What to do with the giant on your laptop (or when a novel can't get shorter)

[Anahid21]

I have a dilemma. Three years ago I started a YA fantasy. I had the entire novel laid out on paper and merrily wrote on. When it was all finished 2.5 years later I looked at my manuscript, clicked the double-space button (I had everything typed in single space,) and ended up with a 1000 page long manuscript staring at me.

When the time came to see a freelance editor she said there was no way a publisher would even look at a novel that long and we agreed to split the book into three separate volumes. However, now that I look at it, I see the book suffering from the Lord or the Rings syndrome. As in, you have to read the whole thing. No surprise because, after all, it is still one book. I've done my best to make each volume as self contained as possible but there is nothing I can do about the invisible "to be continued" stamp that shows up at the end of books 1 and 2 in bold black letters.

I'm completely at a loss. I believe the story is wonderful, it's just big. I even contemplated rewriting it but no matter how I try, there is no way I could shave off 2/3 of a plot to make it fit into the 300 page mold. I'm mad at the restrictions of today's publishing that puts limits on page number, says no to series stories, yet demands that every book should have a conclusive ending. It's like putting a sign over the door that says, "Your story must be this short to walk in."

What's your take on this and how do you suggest I solve the problem?

[ChristineR]

If it can't be made shorter, it can't be made shorter. Try to sell it as it is. I assume by 1000 pages, you mean 1000 manuscript pages. That would be quite a bit fewer when actually printed, maybe 500 pages. There are many 500 page novels out there, even first novels. If you can't sell it as it is, then maybe you can sell it as a second book.

If you're not 100% sure it can't be made shorter, try setting it aside for a while, or asking someone else to look at it.

[ChaosTitan]

First off, page count means nothing. What's your word count?

Second, if you truly feel that this story can't be cut (and I believe that any story length can be altered with a deft hand), then write another novel. Write a better, shorter novel that fits into today's standards. Once you've sold a novel or two, and have proven yourself marketable to publishers, you're more likely to be able to sell a long novel/trilogy such as you've described.

[scarletpeaches]

I cut a 148k novel down to just under 90k and it's a lot better for it.

[Freelancer]

Separate it to two, maybe three. I do the same with my 350k+ novel. Three volumes, separated at the right places. We're preparing for this, but regardless from it, we'll try to push it to publish the story in one great novel. But whatever will be, 3 volumes, or only 1, the storyline is already prepared to be published in more volumes if really necessary.

[ejaycee]

All stries can be trimmed, and are often much better for it. Check for redundancy, unnecessary words, scenes that don't actually do anything for the story (no matter how lovely they are) etc.
Get someone else to look at it for you. Fresh eyes can do wonders.

[Birol]

Tell you what, post the first page in SYW and post a link here, letting us know it has been done. Maybe we can show you what we mean by redundant words, etc. It really can make a difference.

[scarletpeaches]

Tell you what, post the first page in SYW and post a link here, letting us know it has been done. Maybe we can show you what we mean by redundant words, etc. It really can makes a difference.Et voila!

Fixed it for ya. :D

[Libbie]

Really, if you can't make it shorter, you can't. If you can't sell it as a debut, then write something shorter and sell that first.

However, I found it easy to shorten my novel after writing a two-page synopsis (with scarletpeaches' help -- she is a synopsis whiz.) Then at the suggestion of an agent who felt the story was good but too long to sell, I cut out everything I hadn't deemed important enough to put into that two-page outline. It made cutting insanely easy, and 30,000 words came right out without any fuss.

30K probably won't do it for you, but the process might help you get a start.

[Birol]

Et voila!

Fixed it for ya. :D
:ROFL:

You're messing with my voice! My style! How dare you!:flamethrower

[scarletpeaches]

Ah well, at least it's not the electric cattle prod this time.

*scuttles off to a place where Birol's modly powers can't reach her*

[Izz]

First off, page count means nothing. What's your word count?This

Second, if you truly feel that this story can't be cut (and I believe that any story length can be altered with a deft hand), then write another novel. Write a better, shorter novel that fits into today's standards. Once you've sold a novel or two, and have proven yourself marketable to publishers, you're more likely to be able to sell a long novel/trilogy such as you've described.and then this.

with a little extra emphasis on this: (and I believe that any story length can be altered with a deft hand)and a note that the 'deft' part of that altering hand is very important.

Make sure every scene hold its weight (as in, drives the story forward in some way (either through plot or characterization). If you're unsure, take it out and see if the story suffers without it. If it does, plunk it back in. If not, then all good.

Then drop to sentence-level. Make sure every sentence holds its weight. Try not to stage direct too much, or over-explain to the reader. A character does not need to spell out every inch of her motivations and hopes and dreams. Allow the reader to draw some of their own conclusions.

Then make sure every word in every sentence holds its weight. Here is particularly where the 'deft' part of that hand comes into play. It is possible to tighten a work considerably without losing its voice, but it's not always easy.

Above all else, make sure you have plenty of backup copies, because sometimes you'll need to compare and contrast or revert.

And yeah, post in SYW (i notice you've done that once already a while back, but was that a drastically cut down version?), and remember that everybody's opinions are just that, opinions, and are offered with the best intentions of your work at heart (i say that because you're likely to get drastically different opinions on what is considered redundant :)).

[cwfgal]

Tell you what, post the first page in SYW and post a link here, letting us know it has been done. Maybe we can show you what we mean by redundant words, etc. It really can makes a difference.
(39 words cut to 31)

Post a page in SYW and a link here; let's see what we can cut. (and then cut to 15 succint if dry words)

I couldn't resist playing along because Scarlet makes an excellent point (even though she may have meant it as a joke???). Any work can be cut. If you can trim your work into two or three stand-alone novels, each with its own story arc even though some other part of the story continues, you will stand a better chance.

Beth

ETA: Funky formatting--Scarlet's strikethroughs didn't show and it won't let me put them back in???

[Anahid21]

Thanks for all the great replies. Wow, I feel so blessed among so many experts. Let me clarify some things here:

-First off, word count is somewhere in the 300,000 region, give or take 1000. Like I said it's huge. But I know with a deft hand it could be knocked down to, say 250,000.

-Second, I posted the first chapter here: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4305366#post4305366
as suggested. You can take any paragraph you like and kill it.

-About setting it aside and writing another novel, at this point it's admittedly my #1 alternative. It's just a little discouraging after spending so much time (and money) on a story I think has a better premise than anything else I have cooked up.

-Cutting scenes is also a good idea, and I would have gotten to it right away. But the story is so long I don't think any good will be done without actually changing the plot and eliminating characters and events. My fear is that the story may lose its charm and feel. Keep in mind I'm lifting a slightly heavier weight here, introducing a completely unique world, unique form of magic, characters and places with unfamiliar names, foreign culture, government, rules, etc. etc.

-Cutting stuff that seems unimportant has another side effect as well (Some one you might want to yell at me after this:) You see, this is supposed to be Book One of a much bigger series. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Idiot first time writer taking up a crazy epic thing. It just happened. Like Steven King said, stories are like fossils we find in the ground. I just happened to stumble upon a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

I'm going now to sit quietly in the corner and wait for your suggestions.

[Toothpaste]

My question for you is, have you actually tried to shorten it? I know you said no matter what you try there is no way you could shave off enough to fit a "mold", but to be honest . . . I just don't believe you've truly given it the good old college try. Know why I think that? Because you seem to love the fact that your book is so long, you hate that you have to fit into some box that the publishing industry forces us authors to conform to (okay you didn't say that but it is kind of implied in your post).

See the thing is this. It's easy to write a long book. Really really easy. Most first time authors write books that have far too much padding in them. It is truly rare for a first time author to write something too short. I'm speaking from personal experience as well, my first book needed to be trimmed significantly.

But it didn't need to be trimmed because the publishing industry is evil and has these random rules we are supposed to follow for no reason. It needed to be trimmed because the book was too full of fat. Trimming the book (which I did, btw, without cutting a single scene or chapter) made my book SO much better. It made it slick, and it read smoothly, and it went from something I'd written that I thought was pretty awesome, to an actual book.

So here's what I suggest. Try. Don't do it with anger, don't even do it with a wordcount in mind (btw, authors use wordcount to determine length, not page numbers), just try. If you can't bear the thought of losing scenes (like I couldn't), cut paragraphs. Cut sentences. Cut words within sentences. Re-read passages and be ruthless. Remember it is the savvy writer who can edit and make a work tight. A long book isn't a better book, and as a first long book . . . is very very typical. A first time author insisting they can't edit said book down . . . even more so.

And if after you truly actually try to cut your work down. If after you try with an open mind, not in a defensive "the publishing world stinks" way, but with a "you know, maybe I might actually have one to many words" way - if after you try this method of cutting words and STILL can't get rid of anything. Then you can try one of two things:

Try to sell your work as is and hope you are the exception to the rule.

Or.

Write another shorter book. Sell that. When you are established then share this book with your editor.


I should add I am really not trying to be mean with this post, and it is possible that you truly cannot cut anything out of your book, I don't know, I haven't read it. But after a while on forums such as these, and meeting new writers in person etc, after having gone through the exact same thing myself, honestly, 9 times out of 10, the book can be cut. Significantly. We as authors just have to get out of our own heads and down to business.


ETA: I cross posted with you. Having now read your excuses I am even more convinced you haven't really sat down and tried to cut. The fact that you think you are "lifting a heavier weight here" with having to do world building etc, suggests that even more to me. A deft hand can weave worldbuilding into the plot, kill two birds with one stone, for example. I have a sneaking suspicion you might have quite a bit of info dumping going on.

The fact too that you say this epic just happened to happen to you suggests that you haven't spent much time editing your MS, but sort of just wrote it in one go. In my mind, you are very much in first draft territory and if that is the case, you have plenty of cutting I am positive you can do.

Lastly . . . what's the money you've been spending? That worries me, because an author really has no need to spend any money, except I suppose on printing out the MS - ink and paper and that kind of thing.

[Birol]

-Cutting scenes is also a good idea, and I would have gotten to it right away. But the story is so long I don't think any good will be done without actually changing the plot and eliminating characters and events. My fear is that the story may lose its charm and feel. Keep in mind I'm lifting a slightly heavier weight here, introducing a completely unique world, unique form of magic, characters and places with unfamiliar names, foreign culture, government, rules, etc. etc.

I'm going to go look at the first 250 words, but before I do, I wanted to comment on this: This is bull. Do you really think you're the only person on this board who has created a new world, etc., etc.

Let me clue you in: You're not.

This is something that every writer, in some way, shape, or form, has to contend with, whether they are writing science fiction, mysteries, or mainstream. You are also far from the only science fiction or fantasy writers on these boards who created a world not based in "real life." Don't even use that as an excuse as to why you can't cut your book down.

Just because you needed to know something in order to create a believable world, just because you thought of a fact or a reason why something is, doesn't mean it needs to be explained to the reader. You knowing it, the characters knowing it, that's often enough to give flavor and dimension to the text without stopping to spell it out within the text.

[Chasing the Horizon]

If I were you, I'd just write another novel. If the book's as long as you say, I don't see how you could possibly edit it down to an acceptable length. Even if you could, writing another book would have to be faster and easier. Besides, if you want to make a career out of writing, you're going to need to have a lot more than one good idea in you anyway.

