Most of the books I read are on the longer side, but I'll read a shorter book if it's interesting. I read a lot of history and those tend to be very long.
Do you read short books (under 50,000 words aka under 200 pages) or long books (over 50,000 words aka over 200 pages)?
I usually try to stay away from short books because as soon as you start it feels like it's over.
Not sure why you are asking, so it's hard to decide what to say.
I don't read books per se anymore, and I read about pretty much all of the things I had major interests in by the time I was about 40.
But aside from technical stuff, reading as a hobby was never based on the length of the book, but always on the author.
For instance, Andrew Greely was a Catholic priest whose writings I came across in popular sociology (his specialty---and one of my many interests). Subsequently, he ventured into fiction and his writings reflected his theological, philosophical, and "people" knowledge and which I found highly entertaining. CS Lewis is another author I read extensively, as was GK Chesterton as well.
From teen years to early 20's Zane Grey, Mickey Spillane, and John MacDonald---total easily over 200 books.
So subjects and authors I like are the main focus---and length is of no importance to me unless an author becomes too verbose just to extend the number of pages.
Comment if you need any clarification.
I really don't care what size they are although I prefer longer but it's the story that really counts.
It’s about subject matter, if it holds my interest. I prefer non-fiction.
I like the longer books. If I really love the story, I hate to have it end too soon. :)