Posted by Owen Roberts on May 24, 2011 at 15:01:02 user OwenRoberts.
In Reply to: Stats posted by John Nichols on May 23, 2011 at 17:00:29:
Regarding the statisistics relating to the length of the books. Here is a table from my article in Mixed Moss, which was based on an earlier version on Tarboard, which was based on the original statistics kindly supplied by Ed Kiser.
BK CHS WORDS AVE
SD##36##120,622##3,351
PD##36##118,325##3,287
PP##35##099,753##2,850
SA##31##099,167##3,199
BS##33##098,785##2,993
GN##29##098,142##3,384
CC##30##095,960##3,199
WH##29##095,389##3,289
PM##30##092,845##3,095
ML##27##092,168##3,414
WD##27##091,484##3,388
SW##30##089,722##2,991
The table shows the book length in declining order. Sorry about the strange table formatting, but I have forgotten how to do tables in HTML.
Certainly John, you are right that SD was the longest, but your hypothesis that the length declined as series developed does not seem to hold true.