That doesn't mean you give up on this book ever seeing the light of day. Lots of authors have their books published in a different order than they were written.

Out of curiosity, why do you say you've invested money in writing this book?

[Birol]

This was just a quick pass (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4305455&postcount=2), and not all-inclusive of the edits you could be making.

[Chasing the Horizon]

I'm going to go look at the first 250 words, but before I do, I wanted to comment on this: This is bull. Do you really think you're the only person on this board who has created a new world, etc., etc.

Let me clue you in: You're not.

This is something that every writer, in some way, shape, or form, has to contend with, whether they are writing science fiction, mysteries, or mainstream. You are also far from the only science fiction or fantasy writers on these boards who created a world not based in "real life." Don't even use that as an excuse as to why you can't cut your book down.

Just because you needed to know something in order to create a believable world, just because you thought of a fact or a reason why something is, doesn't mean it needs to be explained to the reader. You knowing it, the characters knowing it, that's often enough to give flavor and dimension to the text without stopping to spell it out within the text.

It's true that every writer has to build a world for their story, but introducing the readers to your own little world within the contemporary world we already know is a lot easier (and takes less words) than introducing a high fantasy world. That's why fantasy/science fiction has the highest word count guidelines of any genre (many spec fic agents and publishers list the top end for word counts as 120k or even 130k, instead of 80-100k like most other genres).

For example, if a pick-up truck drives by in a contemporary novel, you don't need to explain that a pick-up truck is a vehicle driven by a combustion engine, which has four wheels, a cab, and an open cargo bed. But if, in a fantasy novel, a carriage being pulled by a pair of drulatarees goes by, you have to explain what drulatarees are, because the readers don't know. Every time an imaginary idea, creature, item, or invention shows up, in goes another paragraph explaining what the hell it is. Those paragraphs add a lot of word count, trust me. And then there are the entire scenes which go in to show how an important item works or to show an important idea in action (showing always takes more words than telling, but also makes more of an impression on readers and is more interesting).

Of course readers don't need to know everything, or even most things, about your fantasy world (or mine). But they do need to know some things which wouldn't need to be explained in a contemporary setting. I'm not one to over-explain my world (in fact, I often get yelled at by my beta readers for not explaining enough), but I could still easily cut 25% of my word count if I removed all my fantasy world-building. Of course, the books wouldn't make a damn bit of sense to anyone but me then.

[Birol]

For example, if a pick-up truck drives by in a contemporary novel, you don't need to explain that a pick-up truck is a vehicle driven by a combustion engine, which has four wheels, a cab, and an open cargo bed. But if, in a fantasy novel, a carriage being pulled by a pair of drulatarees goes by, you have to explain what drulatarees are, because the readers don't know. Every time an imaginary idea, creature, item, or invention shows up, in goes another paragraph explaining what the hell it is.

Not necessarily. I've read lots of novels -- good novels -- that give details within context and leave the epic-length explanations to the readers' imaginations. Do science fiction and fantasy novels tend to be longer? Yes. But that doesn't mean we have to know every detail of every whatzit and whichit that are in the character's junk drawer or the full history of its socio-political environment.

And, having now read the OP's prologue: It's heavy on prepositional phrases and redundant imagery. There's also some unnecessary POV shifts that can be cut.

[Izz]

Have added my 2c, which may be overpriced :D: My 2c (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4305475&postcount=3)


But if, in a fantasy novel, a carriage being pulled by a pair of drulatarees goes by, you have to explain what drulatarees are, because the readers don't know.Nah, you don't. Or, at least, i don't reckon you do.

Syrptah, unable to wipe the smile from his face, directed the drulataree-drawn carriage along the highway. He patted the scaly hide of his favorite and whispered, "Only thirty drestics more, pretty one, and we can drop this woman who calls herself a queen off and never see her again."

Reader sees animals pulling a carriage, immediately thinks 'horselike.' Throw in a detail like 'scaly' and they might shift to 'lizardlike? lizard horse? komodo dragon-ish?' Don't need too many details to create an image in a reader's head. And we should be able to add those details without tangenting off from the story.

[Chasing the Horizon]

I'm not big on fantasy things that are mentioned but not described/explained. I think if it's not worth explaining what it is, then you should just leave it out entirely. You don't need long descriptions (mine of the creatures that pull the carriages on my world is two short sentences), but unexplained terms irritate me. Maybe that's a personal preference.

[blacbird]

if you truly feel that this story can't be cut

If you truly feel that this story can't be cut, that's the first major symptom telling you it both can and should be cut. Find a brutal beta reader, and pay attention to what that reader says.

caw

[Anahid21]

Let's take a deep breath and clear up some things here before the experts make icorrect conclusions based on a few things I typed in my previous posts.

Having now read your excuses I am even more convinced you haven't really sat down and tried to cut. ... .

The manuscript I'm working on now has gone through 3 initial revisions. After that it was handed to a professional editor (a complete stranger whom I paid to cut things and better the language,) then edited by me again to fix things she missed or didn't understand or I didn't like. Then edited again to become slicker, more dynamic, and to replace lifeless scenes with action.

The fact too that you say this epic just happened to happen to you suggests that you haven't spent much time editing your MS, but sort of just wrote it in one go.

I never said the epic just happened, I said it happened to be epic. I have shorter stories in my head . I liked this one better (better premise, unique environment,) and when I unveiled it, it happened to be a long story.

Lastly . . . what's the money you've been spending? That worries me, because an author really has no need to spend any money, except I suppose on printing out the MS - ink and paper and that kind of thing.

I paid the editor to fix my manuscript. She completely changed the tone of the story and turned it into colloquial English. I wouldn't have been able to do it without her because English is not my first language.

That said, I'd be thrilled to know it is possible to shorten the story without changing the plot. However I don't understand this insistence that my story is long simply because I padded it with too much description. It's true that I am new, but I have earned my scars too, and am a little more mature than the amature writer that first describes the city and then what happens in it. What I meant by heavy lifting was that I need a few extra scenes to make the reader comfortable in the new environment. If something happens in every scene and the plot careens forward like a runaway carriage the reader might feel lost, especially in an environment where everything is foreign.

I'm not against cutting junk, what I'm not fond of is cutting plot points. If you all truly believe that is possible I bow to you. But it still boggles my mind how a 300,000 word manuscript could be cut down to 80,000 without changing the story.

[Anahid21]

I'm not big on fantasy things that are mentioned but not described/explained. I think if it's not worth explaining what it is, then you should just leave it out entirely. You don't need long descriptions (mine of the creatures that pull the carriages on my world is two short sentences), but unexplained terms irritate me. Maybe that's a personal preference.

To give you an idea, my characters go through 3 cities, 4 villages, a caravanserai, 2 deserts, 2 castles, a cliff maze and a cave. There are 5 battles and 15 fully developed characters in the story, some of whom have their own story arcs separate from the main character. If the verdict is that such a plot is fundamentally flawed because this many things are stuffed in it I understand. Perhaps better than those who say "things shouldn't be explained." I wonder if any reader would prefer it if I called a locale simply "castle" or "town" without at least giving a one or two sentence description of what it actually looks like, or have the characters take a stroll through its bazaar/main square/garbage filled back alleys.

[kaitie]

I'm going to look at your example in a moment and probably post with an epic level amount of editing, which I've gotten rather good at lately, as I've cut over 55K from my current book in the past months. And of that, the vast majority is simplifying the language and cutting EVERY unnecessary word. Only 7k has been scene cutting. Seriously.

In a novel that size, I would be surprised if you couldn't whack 50k out of it on a first pass with this method alone. Perhaps more if you're someone who tends to be wordy. I've heard amazing stories of people cutting down things that much. I would at least try to do it. You might not succeed, but if you go through it with a big badass ninja sword three or four times (it takes more than once...I'm on my last big run through and I'm still finding things to cut) you can certainly cut quite a bit. You might find that some characters or subplots aren't really adding to the story. You might find ways to move things around and combine two scenes into one to simplify even more. My guess, without having read it, is that you probably spend more time describing certain things that don't necessarily need it.

Anyway, I'd say go ahead and try to cut it down. You won't get an 80k word book, but maybe you can get it down to 160k. Still pretty big, but you can try it. Once you get it to the point that you've cut everything you possible can without changing the plot drastically stop. It's as simple as that. I'd also have someone beta for you and see if they can recommend cuts.

In the meantime, work on something shorter like everyone else said. Your English is superb considering it's not your first language, btw. I'm impressed.

Oh yeah--I was also gonna say what about changing it to an adult book from YA? Might take some more time and editing, but it'd give you some more wiggle room.

[Maxinquaye]

Hey mate,

Just thought I'd get a few words in sideways before the experts ladle advice on you.

I don't want to put you into defensive posture, which I sense you're heading into, because in the end it's your book and you need to do what's right for it. Only you know what that is.

Just remember that golden rule, that it's your book.

The manuscript I'm working on now has gone through 3 initial revisions. After that it was handed to a professional editor (a complete stranger whom I paid to cut things and better the language,) then edited by me again to fix things she missed or didn't understand or I didn't like. Then edited again to become slicker, more dynamic, and to replace lifeless scenes with action.

This sends shivers down my spine, tbh. I did go and read your sample chapter in SYW. I'm not saying you can't use an editor, sometimes, but there are predators out there that feed off new writers' dreams, just like there are fake agents and fake publishers that will take your cash and break your dream.

My native language isn't English either, but if I'm going to be writing in English then I'm going to have to do the hard slog and learn the language far beyond merely being fluent from schoolwork. I have an academic knowledge of English, as probably you do, meaning that I have no emotional attachments to words.

This makes it doubly important that I learn the language, use it, abuse it, and not rely on external expertise that don't know what emotions I do put into words. The emotional colouring is what constitutes over half of what is in effect my voice.

That personal aside, if English isn't YOUR native language, it may apply to you too, and that means you have to do the hard slog too - without the editor. Then there are lots of other reasons not to use an editor, which are more neutral, and the least of these reasons are Yog's law: money flows to the writer.


I'm not against cutting junk, what I'm not fond of is cutting plot points. If you all truly believe that is possible I bow to you. But it still boggles my mind how a 300,000 word manuscript could be cut down to 80,000 without changing the story.

As I said, I did read your sample chapter in SYW, and while I in no way qualify as an expert on anything, compared to some of the people in here, I thought there were some problems with it.

POV for one thing, and that I think fed the other problems of excess verbiage. I think you're using the wrong pov, but again that's just my opinion.

If you select the correct POV, you will find that a lot of plot points become extraneous in any case.

I think that if you choose one main character, and tell the tale through his eyes only, then a lot of your world-plotpoints can be alluded to, or just happen without telling about them. The villain will do his thing off the page, so to speak, while the hero trudges on through the adventure.

Again, all of this is my opinion, and as I said I don't want you to go into defensive mode because what all of us are saying is actually for the best intentions. We love writing, we love good stories, and we want every story to be the best it can be.

[kaitie]

To give you an idea, my characters go through 3 cities, 4 villages, a caravanserai, 2 deserts, 2 castles, a cliff maze and a cave. There are 5 battles and 15 fully developed characters in the story, some of whom have their own story arcs separate from the main character. If the verdict is that such a plot is fundamentally flawed because this many things are stuffed in it I understand. Perhaps better than those who say "things shouldn't be explained." I wonder if any reader would prefer it if I called a locale simply "castle" or "town" without at least giving a one or two sentence description of what it actually looks like, or have the characters take a stroll through its bazaar/main square/garbage filled back alleys.

