3 ms·

> The average length of time represented in 250 words of fiction had been getting steadily shorter since the early eighteenth century. That is a fascinating de

> The average length of time represented in 250 words of fiction had been getting steadily shorter since the early eighteenth century. That is a fascinating detail in itself. My first thought is this is reflective of life moving faster in general. For example, travel by horse vs plane is the difference between days (or weeks) and hours. If you're writing about this travel in modern era, the trip can be summed up in a partial sentence like "After landing in (new city), ..." but you can't really gloss over a days-long trip by horse in the same way. Basically, "event density" has gone up: more things can happen in a smaller length of time, and number of words is reflective of how many things are happening.

mdrzn 3y ago
> "event density" has gone up An excellent portrayal of the dynamic and rapid nature of modern life.
feintruled 3y ago
It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but I think the main difference is that historically novels were much more verbose, in a style that would be considered prolix today. You can basically read any page of Dickens to illustrate the point! But maybe its just because there was less going on they could afford to dwell on the minute to minute.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Dickens work was originally serialized so there might have been a perverse incentive at work to stretch stories out.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>but you can't really gloss over a days-long trip by horse in the same way. Isn't your interpretation backwards? The length of time is shorter now, meaning 250 words describes a shorter duration/less happening. They were glossing over more, historically.
yathern 3y ago
Is it not the opposite? Rather than moving faster, more words are devoted to shorter increments of time. > The average length of time represented in 250 words of fiction had been getting steadily shorter since the early eighteenth century. Time passed per word has been decreasing. A page used to mean a week, now it means a day. In your horse vs plane example, this makes sense if they both gloss over it. EG "we rode 3 days to Rivendell" vs "I landed in Tokyo after a long flight".
nonameiguess 3y ago
It's been interesting to read the acoup.blog post series on deconstructing military logistics in fantasy stories. I don't know how much was just obsessive attention to detail, how much was having served himself, but Tolkein was extremely exacting about how long a trip would take and a realistic size of army that could be sustained. Then you get to A Song of Ice and Fire and George Martin has all but said he doesn't care and nobody should try to figure out a timeline or distances between locations because they won't work if you scrutinize it closely. I don't know if that generalizes to all writers, but it gives the impression that many don't really care about realism like they used to. But yeah, it could be the mismatch between history and current travel methods. Writers of the past, even when they wrote about the past, largely would have still been limited to traveling at the same speeds as distant ancestors via sail and horse. Writers of today who write about the past have no personal experience when they've only ever traveled by plane and automobile.

mdrzn 3y ago

> "event density" has gone up An excellent portrayal of the dynamic and rapid nature of modern life.

feintruled 3y ago

It doesn't necessarily invalidate your point, but I think the main difference is that historically novels were much more verbose, in a style that would be considered prolix today. You can basically read any page of Dickens to illustrate the point! But maybe its just because there was less going on they could afford to dwell on the minute to minute.

morkalork 3y ago
Dickens work was originally serialized so there might have been a perverse incentive at work to stretch stories out.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>but you can't really gloss over a days-long trip by horse in the same way. Isn't your interpretation backwards? The length of time is shorter now, meaning 250 words describes a shorter duration/less happening. They were glossing over more, historically.

yathern 3y ago

Is it not the opposite? Rather than moving faster, more words are devoted to shorter increments of time. > The average length of time represented in 250 words of fiction had been getting steadily shorter since the early eighteenth century. Time passed per word has been decreasing. A page used to mean a week, now it means a day. In your horse vs plane example, this makes sense if they both gloss over it. EG "we rode 3 days to Rivendell" vs "I landed in Tokyo after a long flight".

nonameiguess 3y ago

It's been interesting to read the acoup.blog post series on deconstructing military logistics in fantasy stories. I don't know how much was just obsessive attention to detail, how much was having served himself, but Tolkein was extremely exacting about how long a trip would take and a realistic size of army that could be sustained. Then you get to A Song of Ice and Fire and George Martin has all but said he doesn't care and nobody should try to figure out a timeline or distances between locations because they won't work if you scrutinize it closely. I don't know if that generalizes to all writers, but it gives the impression that many don't really care about realism like they used to. But yeah, it could be the mismatch between history and current travel methods. Writers of the past, even when they wrote about the past, largely would have still been limited to traveling at the same speeds as distant ancestors via sail and horse. Writers of today who write about the past have no personal experience when they've only ever traveled by plane and automobile.