You walk into Strand for a new book. It's been awhile. You got some Dickens (or some other long, boring thing) last time, and now you want something shorter - not necessarily easier, but more manageable. You want something to bring on the train, bury in the recesses of your tote bag, even tuck in the annals of your backpocket for those few stray moments of downtime.
The short (or small) book means nothing about content. It's about size, portability and easy digestion. If you had never heard of Pynchon, then you'd likely start with The Crying of Lot 49 - not because it's necessarily easier than the others (although, it is), but because it's short. You don't need to commit a month or more to an esoteric world that might make you too paranoid to leave your apartment. If that paranoia - or boredom, emancipation, relief, interest, whatever - comes, it'll only last for a few days until you reach the last words and can venture back to the store again for something new.
To me, shortness also comes into play when looking at how a book is setup. I'm currently reading Robert Bolano's endlessly epic 2666 right now. It's nearly 1000 pages long, yet this is a bit deceiving. The 1000 pages are split into 5 books and most of the content is divided into little pods of information. The material and stories become increasingly difficult as you plot on, but you can focus on small moments and allow them to fill in the proverbial puzzle pieces. To compare, take a shorter book by someone like Faulker. I love his work, but I'll never believe someone that claims it's not difficult to read through wild, flickering free verse that rarely stops to pause, explain characters or even impart if we're inside an unconscious or conscious reality.
Last night I sipped on free Buds at a closing party for the Armory Show. The topic of literature and novels came up. I made the ridiculous claim that the only two good novels are Don Quixote and Underworld. Now, this was, of course, a joke, but it falls into a sort hilariously unhip contrarian opinion. They are both BIG novels that are hard to get through. They take major commitments (maybe months) and cover HUGE issues while barreling through large swathes of history. Should an author such as DeLillo - who has proven he can write great short novels - make a work like Underworld more concise on the off-chance that more people will actually work their way through the whole thing without pretending? No, but I'd imagine that more people would finish a long novel if it was shorter.
TV will switch to 15 minute shows to mimic web episodes.
Movies will stream online in short segments with commercials.
Books will be replaced by short, immediate content.
The future already happened. The large novel will have to be really important to make it through the transition.