I don't think anyone would argue that you shouldn't have a sentence or two. The concern is are you spending a page describing each new place instead of a sentence or two.

The part that stands out here to me is 15 fully developed characters and separate story arcs. You probably (almost definitely) don't need that many. Have you considered cutting a few characters and then writing their story? Or how about if you want to make a trilogy that fully stands alone, what about cutting out a lot of the side-arcs and what not entirely, but having a character in just kind of on the side, and then have those stories told in another book. I actually think that would be pretty cool. It's different from the typical sequel process and could be really interesting.

[cwfgal]

The manuscript I'm working on now has gone through 3 initial revisions. After that it was handed to a professional editor (a complete stranger whom I paid to cut things and better the language,) then edited by me again to fix things she missed or didn't understand or I didn't like. Then edited again to become slicker, more dynamic, and to replace lifeless scenes with action.


I just spent two hours going through the prologue you posted and editing it down to less than half its size. (The end result is far from perfect but it captures the essence of the scene, albeit a bit blandly--it needs a little spice added back in, assuming the chapter is needed at all.) If what you posted is a finished product from a paid "professional" editor than I'd have to say you were ripped off. It is burdened with passive voice, over description, head-hopping, and redundancies. See my post there (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4305366#post4305366)for more specifics.


I paid the editor to fix my manuscript. She completely changed the tone of the story and turned it into colloquial English. I wouldn't have been able to do it without her because English is not my first language.

If English is not your first language, I understand the obstacles you are facing. But whoever you paid to edit the work didn't do you, or the work, justice. I hope you didn't spend much.

That said, I'd be thrilled to know it is possible to shorten the story without changing the plot. However I don't understand this insistence that my story is long simply because I padded it with too much description.

If the prologue you posted is representative of the rest of the work, you absolutely did pad it with too much description. When it comes to description, try to figure out why you need to describe something -- what do you want to communicate to the reader? Then pick one, maybe two, very telling details that paint that picture in the reader's mind and communicate whatever it is you want to get across. Don't beat the reader over the head with repetitive details. If an alley is winding and dark, say that once, don't keep repeating it. Trust the reader to get it the first time. And pick your descriptive terms very carefully -- take the time to find the best words or terms.

If something happens in every scene and the plot careens forward like a runaway carriage the reader might feel lost, especially in an environment where everything is foreign.

Careening forward and feeling lost may not be a bad thing. It might let the reader feel the same confusion and out-of-control helplessness the character does. Put the reader in the POV character's shoes.

I (and others here who have been bluntly honest) don't want to sound mean, but your sample chapter shows that you have a LOT of work to do on this story. And your posts indicate you are in denial of this fact and lack the ability to see your work objectively -- a common problem most of us have struggled with at some time. If you are truly committed to your story and want to improve your skills as a writer, then consider all the feedback you have gotten here as openly and objectively as you can. Then commit the time and effort necessary to pare and edit and shape your ms into something stronger. It won't be easy; writing well is hard work and it takes time to learn the necessary skills. It doesn't happen overnight but most of those who are willing to invest the time and effort will eventually get there. I hope you're one of them.

Good luck!

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[cwfgal]

Have you considered cutting a few characters and then writing their story? Or how about if you want to make a trilogy that fully stands alone, what about cutting out a lot of the side-arcs and what not entirely, but having a character in just kind of on the side, and then have those stories told in another book. I actually think that would be pretty cool. It's different from the typical sequel process and could be really interesting.

This is an excellent idea! I agree that 15 characters with full arcs is too many for one book. You're going to have a hard time getting the reader to relate to any one character and invest in them. But using those 15 characters in smaller, supporting roles for one featured main character in book one, and then giving each of those characters their own story in a sequel, is a great way to make use of what you have.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[kaitie]

I just spent two hours going through the prologue you posted and editing it down to less than half its size. (The end result is far from perfect but it captures the essence of the scene, albeit a bit blandly--it needs a little spice added back in, assuming the chapter is needed at all.) If what you posted is a finished product from a paid "professional" editor than I'd have to say you were ripped off. It is burdened with passive voice, over description, head-hopping, and redundancies. See my post there (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4305366#post4305366)for more specifics.

If English is not your first language, I understand the obstacles you are facing. But whoever you paid to edit the work didn't do you, or the work, justice. I hope you didn't spend much.

If the prologue you posted is representative of the rest of the work, you absolutely did pad it with too much description. When it comes to description, try to figure out why you need to describe something -- what do you want to communicate to the reader? Then pick one, maybe two, very telling details that paint that picture in the reader's mind and communicate whatever it is you want to get across. Don't beat the reader over the head with repetitive details. If an alley is winding and dark, say that once, don't keep repeating it. Trust the reader to get it the first time. And pick your descriptive terms very carefully -- take the time to find the best words or terms.

Careening forward and feeling lost may not be a bad thing. It might let the reader feel the same confusion and out-of-control helplessness the character does. Put the reader in the POV character's shoes.

I (and others here who have been bluntly honest) don't want to sound mean, but your sample chapter shows that you have a LOT of work to do on this story. And your posts indicate you are in denial of this fact and lack the ability to see your work objectively -- a common problem most of us have struggled with at some time. If you are truly committed to your story and want to improve your skills as a writer, then consider all the feedback you have gotten here as openly and objectively as you can. Then commit the time and effort necessary to pare and edit and shape your ms into something stronger. It won't be easy; writing well is hard work and it takes time to learn the necessary skills. It doesn't happen overnight but most of those who are willing to invest the time and effort will eventually get there. I hope you're one of them.

Good luck!

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)


I'm doing the same thing right now, but I've got to run to practice soon or I'll miss the train, so I'll have to finish up later (about halfway through). I agree, though, that there's too much description, but mostly just an excess of words. Especially for an actiony scene like this, you want it as streamlined as it can be. One sentence moving easily and swiftly to the next. The structure should mimic the feeling you wish to convey. If you have more lighthearted or poignant scenes, more description might work there.

Overall this isn't bad! So please don't think that's what we're saying. It's an interesting premise and the writing really isn't bad, but it can be improved and cleaned up for sure.

I think most of us have no idea how to do this. It's a completely different mindset from that of a writer. It's difficult because often it sounds right to us in writer mode, but editor mode says "wait...I don't really need that."

It's difficult and requires a very conscious effort, but once you start getting into the right mindset it will get a lot easier. And don't worry, you aren't the only one who writes long. My first draft was 185k, and my edits looked a bit like what I'm making on yours. Just a lot of excess words.

So yeah, you definitely can do this, and I'm certain you'll be able to cut a huge chunk from it before you even think about removing entire scenes or characters.

[Anahid21]

Hey guys, thank you so much again, especially to those who went over to SYW and edited parts of the chapter.

The chapter you saw wasn't touched by the editor. It was one I added later but I admit, the editor's work isn't all that better. Maybe she ripped me off. Maybe she didn't. Considering I dumped a 300,000 word manuscript on her and she got it to a point that each chapter wasn't 8000 words long and there weren't any 20th century North American terms in it meant a lot. Trust me the first draft was an evil beast.

Like I posted in the SYW thread, I decided to swallow the medicine. It seems like the whole thing needs a big facelift. Man, but that gives me a headache. That's more than just cutting scenes and chapters, it means rewriting the whole thing and I'm not sure I have the energy.

Would it be better to write something else and leave this for now?

[eyeblink]

Case in point - George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones must be somewhere about 300k words and it has eight viewpoint characters (not counting the one-off prologue viewpoint character). Obviously there are other significant characters - at least two of whom become POV characters later in the series - but that's eight interweaving plot arcs.

I haven't read your work, but I can't see how you can have fifteen viewpoint characters/plot arcs in a similar wordcount and do them full justice.

Whether you like his work or not, GRRM's writing ability should not be in doubt. He's been a professional writer since the early 1970s. You, to be blunt, are as yet unproven.

[Izz]

Would it be better to write something else and leave this for now?Only you can answer that, really.

But sometimes (actually, most times) getting distance from a work before attacking it again is a good thing. Distance provides perspective and a measure of objectivity, and shrinks things that initially look like mountainous obstacles down to manageable size.

And (and all this is from my own personal experience, and isn't a measure for anybody else) i find that writing something else also helps give me that perspective. Doesn't have to be another novel. Even a short story or two in between editing passes or rewrites helps.

Set goals, too. Little goals ('this week i want to finish rewriting this chapter' kinda thing). Big goals are much easier to achieve with a whole lot of little goals set up as stepping-stones along the way.

[Anahid21]

Case in point - George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones must be somewhere about 300k words and it has eight viewpoint characters (not counting the one-off prologue viewpoint character). Obviously there are other significant characters - at least two of whom become POV characters later in the series - but that's eight interweaving plot arcs.

I haven't read your work, but I can't see how you can have fifteen viewpoint characters/plot arcs in a similar wordcount and do them full justice.

Whether you like his work or not, GRRM's writing ability should not be in doubt. He's been a professional writer since the early 1970s. You, to be blunt, are as yet unproven.

I've read the first book in the Game of Thrones series. Your reference makes me realize I made a mistake in describing my story. There aren't 15 interlocked stories there. There's only one main story with 2 characters. The reason I emphasised the other 13 is because they are more than wall flowers and actually affect the story. Some (perhaps 2 or 3) have their own story arcs which are presented as side stories (and which I sadly must cut now.) But overall there are 2 main characters, 2 secondary and very present characters. The rest are supportive cast.

[Izz]

Some (perhaps 2 or 3) have their own story arcs which are presented as side stories (and which I sadly must cut now.)I have another way you could attack your edits (and this i recommend *after* seeing the example you posted in SYW). Cut every scene down to its barest bones (Beth's crit is a good example of that) and see how much you've trimmed the story. Then go back and add flesh to each scene, but don't make them fat. Only add necessary flesh. Make them lean. I reckon you'll end up cutting your manuscript in half. Then look at how you can chop down the backstory in the first few chapters as per my suggestion in the crit thread. Hell, you might be able to keep most of your side arcs and have the story sitting at a healthy 100-110,000 words.

Of course, doing that may not work (and i by no means claim to be an authority), but it might be something to try.

[Anahid21]

I have another way you could attack your edits (and this i recommend *after* seeing the example you posted in SYW). Cut every scene down to its barest bones (Beth's crit is a good example of that) and see how much you've trimmed the story. Then go back and add flesh to each scene, but don't make them fat. Only add necessary flesh. Make them lean. I reckon you'll end up cutting your manuscript in half. Then look at how you can chop down the backstory in the first few chapters as per my suggestion in the crit thread. Hell, you might be able to keep most of your side arcs and have the story sitting at a healthy 100-110,000 words.

Of course, doing that may not work (and i by no means claim to be an authority), but it might be something to try.

That's an awesome suggestion Izz. That could also mean less headache and rewriting and more usage of the actual manuscript. Now, if I can figure the first chapters and how to flip the life-changing event to the beginning while keeping things coherent we might have solved the big problem. :)

[kaitie]

I was thinking that you don't necessarily need a rewrite, either. Some parts probably will, but for the most part you can just go through and start swiping and cut out plenty. I actually imagine completely rewriting would be a much more arduous task.

