Why books in a tweet will never replace a good novel

THE Great Gatsby is already a pretty slim work. At 47 000 words it is barely longer than a novella. But Samsung thinks it can be reduced to fewer than 140 characters: “V. rich, enigmatic Jay Gatsby finds 1st luv Daisy, Tom’s wife. But it’s selfish D&T’s fault ends w/ Jay shot. Also ‘Gr8’ Gatsby was bootlegger.”

Hardly sings off the page, does it?

If you thought the sequel to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird , Go Set A Watchman , released last month amid much fanfare, was a damp squib, how about the original, great novel flattened into a social media post: “30s U.S, 6yo Scout+bro Jem try2c recluse Boo. Dad=lawyer4Tom, innocent black victim2racist trial. S+J attackd, saved by B & lern life-lessn.”

These two books, along with 23 other classics, were condensed by Professor John Sutherland, the chairman of the UK’s Man Booker prize.

A British survey released this week suggested one in 10 18- to 25-year-olds had never read a novel. Only one in four planned to take one on holiday this year, compared with three in four who intended taking their phones.

This may sound a bit depressing, but the smartphone has not created the craze for abridgement. That is as old as Charles and Mary Lamb’s 1807 shortened versions of Shakespeare for children. Bite-sized versions do not kill off the long form, it seems.

Just look at the adult book market, where the monster tome appears unstoppable. The three most recent Man Booker winners weighed in at an average of 579 pages. Many consumers crave long, complex epics, be it on the page with Hilary Mantel (author of historical novel Wolf Hall) or on the screen with Breaking Bad.

The problem with smartphones is that, even when we are away on holiday, everything can still be shared: gossip, food, selfies. The one thing that cannot be shared is a good novel. It remains one of the last, great private pleasures. Which is why it will never die.

Reducing the best of them to 140 characters? It sounds like a rather good game.— ©