Thickness of a book: Should it not be proportional to the idea beng conveyed

Sounds absurd what do I mean by the title.
Well, title maybe totally uncorrelated to what I intend to write.
Anyway, presently I am reading a book called "Blink" by Ian Galdwell. Its a good book.
I really like the entirely new concept the author exposes his thoughts/logic about.
What I don't like about the book is that it puts LOT many small examples to convey what it wants to prove. I am not sure if its required. But if he doesn't do that, maybe the book wont be even quarter as thick as its now. Result, maybe we are done with reading it in 1/6th of time than now. (I agree it also depends on the target audience, majority of which needs lots of illustrations to get the message across. I myself am one though, sometimes)
The thing is that we retain the idea/messege/influence as long (or a bit longer) as the person's-work or person's-reminiscence or the person himself/herself is around us and we are able to interact with it/him/her. ("Out of sight, out of mind" types). I think I would have been a much greater fan of Gandhi ( I am already a BIG one) had I met/talked to him once than by reading so much about him. Thats what personal touch does to you. It just bowls you over. But but but, you can let your mind controlled by it if you so wish and can do the contrary as well (We are gifted with a strong mind with which we can control or drift, at will)
Same with books, unless they are in sync with the idea/concept somewhere inside you or unless they are really revolutionary. If you already have that concept, the book's effect lasts long(er) as it reinforces the thinking you aleady beleive in. If its really revolutionary (rarely books are so. There are people who can do this to you more effectively, than books), you accept the idea since it appealed to you and hence the effect last, if you put efforts to that.
But for other books which don't fall in any of these two categories, the influence lasts as long as the book takes to be finshed (or a bit more). Maybe that way it makes sense to keep the book thicker. You read "blink" and then later on if I come-up with a book called "Deliberations", written with equally strong intent of proving higher-importance of deliberation to spontaniety in decision-making, you may realise that you are now attracted towards that book.
ANYthing NEW/DIFFERENT appeals to us. But they are not lasting. They are a welcome change like innumerable revolutions which the masses later realised, were equally worse as the earlier regime. Same way, since this spontaniety-funda is new to us, we like the book. We MUST be open to new idea, but should not get carried away just becuase its different/new. Our inner-self definitely deserves more respect than this.