[Phaeal]

Just a word of encouragement: Even us naturally long-winded writers can learn to be concise and sleek. I cut my latest finished MS from 132,000 words to 91,000 AND ADDED SCENES TO IT. That's a reduction of almost a third, even with the new material.

Considering the MS chapter by chapter, then scene by scene, then paragraph by paragraph, then sentence by sentence, then word by word, making each one pay full price for its place -- it's amazing how much verbiage this process will prune over several revisions, each one concentrating on smaller units.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

See the thing is this. It's easy to write a long book. Really really easy. Most first time authors write books that have far too much padding in them. It is truly rare for a first time author to write something too short. I'm speaking from personal experience as well, my first book needed to be trimmed significantly.
Um, objection your honor, on behalf of those with the opposite problem, i.e. What To Do If Your Novel's Still Not Long Enough. (Where'd that thread go? I know I saw one around here somewhere...)

As for Anahid's problem, all the advice given here is great, but I'd also suggest doing an outline. Draw up a skeleton for your story, the bits that absolutely cannot be cut, and see where you end up. I think you'll be surprised how much you can chuck out once you get going in that direction.

By the way, if you think you 13 other characters with their own subplots could carry their own novels, then why not give them each one? That'll give you something to play with while you're waiting on those rejection letters. ;)

[Freelancer]

It's easy to write a long book. Really really easy. Most first time authors write books that have far too much padding in them.Uh... this is just partially true. I've written few things before and I used to write short novels. But there could be two reasons why the novel is long.

#1 First time author as you written
#2 The story cannot be told in the average length at all

In the second case, I'm doing this right now, trust me, writing a long novel is far from easy and sometimes a story cannot be told in 130k words.

[raburrell]

*Raises hand* Sometimes, the trouble is that you're trying to do too much in that one book. My first draft of my first book had um, ghosts, spies, a love story, biblical demons, and um I think there was a kitchen sink in there somewhere. It was also 186k words.

Second draft (okay, eighteenth draft) got rid of the biblical demons and cut back on the spies and ended up at 100k words, and a much better book to boot. It *can* be done. In the present publishing climate, it's just a really start choice of 'do I want to get this story published', or not, and if so, what am I willing to sacrifice?

[Freelancer]

Well. If you're adding filling elements what you can cut, it can be done. But in a novel, where everything has a meaning, everything is a returning element and has an essence, this cannot be really done (Well, everything is possible, but after a point only the empty shell of your novel will look back at you. That's why you must find an appropriate balance.). Personally, I'm not going to sacrifice any vital from my one. If the agent is good, he can sell it.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think the freelance editor was your first mistake. I tink it's always a horrible idea for any novelist to send anything to a freelance editor for any reason. That just ain't the way it works.

But any novel can be cut to any length. Usually it's just a matter of learning how, or of having a good enough reason.

If the editor at a major pubishing house said, "We love this novel, and we'd love to publish it, but you have to cut eighty thousand words", you could probably cut it in a couple of weeks, though resewing the seams woud take longer.

And if the editor decided to cut it by going thorugh with a red pencil, I guarantee he could cut very, very quickly.

Cutting a really long novel by a very large amount is not something you do by tightening and cutting scenes, though these do matter for every novel. To cut a really long novel by a very large amount, you have to do some combination of eliminating a character or characters, eliminating sub-plot/plot lines, reducing the number of obstacles, etc.

You have to remove entire threads from the taperstry, not just shorten the ones you have.

[kaitie]

*Raises hand* Sometimes, the trouble is that you're trying to do too much in that one book. My first draft of my first book had um, ghosts, spies, a love story, biblical demons, and um I think there was a kitchen sink in there somewhere. It was also 186k words.

Second draft (okay, eighteenth draft) got rid of the biblical demons and cut back on the spies and ended up at 100k words, and a much better book to boot. It *can* be done. In the present publishing climate, it's just a really start choice of 'do I want to get this story published', or not, and if so, what am I willing to sacrifice?

I think this is the main thing I keep seeing and it really stands out to me. My first draft wasn't terrible. In fact, a good friend (and excellent writer) called it "publishable quality" when he read it (he was really surprised). So yeah, it needed work, but overall it wasn't that bad, with the exception of Chapter 3 which everyone pretty much universally hated. ;)

What amazes me, though, is how incredibly much happier I am with what I've got now after cutting so much. The language is more streamlined, the pacing has improved immensely, and even though I lost a couple of things I really liked or wanted in, overall I think the book has improved ten times over. I look at it now and instead of seeing a bunch of mediocrity and things that need to be changed, I see something that's pretty tight that I could actually imagine on a bookshelf. That was cool.

So my point is obviously that even if it sounds painful, chances are when you go back later and look at it again, you'll probably actually be much happier with the work as a whole. Obviously save a copy of the current draft somewhere in case you change your mind on things, but you'll almost certainly like it better.

[Freelancer]

James. In my case a normal editor would cut out elements, which are necessary. In my WIP's case everything has a meaning and many things, events, dialogues are returning elements. My editor knows this world inside out as we've also worked on my WIP's mini series together. In my case a standard editor would wipe out half of the novel, including all the vital details and elements and I can't let to happen.

If the editor at a major pubishing house said, "We love this novel, and we'd love to publish it, but you have to cut eighty thousand words".Then they're not the publishing house that we're looking for and we're moving further to the next one. But our case is a bit different. My WIP is known by some agents and industry pros by some reason. Also we will add some nice reference to the query.

[Toothpaste]

In response to those of you who commented on my "it's easy to write a long book" saying, um, no it isn't for people like me:

I didn't mean it quite the way you are interpreting it. I meant it like this. Many new authors write longer than necessary books. More such authors write such books than ones that are too short (though such authors exist as well). The problem is that the new authors who write the books that are too long tend not to know that many many new authors do this and they think they are special therefore. They hold up their word count as something unusual and a demonstration of how they just can't cut anything because, "This might be my first book, but look how long and complex it is, I must be the exception to the rule."

Pointing out to such authors that actually they are the norm and not the exception is a harsh reality, but very necessary in my mind because it brings them down to earth. The thinking you are special because you wrote something long and complicated thing is a big barrier to such an author actually editing the work. They are proud of the length, they don't want to cut it. When you explain that actually, most authors are just like them, it hurts at first, but then they realise that if most authors were like them, and most authors were able to edit, then maybe they actually can too.

And then they get down to business.

Yes there are new authors who write too short as well. And some who write just the right amount. Nor am I saying it is easy to write. It's not easy to write anything. But it isn't any harder to write long than it is to write short. Writing a story at all is really hard. But writing something tight, in my mind, is actually harder for a first time author, because it means being ruthless and "killing your babies". Realising that maybe not every word you write is golden. That's a tough pill to swallow.

[kaitie]

Toothpaste, I think you're right to an extent, but that there are other factors at play as well. I was intimidated by cutting my story and it had nothing to do with golden word syndrome. It was just because I didn't realize how much could actually come out. I knew I'd be able to cut it down some, but I had to go and seek out information and learn about things I'd never have thought of. I found a tips page somewhere on ways to lower word count and I started going through, and some I knew but a lot I had never even considered.

I think for a lot of new writers (and I'm certainly not new, just unpublished), it's as much a matter of learning proper editing technique as anything. It seems daunting and intimidating because we have no idea how to go about it. Then once we start learning, it becomes normal.

[Freelancer]

General rules are guidelines, nothing more. Sometimes you must step beyond the rules, round them to make a difference.

Just as Kaitie, I also don't have any problem with eliminate words and shorten something. I directly asked my betas to tell me where they feel there is too much info, because we want to create the balance between readability, fluid plot advance and the necessary details. But sometimes storylines are complex with a reason and sometimes a storyline is better if it's longer, then shorter.

Can you imagine LOTR in 100k words? It wouldn't be the same anymore.

[Libbie]

-First off, word count is somewhere in the 300,000 region, give or take 1000. Like I said it's huge. But I know with a deft hand it could be knocked down to, say 250,000.

I bet with a really deft hand, it can come down to 90,000. My guess is it's got a whole bunch of subplots that really don't need to be there. Maybe these subplots can be excised and saved for potential sequels or "further adventures of Character A and Character B" type of books. But they very likely do not assist the primary plot of this book.


-Second, I posted the first chapter here: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4305366#post4305366
as suggested. You can take any paragraph you like and kill it.

Cool! I'll check it out next.


-Cutting scenes is also a good idea, and I would have gotten to it right away. But the story is so long I don't think any good will be done without actually changing the plot and eliminating characters and events.

Then do it! Nothing is sacred. You can kill anything if it'll make the book better.

My fear is that the story may lose its charm and feel.

It'll be a learning experience, then. You'll learn how to become a much stronger writer by conveying the same charm and feel in 200,000 less words.

Keep in mind I'm lifting a slightly heavier weight here, introducing a completely unique world, unique form of magic, characters and places with unfamiliar names, foreign culture, government, rules, etc. etc.

Give your readers a lot more credit than you (and most other new writers) do. Most backstory and description of totally new worlds doesn't require entire chapters or prologues or even paragraphs. Most of it can be slipped in with just a couple of sentences, or even a few words. The way a character reacts or what a character says can really tell your readers a lot about your world. It's also okay to allow them to infer some things, even if their mental image of the government or the magic doesn't fit exactly with yours. What's really important to the reader is that they understand the plot and the main characters. The rest is window dressing to the reader, no matter how important it may be to you.

-Cutting stuff that seems unimportant has another side effect as well (Some one you might want to yell at me after this:) You see, this is supposed to be Book One of a much bigger series. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Idiot first time writer taking up a crazy epic thing. It just happened. Like Steven King said, stories are like fossils we find in the ground. I just happened to stumble upon a Tyrannosaurus Rex.


Great! Book One doesn't have to be 300,000 words. It can be 90K and work just fine. I promise you. :)

Don't canonize your own work, dahling. You will be come a more effective, more confident and publishable writer by learning how to ruthlessly edit yourself. And it's kinda fun.

[scarletpeaches]

I'm glad that my synopsis helped you with your rewrites, Libbie. It's definitely something I'll take on board, to ask myself, "If this sub-plot isn't good enough for the synopsis, is it good enough for the book?"

[Toothpaste]

Sigh. Okay. I'm not doing well. If your book is meant to be long, that's awesome. There are long books by first time authors that do brilliantly and need to be as long as they are. For crying out loud people, my first published novel was TWICE AS LONG as the average for that genre. So I get it.

I'm talking about in general. I see I've touched a chord with you Freelancer, but I'm not sure why. If you don't think the reasons you are writing the long book you are match my reasons that I have typically seen, then that's cool. There are other reasons for writing a long book. I was explaining why I said what I did, and I have to say, with regards to the OP, I'm pretty sure I was right considering what happened after my initial post. But if you are writing a long book for other reasons, then awesome. You don't need to defend your right to do so.

Kaitie - I mentioned golden words, but I also said that some authors just don't know that they can edit things down, that's why telling them they are just like everyone else can really help, if I can do it you can do it sort of thing. I did not mean to imply that every first time author who writes a long book is full of themselves. I'm sorry if I did. There are many reasons why first time authors can't edit down a work. The point is, that struggle is very very common.

