Thoughts on short books?

In our August "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

What do people think about SpringerBriefs or Palgrave Pivot? It feels a bit of dirty back-scratching to me: the author gets to call an extended article a book, and the publisher gets to charge book price for it. But happy to change my first impression!

Another reader then responded:

I know at least one SpringBrief that is a thoughtful and well regarded book (and it is not my own ;)). So I think they do serve a purpose. In fact, I think a number of the major publishers are getting into producing smaller books (under 60,000 words). When I published with an academic press, I was explicitly told that the manuscript should be 90,000 words (the idea was it should not be shorter than 90,000). I think the academy is shifting a bit.

Here's my response: I think it is a good thing that publishers are increasingly publishing shorter book series like these. Let me explain why.

First, books in these kinds of series normally appear to be substantially cheaper than standard-length books. For example, whereas my first book (105K words) was initially only available in hardcover form for $110 USD (!), my new book with Routledge Focus (50K) words only costs $56 in hardback, $20 for an ebook, and $12.50 for a 6 month rental. This is not only good for authors (whose books are presumably more likely to get read the less expensive they are); it is good for the consumer, who has to shell out a heck of a lot less money to read new work.

Second, I don't think it's right to say that books like these are akin to extended articles. Maybe some of them are (a 25K book is roughly twice the length of a long journal article). But, for my part, I don't think that most of these kinds of books read like extended articles at all. For example, I reviewed this short book (which is roughly the same length as mine), and (as much as I disagreed with much of it) it was far longer, wider in scope, and more systematic than any journal article I've read--and I don't think my Routledge book reads at all like a long article either.

Which brings me to my main reason for favoring short book series like these: there's a very real and important place for publishing monographs like these as freestanding books. First, journals are almost certainly not going to publish something 25-50K words long. Second, at least in my experience, far too many full-length books are bloated and (to that extent) less likely to be read carefully or in full. Consider, for example, A Theory of Justice (something which, for all of its admitted problems, I still consider a great work). Rawls has long been taken to task for arguing in A Theory of Justice that maximin is rational in the original position (see here). However, by and large these critiques tend to focus on three pages of TOJ in isolation. My own reading here (which I this part of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the original position also supports) is that Rawls' maximin argument really only makes sense in full context: namely, in virtue of the fact that he argues later on in Section 29 the book that maximin is rational because it affords everyone in society (upper, middle, and lower classes) three substantive goods it is rational for them to want (viz. strains of commitment, stability, and self-respect). Further, on my reading, those three goods only make clear sense if you read Part III of A Theory of Justice, where Rawls defends a substantive 'thin' theory of the good. And yet, when I recently made these points on social media, the very first comment I got was something to this effect: 'I've never read Part III of TOJ. Everyone told me to ignore it.' This, I think, is a major problem with gigantic books: reading them from beginning to end and taking the time to understand how all of their parts fit together is a monumental undertaking that many people just don't have time for. 

Indeed, consider another example: Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. Until relatively recently, it was largely ignored in contemporary philosophy (and still is, I think, in large part). Why? Here's a quick answer: the Groundwork is far shorter, easier to get into (given how difficult Kant is already), and easier to 'keep in mind' (all of us who have read it, I expect, have a pretty good working memory of what each part of it does!). It's no coincidence, I think, that many influential works standardly assigned in university courses--the Groundwork, Mill's Utilitarianism and On Liberty, Locke's Second Treatise, etc.--are short books. The Groundwork is only 60-something pages, Utilitarianism 50+, etc. It's precisely because they are short, I think, that everyone has read them and has a good idea of what they actually say. Would we all be better off reading longer works (for example, by the likes of Bentham, Sidgwick, etc.)? Yes, and I think we should read longer books. But, for all that, I still think there's a reason why the shorter books tend to be read, engaged with, and assigned more: people only have so much time on their hands and the ability to understand difficult philosophical works that, often enough, short books are the best place to begin!

Long story short: I think short books are a good thing. I think there's a place for works of all different kinds of length. Some philosophical works should be 2,000 word Analysis articles. Others should be 6-8K words. Others 10-12K words. Others 25-50K, others still 100K, and others still 1,440 pages (though, actually, I'm a bit skeptical anything needs to be that long;). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Douglas W. Portmore]

I agree with all of Marcus's points, although I should probably disclose that I'm writing such a book for Cambridge's Elements series. Different projects are ideally done within different word lengths. And, thus, some projects are better suited to be published in the form of a short book than in the form of either (a) 2-3 journal articles published in different journals or (b) one long monograph that's roughly the same length of six or seven journal articles combined. To my mind, then, it's bad that the norm has been to publish every project in either the form of a ~30 page journal article or the form of a ~180 page monograph.

[Peter Furlong]

I agree with Marcus and Douglas on this. I recently reviewed a book in the Cambridge Elements series, and it worked perfectly as a short book. In fact, it made me want to track down Elements books in areas I haven't done any work in. I really like that publishers have started doing more small books, and I hope the trend continues.

[Jakub Macha]

I agree that there should be places for publishing works of all different kinds of lengths. I see, though, several problems. Some publishers charge too much for very short books (e.g., Brill charges 100$ for a 50p book, Springer Briefs books are for 50$). Moreover, Springer sells separate chapters of such books (for 30$ each). Authors are forced to write very short chapters (2k words) that must be more or less standalone papers (with an abstract and keywords). I find this structure awkward - intended rather to maximize the publisher's profit than to communicate philosophical ideas.

[S.J]

Recently I signed a digital contract with a good and well known publisher to write a monograph for a book series. After stages of review and revision, they say that they will publish my book as a stand alone volume or they will find other book series for publishing my book. I do not know which option to choose. Please share the impilcations of choosing the options (stand alone or book series) listed by them. I would also like to know whether the contract promising to give one time payment holds good at this stage. From the contract I understand that it was signed between me and the publisher for writing a work which may be published in the book series. Please help.

[trying to help]

S.J.
I cannot image which publisher is behaving as you describe. What is this one time payment you mention? Is that instead of royalties?
It does not sound like a University Press. That is not how they generally operate.

[S.J]

For maintaining confidentiality, I don't want to disclose the name of the publisher but they are well known publishers. They promised to make a one time payment instead of royalties. I would like you to help me to decide whether to go for stand alone volume (of my technical content related to Engineering) or to find other book series with the same publisher.