shorter

A point I forgot to emphasize enough on the “faster, shorter…” post of yesterday (too bleary-eyed to scroll down to it right now) is that books probably ought to be shorter, as a rule.

I’ve written a couple of long ones myself, though I’ve tried to streamline and condense a bit more each time, to the point that Prince of Networks is reasonably slim. As a reader, I increasingly find myself getting the point after 120 pages or so of anything, and not seeing why 400 or 500 is always necessary.

Perhaps the earliest extant “too long” philosophy book in the Western tradition is, in fact, Plato’s Republic. As of today I’ll be done with my latest reread of that classic work. And I’ve been delighted by it as always. But I believe that it’s a bit longer than necessary. Near the end they just seem to be talking too much, going into unnecessary detail about some things.

Imagine if the Republic were, say, 40% shorter. It could then make a very strong case for the greatest philosophical work ever written. (Some people already make that case, but under present conditions it is understandable that Levinas chooses Phaedrus as Plato’s best, and I still like Meno very much.)

Gorgias is another good one, but Socrates is such a jerk in that dialogue that I root for the Sophists, for the only time in my life.