To everyone - I am not trying to diss first time authors, nor authors of long books. I am calling it as I've seen it, which is most often first time authors write books that are too long and don't think it is possible to edit it. And that these same authors think that that is unusual and special. I am pointing out it isn't. Remember the operative word "most".

[Libbie]

Another quick note: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SELL THIS BOOK AS YA JUST BECAUSE IT HAS YOUNG CHARACTERS IN IT. This is suggested or outright states as a "fact" on this board all the time, and to be honest, it drives me up a damn wall. YA books have to have young characters in them, but not all books with young POV characters must be YA.

Your book is probably just a fantasy, and will appeal just fine to adults. In fact, fantasy is probably the genre most open to young characters outside of YA.

Knowing this will help you hone your target wordcount better. Fantasies can usually get away with longer word counts (not as long as what you've got here) than other genres, and YA should really be 60-80K with 90K as the maximum.

Now I'll go take a look at your prologue.

[scarletpeaches]

I find it much easier to write 125k books than those of 80k.

My first behemoth was a bloated monster. I gave it a literary colonic. Now it's a trim 90k.

Second and third were 125k-ish each. I reckon they'll stay well over 100k though.

Fourth looks like it'll tickle 80k and no more, which is very surprising.

As long as each scene deserves to be in the book, that's fine. But I understand what Toothpaste meant. Best thing I did with Book #1 was go write another, so that when I went back to edit I had my Magical Spectacles of Golden Prosery off, and said, "This is shit!" So I got to work. And made it less so.

I hope.

[Freelancer]

Toothpaste. I'm also talking in general. I have no problem with you at all. I just see this thing a bit different then you, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically right or I'm wrong. Time always tell who is right. :)

But I admit sometimes many writers are adhere to 130k words, like if there would be no world beyond that number. Sometimes these numbers are setting your story, EVEN if it's ruining what you originally imagined. As some said; they rather cut their story down, just to fit into 130k. And at the end, the original story became a simple story, an empty shell without any originality, because the word count demanded the cut and the writer took out most of the original elements to fit his work to it.

Your story must end where it must end. And if it's not fit into 130k words, who cares? The story must sell itself. Your readers must enjoy your story, not your word count (Many don't even know what it is.). That's what I'm saying in general.

If the story is good, if the agent is good, if the publisher is good, word count means absolutely nothing.

[Libbie]

Can you imagine LOTR in 100k words? It wouldn't be the same anymore.

Why does everybody trot out LOTR as the be-all and end-all of fantasy? Yes, it's a great book, but it's not the only one, and even LOTR's editors demanded serious revisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Publication_history). The end result was not what Tolkien had originally envisioned.

EVERYBODY has to edit. Nobody writes a perfect novel. We need editors and other professionals to make our work better. We're good at writing. They're good at making our writing shine. Believe them when they say they can't sell a 300K novel.

[tjwriter]

I'd add that some of us long-time members see this a lot from first timers, too. And I think that may be what Toothpaste is kind of pointing out. No, it's not going to be everyone that fits in the same mold, but if we made a list of issues common to writers finishing their first novel, one of them would be:

"I've just finished my first novel and it's xxx,xxx words long and everyone says a publisher won't look at. I don't know how to cut words from my novel."

Truth is, most of us could use to have our stories tightened and strengthened. And perhaps this is mostly a cry for help in learning to edit one's work.

What's that book a lot of people here recommend? Self-Editing for Fiction Writers?

[CaroGirl]

LOTR was exceptional, unique and written by a genius. When people hold it up as somehow typical or average or worthy of comparison to their novel, they do it a great disservice, IMO.

You can write whatever length you want, in whatever genre you like. Write a 300k YA chick lit or a 50k high fantasy. It's your book. Oh, you want to get it published. That's different.

[scarletpeaches]

Can you imagine LOTR in 100k words? It wouldn't be the same anymore.Chance would be a fine thing. I'd like to 'edit' every single copy of that shitstorm with a flamethrower.

[tjwriter]

But I admit sometimes many writers are adhere to 130k words, like if there would be no world beyond that number. Sometimes these numbers are setting your story, EVEN if it's ruining what you originally imagined. As some said; they rather cut their story down, just to fit into 130k. And at the end, the original story became a simple story, an empty shell without any originality, because the word count demanded the cut and the writer took out most of the original elements to fit his work to it.

Story trumps all, as Uncle Jim likes to say.

But many new writers have to learn to edit their work to make it as strong as possible. And looking at what was provided, I think it could use it a little trimming to make the story stronger and hold the reader's interest a little better.

Because if the story is long from a lot of extraneous verbiage, it's hard for a lot of readers to stay focused on what the important bits are. And that has little to do with wordcount and more to do with a good story.

[Freelancer]

EVERYBODY has to edit.Who denied that? No one. i.e. We're editing and trying to reduce our WIP for the xth time. 300k is the goal. If it's goes below that number, that's good.

Why does everybody trot out LOTR as the be-all and end-all of fantasy?It's well known by everyone. That's why I mentioned LOTR. But there are hundreds of books out there with the same length. I can name a few if you want.

Believe them when they say they can't sell a 300K novel.
I always believe to an editor, when he read the novel, not before that. If someone says, you can't sell a 300k novel without reading your WIP (It's in general), it's saying because of the following reasons:

#1: Never read a 300k novel.
#2: Can't write a 300k novel.
#3: Not in the business.
#4: Saying this to just say something without any real background.

[Toothpaste]

Toothpaste. I'm also talking in general. I have no problem with you at all. I just see this thing a bit different then you, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically right or I'm wrong. Time always tell who is right. :)

....

Your story must end where it must end. And if it's not fit into 130k words, who cares? The story must sell itself. Your readers must enjoy your story, not your word count (Many don't even know what it is.). That's what I'm saying in general.

If the story is good, if the agent is good, if the publisher is good, word count means absolutely nothing.

Fair enough. I'm not exactly sure what we are seeing differently though. I agree with you that a book should be as long as it ought to be. I just know from a lot of personal experience - and a lot of conversations with publishing professionals and fellow authors - that most first time writers write too long. If the book works, it works. I'm not saying that we should change things to fit some arbitrary standard.

But I disagree that the standard is arbitrary. Publishers and agents didn't just one day come up with the typical wordcount of 80k - 120k out of the blue. It was arrived at after years of seeing how books came together, and that, ON AVERAGE, this wordcount tended to reflect the best quality work. This is the same reason that the "rules" of writing exist. Over time it was observed that following the rules, most often, resulted in the best writing. But we all know you can break the rules, as long as you understand why you are doing it. And you can write long or short, as long as you realise why you are doing it.

You keep defending longer works as "if it takes that many words why should an author have to cut it down", but I've never argued that point. As I already said, my book is twice as long as the average for the genre.

My point is that most of the time, the number of words first time authors use in creating their first book isn't the right number of words for their book. They just don't know it yet (this goes for authors who might write too short as well).

Not sure what time will tell exactly. I have seen exactly the point I am making (otherwise why would I be making it?) happen over time. Are you talking about your work again now, that time will tell if your wordcount is right? Maybe it's too long, maybe it's just right. Heck maybe it'll turn out to be too short :) . I don't really care any way. I wish you luck with it!

[Freelancer]

Because if the story is long from a lot of extraneous verbiage, it's hard for a lot of readers to stay focused on what the important bits are. And that has little to do with wordcount and more to do with a good story.Actually that's balance work at the very end. If you can find an appropriate balance between readability and details, you can achieve this.

You can write whatever length you want, in whatever genre you like. Write a 300k YA chick lit or a 50k high fantasy. It's your book. Oh, you want to get it published. That's different. No. It's not different if you know what you're doing and if you know your profession. That's what you forget.

[Toothpaste]

#1: Never read a 300k novel.
#2: Can't write a 300k novel.
#3: Not in the business.
#4: Saying this to just say something without any real background.

#5: Has a great deal of experience in the publishing world, has read tons of MSs, including those that are 300K, and knows that most often writings of such length don't work, are overwrought, full of info dumping and extraneous world building, adjectives, and purple prose.

[scarletpeaches]

No. It's not different if you know what you're doing and if you know your profession. That's what you forget.Yes. It is different. If you expect someone else to invest time, money and effort in your Golden Words, you're damn right they get a say in the end product.

[scarletpeaches]

#5: Has a great deal of experience in the publishing world, has read tons of MSs, including those that are 300K, and knows that most often writings of such length don't work.#6 is published herself.

(I haven't found your second book in the UK yet. This makes me sad).

[CaroGirl]

Those who believe word count doesn't matter to agents, editors and publishers are delusional. It's a very important criterion because publishing is a business.

[CaroGirl]

#6 is published herself.

(I haven't found your second book in the UK yet. This makes me sad).
Toothpaste's 2nd book is great. My kids and I loved it! Just as much fun as number one (and that even rhymes!).

[Freelancer]

#5: Has a great deal of experience in the publishing world, has read tons of MSs, including those that are 300K, and knows that most often writings of such length don't work.Can you judge any book without reading them? I don't think so. I'm not talking about my WIP. I'm talking in general. No editor, no publisher can judge your MS without reading it and they can't judge your novel because of your word count. If someone is doing this, that one is not real professional and it's better if you're not working with those guys. That's what I said and that was the reason why I didn't mention this point (You're right in this, but I directly said; IF they haven't read it.).

If you expect someone else to invest time, money and effort in your Golden Words, you're damn right they get a say in the end product.It's not your money. Why do you worry about it? Your story must prove it's worth the money, not your word count. If your story worth the price, no one is going to care with the length.

Those who believe word count doesn't matter to agents, editors and publishers are delusional. It's a very important criterion because publishing is a business.I never said it's does not matter. But there are priorities. And many are rather taking the word count as the #1 priority, instead of tell a bit longer story, which should be the #1 priority in the reality. Your readers cares with your story, not with your word count. The question is who is your target audience? The agents or the readers? The two are not the same.

[willietheshakes]

LOTR was exceptional, unique and written by a genius. When people hold it up as somehow typical or average or worthy of comparison to their novel, they do it a great disservice, IMO.



See, and I think LOTR was excessive, repetitive, plodding, and could have dealt with being 100K shorter.

:)

[CaroGirl]

Can you judge any book without reading them? I don't think so. I'm not talking about my WIP. I'm talking in general. No editor, no publisher can judge your MS without reading it and they can't judge your novel because of your word count. If someone is doing this, that one is not real professional and it's better if you're not working with those guys. That's what I said and that was the reason why I didn't mention this point (You're right in this, but I directly said; IF they haven't read it.).
Plenty of agents, editors and publishers WILL NOT even consider requesting a full of a novel that doesn't meet their word count guidelines for the genre. That's a fact.

So, they're not reading it either.

[scarletpeaches]

No editor, no publisher can judge your MS without reading it and they can't judge your novel because of your word count.They can and they do.If someone is doing this, that one is not real professional and it's better if you're not working with those guys.Right. I'll tell every single agent and publisher in the UK that, then.It's not your money. Why do you worry about it? Your story must prove it's worth the money, not your word count. If your story worth the price, no one is going to care with the length.Jesus Hairy Christ.

Let me spell it out to you in big red letters.

