair number of books in the 110 to 140 page length. That's
not even counting Doc Savage. I don't think that I have any that check in
under 100, though.
200 pages (or nearly so) is obviously too big to be readable in these
hectic modern times.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?