IF SOMEONE INVESTS THEIR MONEY IN YOUR BOOK, THEY GET A SAY IN THE FINAL PRODUCT.

No, it is not my money. But it is my book. And if I want someone else to pay me for it they have a vested interest in my making the book as appealing to the public as possible.

If you refuse to accept this, good luck with getting published.

[CaroGirl]

See, and I think LOTR was excessive, repetitive, plodding, and could have dealt with being 100K shorter.

:)
Quite franky, I do too but I didn't read it when it was new in the 1950s. I didn't get the chance to be gobsmacked by its originality, before it spawned a million pale knock-offs. And there's no denying its influence and legacy, you know, like it or not.

[ChaosTitan]

To everyone - I am not trying to diss first time authors, nor authors of long books. I am calling it as I've seen it, which is most often first time authors write books that are too long and don't think it is possible to edit it. And that these same authors think that that is unusual and special. I am pointing out it isn't. Remember the operative word "most".

You're coming across perfectly. As tjwriter and a few others have mentioned, those of us who've been on this board for several years now do see this same thing time and again: new writers who write too long.


If the story is good, if the agent is good, if the publisher is good, word count means absolutely nothing.

Word count will never mean "absolutely nothing," because in the end, publishing is a business. Period.

Do debut novels over 180k words get published? Sure do. Are they the exception? Absolutely. For every first-time novelist who manages to get published with an abnormally length manuscript, there are at least a hundred of us publish with manuscripts within the desired word counts.

Getting published is difficult enough without crippling yourself with a high word count. Everyone wants to be the exception; few ever are.



You can write whatever length you want, in whatever genre you like. Write a 300k YA chick lit or a 50k high fantasy. It's your book. Oh, you want to get it published. That's different.

This. A thousand times, this.

Writing and publishing are two different coins. Want to write 400,000 word SF novel? Go for it. Want to publish it? The odds are decidedly not in your favor.


I always believe to an editor, when he read the novel, not before that. If someone says, you can't sell a 300k novel without reading your WIP (It's in general), it's saying because of the following reasons:

#1: Never read a 300k novel.
#2: Can't write a 300k novel.
#3: Not in the business.
#4: Saying this to just say something without any real background.

#5: Has a great deal of experience in the publishing world, has read tons of MSs, including those that are 300K, and knows that most often writings of such length don't work, are overwrought, full of info dumping and extraneous world building, adjectives, and purple prose.

Ditto Toothpaste.

[willietheshakes]

If your story worth the price, no one is going to care with the length.



That's horseshit.

Do a google search on Peter Watts for what happens when a story that is "worth the price" is "too long", and the unfortunate results.

Lots of people have a stake in length -- it influences everything at every stage of the process. Too long a book may be prohibitively expensive to publish (ie, would enough people take a flyer on a $40 hardcover from an unknown author?). Too high a price point might prohibit placement in bookstores. Etc, etc.

Yeah, people care. And rightly so.

[Freelancer]

IF SOMEONE INVESTS THEIR MONEY IN YOUR BOOK, THEY GET A SAY IN THE FINAL PRODUCT.Who denied that? But it's NOT YOUR PROBLEM. You don't have to worry about THEIR MONEY. YOUR JOB is to write a story. YOUR JOB is to write the book. That's your job.

No, it is not my money. But it is my book.
Then care with your book instead worrying about the "future investors" money before you finished it.

If you refuse to accept this, good luck with getting published.I'm refusing it and trust me, I'll be published. I'm not worrying about it. I don't have to.

[tjwriter]

The question is who is your target audience? The agents or the readers? The two are not the same.

The agents care about the readers because they want you to keep selling books. Every book they sell to a publishing house brings home their bacon.

It almost seems as if you are arguing the exception rather than average.

And no, we can't tell how great (or horrible) a story is until we read, but if your (in general) work really is a great, tight story with a ginormous word count, your query better kick ass and your synopsis better rock their socks off.

Because most first timers need to strengthen their story. They got it down, but it's not as good as it could be and a writer should strive for the best story possible if they want to be published.

[Toothpaste]

Can you judge any book without reading them? I don't think so. I'm not talking about my WIP. I'm talking in general. No editor, no publisher can judge your MS without reading it and they can't judge your novel because of your word count. If someone is doing this, that one is not real professional and it's better if you're not working with those guys. That's what I said and that was the reason why I didn't mention this point (You're right in this, but I directly said; IF they haven't read it.).
.

Actually I can judge a book without reading it. If I read a padded query with a wordcount that says 300K, I pretty much know that the wordcount is unnecessary.

See here's the thing. No one sends a query letter like this:


Dear Agent,

Here's my query for book AWESOME BOOK complete at 300 000 words.

Thank you.

Best,
Author


We send queries with that as the starting line, but then follows a description, that is often reveals more about the author than the book itself.

Some editors/agents might just looks at wordcount alone, out of context like that - because they know the odds are the book will be too padded and are willing to take the risk that they've rejected a masterpiece (it's like being struck by lightning, it could happen, but we still go outside and live our lives knowing the odds are against it happening). But there are those who will read the whole query anyway. But you can bet those ones when they read your wordcount in your letter they are going to judge the rest of your query very carefully. They will look to see how you phrase sentences, whether you can get ideas across succinctly. You can tell almost instantly if the querier submitting the incredibly long book is a genius and exception to the rule or not.

When someone like me says, "Most often first time authors who write books that are very long can seriously edit their work down" that comes from a lot of experience. However, I can't say for sure if your work in particular is such a work. I can use a hypothesis, I can use math to look at the odds, and they are not in your favour. But yes, I can't just tell you - nope your book is too long. All I can say is - considering everything I know and everything I've seen, chances are strong your book is too long.

Because you face this very reasonable and scientifically founded bias, you as an author are then in the position to prove that you are the exception to the rule.

When you are the exception, you have a harder fight. Again, this is something I know all too well. You just have to realise the fight is worth it.

But if you are getting rejected on your query with the longer wordcount, chances are the editor/agent isn't an idiot just judging you based on numbers. Chances are you didn't prove your case of being the exception. Chances are your query was full of long sentences, and unneccesary description.

Or here's a thought, maybe they just didn't like what your book was about.

[ChaosTitan]

No editor, no publisher can judge your MS without reading it and they can't judge your novel because of your word count. If someone is doing this, that one is not real professional and it's better if you're not working with those guys.

Wow, really? Do you realize how many editors and agents you just across-the-board insulted here by calling them unprofessional? Not just those who lurk here on AW, but everywhere in the industry? You are not helping your case here.

I never said it's does not matter. But there are priorities. And many are rather taking the word count as the #1 priority, instead of tell a bit longer story, which should be the #1 priority in the reality.

Um, yes you did. Right here, actually, back at the top of the page:


If the story is good, if the agent is good, if the publisher is good, word count means absolutely nothing.

Your readers cares with your story, not with your word count. The question is who is your target audience? The agents or the readers? The two are not the same.

No, they aren't the same. But if you want to sign with an agent, then agents are your first target audience. If they aren't reading your material, chances are an editor isn't, either.

[scarletpeaches]

Who denied that? But it's NOT YOUR PROBLEM. You don't have to worry about THEIR MONEY. YOUR JOB is to write a story. YOUR JOB is to write the book. That's your job.Thanks, but I know what my job is. My job is to write a book that fits the agent and publisher's requirements.

Yes, I do have to worry about their money because THEY WILL NOT INVEST IT IF I SHOW SUCH BLATANT DISREGARD FOR INDUSTRY REQUIREMENTS.Then care with your book instead worrying about the "future investors" money before you finished it.Uh, no. I care about both.

Incidentally, I have finished my book. Actually, I tell a lie. I've finished three. Do I get to worry now?I'm refusing it and trust me, I'll be published. I'm not worrying about it. I don't have to.Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

[willietheshakes]

Then care with your book instead worrying about the "future investors" money before you finished it.

Hey, I'm all for writing a head-down, white-hot-fury of a don't-give-a-fuck first draft. That's definitely how I prefer to work.

But before it gets anywhere NEAR a publisher, you have to bring the business-head into it. And that means looking at norms, paradigms and current conditions, not blithely assuming that you're going to be the exception to the norms.

I'm refusing it and trust me, I'll be published. I'm not worrying about it. I don't have to.

You certainly don't lack for confidence.

Which, word to the wise, might be a liability down the road.

[Freelancer]

The agents care about the readers because they want you to keep selling books. Every book they sell to a publishing house brings home their bacon.I also know that. But you're the writer. And your target must be the readers, not the agents. Agents are just a transit point in your journey. You must care with your readers as, just as you written, your agents know what to do.

And no, we can't tell how great (or horrible) a story is until we read, but if your (in general) work really is a great, tight story with a ginormous word count, you query better kick ass and your synopsis better rock their socks off.Like if I wouldn't know this. But instead of worrying your word counts, first, you must focus to create an AAA work, instead of counting the words and worrying about it.

[tjwriter]

Freelancer, I really feel like your missing the boat here.

Let me go find Uncle Jim's steps to writing. I'll be back.

[scarletpeaches]

You must care with your readers as, just as you written, your agents know what to do.Ignoring the gatekeepers is like trying to break a door down by ramming it with a manuscript the size of a housebrick rather than carving it into the shape of a key.

Oh, and you won't have an agent unless you follow their guidelines.

[CaroGirl]

I'm refusing it and trust me, I'll be published. I'm not worrying about it. I don't have to.
Maybe you will and maybe you won't. If you are, you'll be an exception. Either way, giving this "advice" you're giving in this thread to unpublished writers is wrong, wrong, wrong. Are you trying to ensure other first-time writer don't get published? Because that might be the result if anyone here accidentally believes your bullshit over the legitimate advice of multiple-times published authors like Toothpaste, Chaos Titan and willietheshakes (and possibly others), who KNOW the business. Willie is also a book seller and reviewer. He knows what he's talking about.

[scarletpeaches]

NEWS JUST IN:

This thread makes baby Jesus cry. :cry:

[ChaosTitan]

Ignoring the gatekeepers is like trying to break a door down by ramming it with a manuscript the size of a housebrick rather than carving it into the shape of a key.


This needs to be on a bumper sticker or something. :D

[tjwriter]

Ignoring the gatekeepers is like trying to break a door down by ramming it with a manuscript the size of a housebrick rather than carving it into the shape of a key.

I'm going to frame this.

[Freelancer]

But before it gets anywhere NEAR a publisher, you have to bring the business-head into it. And that means looking at norms, paradigms and current conditions, not blithely assuming that you're going to be the exception to the norms.No one denied that either and I never said I'll be any sort of exception. I'm no exception. I just know where I'm at right now.

You certainly don't lack for confidence.
Why should I? From the feedback I know what my WIP is capable for and I also know what the present state of my WIP is. You don't know what my background is, yet all of you're presenting everything, like if you would know anything about it. Come on guys. Don't judge hasty.

Good luck with that.:rolleyes:
Thanks Scarlett. I hope you're going to enjoy it when it will come out. :)

[ChristineR]

It's far easier to write short than it is to write long. I don't know why people keep contradicting this. Maybe it's actually true for them, but that would be unusual. Besides the fact that it just takes less time to type out short books, it takes less work to organize, less work to remember all the things you need to remember, less time to revise, fewer plot lines to keep track of, fewer motivations to work out...just less of everything. I've written short and long, and short is much, much easier.

Writing a short book also gives you more space to pad and shove in all that fun-but-strictly-not-necessary stuff everyone here is complaining about. If the book is only 55K, no one is going to mind if you decide to add 5K of bright purple description.

The book may turn out to be unpublishable. That doesn't mean that it can somehow be transformed into a magical short book. The book may have sentences that can be trimmed without completely destroying the book. That doesn't mean that it will be a better book without the extra stuff.

[willietheshakes]

It's far easier to write short than it is to write long. I don't know why people keep contradicting this. Maybe it's actually true for them, but that would be unusual.

How about "Everybody writes at different lengths and if that works for them, all to the good"?

[scarletpeaches]

It's far easier to write short than it is to write long. I don't know why people keep contradicting this.Oh, I don't know...how about because everyone has a different way of working which suits them?Maybe it's actually true for them, but that would be unusual.Link? Statistics? Any proven data to back this up?Besides the fact that it just takes less time to type out short books, it takes less work to organize, less work to remember all the things you need to remember, less time to revise, fewer plot lines to keep track of, fewer motivations to work out...just less of everything. I've written short and long, and short is much, much easier.FOR YOU.Writing a short book also gives you more space to pad and shove in all that fun-but-strictly-not-necessary stuff everyone here is complaining about.Anyone else hearing alarm bells right now?If the book is only 55K, no one is going to mind if you decide to add 5K of bright purple description.Oh, yep. There they are.

[Freelancer]

Christine. I agree with you completely. Also what many forget: risk is our business. You may write short, you may write long, there is no guarantee it will be published. Your job is to guarantee this on every possible way.

How about "Everybody writes at different lengths and if that works for them, all to the good"? That's completely acceptable. Just don't try to influence others how to work, because you never know what others are really capable for.

[Libbie]

Who denied that? No one. i.e.

Istvan, I wasn't talking to you. With the exception of this post, I don't talk to you anymore, after the last thread wherein you insisted that your own 300,000-word fantasy didn't need to be edited, and any agent who couldn't sell it wasn't a good agent.

I generally do not waste my time with people who are hostile to listening to the very advice they asked for.

That's why my posts in this thread, present ones and zeroes excepted, were and will continue to be aimed at the original poster, and not at you.

Don't take everything so personally. Seriously.

[scarletpeaches]

...Just don't try to influence others how to work...:eek:

[willietheshakes]

You don't know what my background is, yet all of you're presenting everything, like if you would know anything about it. Come on guys. Don't judge hasty.


As Toothpaste pointed out, no, we don't know ANYTHING about you (well, I do, but no more than anyone would know after clicking a link). But we DO know the industry, and we do know a recurring meme, common in first-time writers. If you're the exception to that, so much the better. But right now all we know is that:
a) you're a writer
b) who has written a book FAR longer than the accepted norms
c) who refuses to entertain that there might be room to revise downward
d) who knows "better" than the industry he is trying to enter and
e) who is comfortable insulting whole segments of that industry (agents, publishers)
f) You're also someone who has constructed an elaborate (and impressive) website to promote your book which, fine, not a problem. But coupled with the above, it does have a sense of cart-before-the-horse-ism.

So, that's what we know about you, from your posts. The trouble is, (a) thru (e) are EXACTLY the traits exhibited in the recurring meme of the "golden-worded, holier-than-thou first-time author who knows better!" Maybe you're not one of these. But the evidence is against you.

[CaroGirl]

I'm refusing it and trust me, I'll be published. I'm not worrying about it. I don't have to.

You may write short, you may write long, there is no guarantee it will be published.
^^^^^^^^^^^

[Freelancer]

Istvan, I wasn't talking to you. With the exception of this post, I don't talk to you anymore, after the last thread wherein you insisted that your own 300,000-word fantasy didn't need to be edited, and any agent who couldn't sell it wasn't a good agent.I believe I never said that it don't need to be edited. In this case you misunderstood something very well there.

I generally do not waste my time with people who are hostile to listening to the very advice they asked for.Actually I can decide what advises I'm accepting and what I don't. But don't be aggrieved because someone is not accepting everything what you or other says without even meditating on it or even without a word. World is doesn't work on this way.

That's why my posts in this thread, present ones and zeroes excepted, were and will continue to be aimed at the original poster, and not at you.I know and I written in most cases, I'm writing in general.

Don't take everything so personally. Seriously.
I believe between two of us, not I'm the one who is taking everything so personally and not I'm the one who is aggrieved when I don't do something immediately as someone is advised. I have no problem with you Libbie, I never had, but you misunderstood something here very well.

[ChristineR]

How about "Everybody writes at different lengths and if that works for them, all to the good"?

I have no problem with that--I would just like to point out that writing longer books most certainly has to be more work...because there's more work. On the other hand, writing three short books is doubtless harder than writing one long work.

[scarletpeaches]

I have no problem with that--I would just like to point out that writing longer books most certainly has to be more work...because there's more work. On the other hand, writing three short books is doubtless harder than writing one long work.Um, no. This is so far from true it boxed up its things, packed them into the car, drove away from Trueville at 100mph, crossed the state line, jumped on a plane, flew to the other side of the world, stripped naked, painted itself purple and ran across the rooftops shouting, "Hello, hello, I'm a load of old wank!"

Maybe it's easier for you to write a short book, but I can write 125k in two months no problem, and have done on a number of occasions. There's more typing but not necessarily more work.

[willietheshakes]

Um, no. This is so far from true it boxed up its things, packed them into the car, drove away from Trueville at 100mph, crossed the state line, jumped on a plane, flew to the other side of the world, stripped naked, painted itself purple and ran across the rooftops shouting, "Hello, hello, I'm a load of old wank!"


*swoon*

[Freelancer]

As Toothpaste pointed out, no, we don't know ANYTHING about youMaybe because I prefer this way. There are six billion people out there. You don't know many of them either. :)

My answers are after your points.

b) who has written a book FAR longer than the accepted norms - And? It's not your work, nor your invested time. Why do you care with this? As far as I know I rarely asked advise regarding my WIP in this matter. And when I did, I did this in the appropriate topic and said thanks for the advises.

d) who knows "better" than the industry he is trying to enter and - Actually you don't know me, so as I said don't judge me hasty.

e) who is comfortable insulting whole segments of that industry (agents, publishers) - I never insulted agents, nor publishers. I just written down few things what I experienced until this time. Sorry I forgot to mention this and I didn't shown evidence for any of you.

f) You're also someone who has constructed an elaborate (and impressive) website to promote your book which, fine, not a problem. But coupled with the above, it does have a sense of cart-before-the-horse-ism. - How my website or anything else comes to here at all? We're talking in general. Again, you don't know me. But thanks. I'm glad you like the website. :)

So, that's what we know about you, from your posts. The trouble is, (a) thru (e) are EXACTLY the traits exhibited in the recurring meme of the "golden-worded, holier-than-thou first-time author who knows better!" Maybe you're not one of these. But the evidence is against you.Honestly, may I ask what do you believe, who you're? A C.S.I. agent that to I must send evidences? I don't have to prove anything to any of you as I also don't demand this from any of you. You know the best is, I never questioned any of your past or background, yet you're doing this since the beginning, even without taking up any question. Come on. Many of you guys are love to judge by your own facts, even if it's not covering the truth at all. Many of you love to prejudice everyone. That's also a sad fact.

[willietheshakes]

You guys are love to judge by your own facts, nothing else.

They're not my facts -- they're observations based on what you've written here. No extrapolation whatsoever.

And it's hard NOT to judge when you keep giving further credence to the points with every post.

[scarletpeaches]

f) You're also someone who has constructed an elaborate (and impressive) website to promote your book which, fine, not a problem. But coupled with the above, it does have a sense of cart-before-the-horse-ism..Um, no. willietheshakes would only be putting the cart before the horse if he was an unpublished person trying to tell everyone else here how it's gonna be in the world of books, yo.

As he's published - and I've seen his work in my local library and bookstores - I'd take his advice over...well, many people's, any day.

[willietheshakes]

Um, no. willietheshakes would only be putting the cart before the horse if he was an unpublished person trying to tell everyone else here how it's gonna be in the world of books, yo.

As he's published - and I've seen his work in my local library and bookstores - I'd take his advice over...well, many people's, any day.

Psst -- (f) was my point, regarding his website.
So, yeah, you got the point.

And thanks.

[Libbie]

Um, no. willietheshakes would only be putting the cart before the horse if he was an unpublished person trying to tell everyone else here how it's gonna be in the world of books, yo.

As he's published - and I've seen his work in my local library and bookstores - I'd take his advice over...well, many people's, any day.

Er -- just to clarify, SP, it was Willie who pointed out that Freelancer is doing the carting before the horsing.

[ChaosTitan]

e) who is comfortable insulting whole segments of that industry (agents, publishers) - I never insulted agents, nor publishers. I just written down few things what I experienced until this time. Sorry I forgot to mention this and I didn't shown evidence for any of you.

You really should stop contradicting yourself, Freelancer.

No editor, no publisher can judge your MS without reading it and they can't judge your novel because of your word count. If someone is doing this, that one is not real professional and it's better if you're not working with those guys. That's what I said and that was the reason why I didn't mention this point (You're right in this, but I directly said; IF they haven't read it.).

Bolding mine.

This insulted editors and publishers, because they DO JUDGE YOU ON WORD COUNT. You ignored me the last time I pointed out a blatant contradiction from one post to the other, so you may yet again. I don't know.

But perhaps you should step away from the thread until you decide what it is you're trying to say. Because it keeps changing from post to post.

You guys are love to judge by your own facts, nothing else. You love to prejudice everyone. That's also a sad fact.

We can only judge you on what you present to us in this forum. So far, the picture you paint isn't a positive one, and for that, you cannot blame us.

[scarletpeaches]

DAMN YOU LIBBIETHESHAKES FOR SAYING SUCH THINGS WHEN I'M BUSY BEING RIGHTEOUSLY INDIGNANT.

And...stuff.

Yeah.

[HConn]

Anahid21, I know you want to shorten the book without changing the plot, but that is almost certainly not possible.

Accept the idea that you may need to make changes. Embrace it. Revision can be tough, but it's vital. Be open to it.

[ChristineR]

Um, no. This is so far from true it boxed up its things, packed them into the car, drove away from Trueville at 100mph, crossed the state line, jumped on a plane, flew to the other side of the world, stripped naked, painted itself purple and ran across the rooftops shouting, "Hello, hello, I'm a load of old wank!"

Maybe it's easier for you to write a short book, but I can write 125k in two months no problem, and have done on a number of occasions. There's more typing but not necessarily more work.

Let me get this straight. You're saying you can write 125K in two months, but it takes you longer to write less? I want you to say that, in plain English. No clever insulting comments, okay?

[CaroGirl]

I am doing things this certain way because I believe it'll work for me = good. (This is typically accomplished in only one post.)

I am telling everyone how things work in the industry, whether I actually know anything about it or not = bad.

I am right and everyone else is wrong = delusional.

[scarletpeaches]

Let me get this straight. You're saying you can write 125K in two months, but it takes you longer to write less? I want you to say that, in plain English. No clever insulting comments, okay?Where did I say that?

No snarky, sarcastic comments telling me how to post, okay?

[Freelancer]

They're not my facts -- they're observations based on what you've written here. No extrapolation whatsoever. And it's hard NOT to judge when you keep giving further credence to the points with every post.And who do you think who you're that you can judge people at all? :)

Um, no. willietheshakes would only be putting the cart before the horse if he was an unpublished person trying to tell everyone else here how it's gonna be in the world of books, yo.If you say so. But as I said, you don't know me at all. I always giving advises to help others. You take it or leave it... that's not my problem. Unlike willie, I never questioned his past at all. That's why I said he used to prejudice people. i.e. I never heard about him or his works either. And? Did I ever prejudice him? No. That's the difference.

Er -- just to clarify, SP, it was Willie who pointed out that Freelancer is doing the carting before the horsing.Maybe, or maybe I not. Just don't be surprised.

[CaroGirl]

Let me get this straight. You're saying you can write 125K in two months, but it takes you longer to write less? I want you to say that, in plain English. No clever insulting comments, okay?
There's a difference between the time it takes to complete a first draft and the time it takes to edit to final draft. The length of the work alone makes very little difference to this process.

[scarletpeaches]

Let's break this down before Birol gets here with her ban-stick.I have no problem with that--I would just like to point out that writing longer books most certainly has to be more work...because there's more work.A circular argument. "There's more work because there's more work because there's more work because..." ad infinitum.

Where is it written that longer books take more work than shorter ones?

Libbie's is shorter than mine but hers took more work because of the level of research she did. And it took longer for her to write.On the other hand, writing three short books is doubtless harder than writing one long work.Doubtless? Any proof of that?

tt42 writes a book a month and flips from one cast of characters to the next overnight if she needs to. She doesn't seem to have any problem writing three (or more) shorter books in the time it takes me or someone else to write a longer one.

Because we're all different and technique changes from writer to writer. Hell, it changes from book to book sometimes.

[Freelancer]

This insulted editors and publishers, because they DO JUDGE YOU ON WORD COUNT. You ignored me the last time I pointed out a blatant contradiction from one post to the other, so you may yet again. I don't know.Are you a lawyer or what? I don't believe they need your protection. Also there are many who don't judge you on your wordcount if you're presenting a quality.

We can only judge you on what you present to us in this forum. So far, the picture you paint isn't a positive one, and for that, you cannot blame us.And? Honestly I don't care about it. I don't used to care with people whose don't even try to know anyone, just prejudging people. This goes with me since the beginning. And why? Because sometimes I dare to say something else, what they want to hear or what they know. But no one ever asked where from I know this or what do I say this. No. That's a very sad fact. And here we used to called this is as prejudice without any reason.

[Toothpaste]

Let me get this straight. You're saying you can write 125K in two months, but it takes you longer to write less? I want you to say that, in plain English. No clever insulting comments, okay?

Christine.

Writing a long book might take more time, but it doesn't necessarily follow it takes more work.

For some authors, they can just do that metaphorical vomit on the page for 125K easily. They just write the first thing that comes into their head, and often that first thing isn't quite defined. You start to write, as you're writing you realise that what you really want to say is something a little different so you work your way around to that point. In doing that you've written a lot, but possibly said very little.

Editing a work down, making it tight. Making sure each word is necessary to the story is far harder than just the metaphorical vomiting the first thing you think of onto a page.

Now that isn't saying that all long works are just that vomiting, some have every word that has been carefully thought out as well. I am simply pointing out how a shorter tighter well edited work can be far harder to write, than a first draft where the author is trying to figure out what they are doing in the writing of it.

[Freelancer]

I assure you, I will not be at all surprised by the future of your novel.Wanna bet? :)

[Toothpaste]

But no one ever asked where from I know this or what do I say this. No. That's a very sad fact. And here we used to called this is as prejudice without any reason.

I am always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt. I'd love to know where from you know this and why you are saying what you are saying (I got a bit confused in how you phrased it above, but I believe this is what you meant correct?).

[scarletpeaches]

For some authors, they can just do that metaphorical vomit on the page for 125K easily. They just write the first thing that comes into their head, and often that first thing isn't quite defined. You start to write, as you're writing you realise that what you really want to say is something a little different so you work your way around to that point. In doing that you've written a lot, but possibly said very little.

Editing a work down, making it tight. Making sure each word is necessary to the story is far harder than just the metaphorical vomiting the first thing you think of onto a page.*cough*

Just for the record, I am no longer a vomiter. Except for when I have a migraine.

Carry on. :)

PS: Oh, and editing my first novel took a fortnight. So nyar! Okay, really going now...

[Libbie]

If I didn't find gambling repulsive, I'd take you up on that, because if I were a gambling woman, I'd always play the numbers.

[ChaosTitan]

Are you a lawyer or what?

No, I'm not. I am an author, with an agent, published by Random House. I have first-hand experience with agents, professional in-house editors, and with the American publishing industry.

I'm also a Moderator here (although not in this forum specifically) and one of the things we like is for posters to Own Their Words.

But no one ever asked where from I know this or what do I say this. No. That's a very sad fact. And here we used to called this is as prejudice without any reason.

Okay. My apologies.

From what experience do you draw your conclusions?

[LuckyH]

“Hi John,

How did it go with Dan the other day? I always thought he was a big head, but he’s making money isn’t he? That Meyer’s a funny one, is she for real?

I was going to wait until I see you at Benji’s party, but Mum’s dragging me off to LA tomorrow.

BTW, I’ve sent that MS round to you, you know the 300K one, Peace and War. If my great grandfather can do it, so can I.

See you soon,

Hugs, Emily.
Xxx”

[HConn]

I always believe to an editor, when he read the novel, not before that. If someone says, you can't sell a 300k novel without reading your WIP (It's in general), it's saying because of the following reasons:

#1: Never read a 300k novel.
#2: Can't write a 300k novel.
#3: Not in the business.
#4: Saying this to just say something without any real background

Ignore this. Advice like this is poison.

There are a lot of real-world reasons why new writers don't publish 300K novels all that often. Someone interested in the topic could do a little research to understand what they are.

Quick note: Agents are readers. They know what readers like and what they want; if they didn't they'd be selling shoes. Agents are looking for books that vast hordes of readers will mob bookstores to buy on publication date, and they're looking for beautiful, perfect works of art that make them laugh or weep or stay up all night to finish.

Talking about agents and readers as though they are not overlapping sets is ignorance of the first water, and evidence that the person talking has no idea what they're talking about.

[willietheshakes]

For some authors, they can just do that metaphorical vomit on the page for 125K easily.

Or, you know, LITERAL vomit.

And 125K? Hell, I've written coffee-drinking scenes longer than that!

[James D. Macdonald]

Why you can't sell a very-long work to a print publisher as a first novel:


The price per unit goes down as the print run goes up. The cost per unit goes up as the page count goes up.

Publishers know, from long experience, how many copies of a first novel from an unknown will sell in their genre, with their distribution, with their capacity for marketing and promotion. Some novels will sell more, some less, but there is an average number, and the individual publishers know what it is for them.

Let us say that Publisher X knows that the average first novel from an unknown sells 10,000 copies. That means that they must print 15,000 copies. That'll be the print run.

Publishers also know what the maximum amount the reading public will pay for any novel. Above a certain price point, not even a new and well-reviewed novel from a favorite author will sell. Let us say that that cover price is $30.00.

One other thing that the publishers know is what discount the bookstores demand. Let us say that the bookstores demand a 50% discount.

I have chosen all these numbers purely to make the math easier. But there are real numbers, and the publishers know them all.

Print run: Fixed number.
Price point: Fixed number.
Discount: Fixed number.
Page count: Variable.

What is the only variable? Page count.

Publishers also know how much money each book must earn to pay their fixed expenses. The rent. The lights. The editors' salaries. The book catalogs. The marketing staff.

They know how much money the particular book must earn to pay for itself: the author's advance, the cover art, the printing, the warehousing, the shipping.

All of these numbers, too, are fixed numbers.

There is a certain amount of profit per title that the publisher wants to make. This may be more of a pious hope, but it, too, is a real number. And the publisher knows what that number is for them.

As page count rises, cost rises. At some point, cost will rise above the profitability number. At that point, you will not sell your first novel to that publisher.

What is that magic page count? This will vary publisher-to-publisher. But it is generally held that the number is well below 300,000 words.

What to do about this, if you have a work that absolutely must be 300,000 words?

1) Write and publish a number of shorter works, to build a fan base, so that your expected sales go up, bringing cost per unit down, and bringing total cost into line with the expected profit target. This includes writing and selling other novels of a more typical length for the market.

2) Seek alternative publication, e.g. e-pubs, where the cost-per-unit is not based on the bill from the printer's plant, the number of physical volumes that can fit in a crate, and the number of crates that can fit on truck.

To agents for a moment. The best agent in the world can't sell an unpublishable manuscript. More to the point, the best agent in the world won't even try to sell an unpublishable manuscript. The best agent in the world became the best agent by only showing up at the publisher's office when he or she had a publishable manuscript in hand. For the reasons set forth above, 300,000 words from an unknown author is unpublishable. End of story.

-------------

Notes: The Lord of the Rings has been mentioned. Note that Tolkien was not a first-time unknown author presenting his first novel.

Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell was a debut book. It followed nearly a decade of award-winning short works that built a fan base, and it sold to a large publisher that had the marketing resources to sell enough copies that a print run long enough to bring the cover price into line with buyer expectations was possible.

Both Tolkien and Clarke also fall under the Genius Exemption: The closer you are to the edge of the envelope, the closer to genius you must be.

I can hear you object: But MY BOOK will be DIFFERENT! And I am a genius!

No, your book is not different. And if you are, in fact, a genius, prove it: Prove it with award-winning and best selling works.

[Libbie]

No, your book is not different. And if you are, in fact, a genius, prove it: Prove it with award-winning and best selling works.

You, sir, are a genius, for making all our points so clear in one post.

And by the way, I shelved a bunch of your books the other day at my part-time book-store job. It tickled me. I tee-hee'ed while I did it.

[MacAllister]

Freelancer, I'm deeply afraid that this is going to sound very harsh. Please know that it's well and gently-intended.

1. You very clearly do not have professional fiction experience, at least in the English-speaking markets. That makes your advice worse than suspect - it makes the very fact that you're giving advice arrogant and wrong-headed in the extreme.

2. Your grasp of English simply is not good enough to communicate your meaning on a message board, let alone in a novel. 300,000 words is going to make that problem worse, not better.

3. Until you've got a novel published by a mainstream commercial publisher? Stop giving fiction advice on this board. If you don't stop giving advice about stuff you know absolutely nothing about, I will remove you from the AW gene pool. You're not even bothering to parrot published writers who know better--you're making crap up because you wish it to be so.

You're blatantly, dangerously, ludicrously wrong. To the point that I'm starting to suspect you're actually a troll, rather than the misinformed-but-arrogant little ass I first figured you to be. Stop it.

Is that clear enough for you?

[CaroGirl]

Why you can't sell a very-long work to a print publisher as a first novel:
I believe that everything after and including the above statement is absolutely true. Thank you for being so succinct.

[Freelancer]

Is that clear enough for you?
Please say it directly. I'm not from the United States, my native language is not English, so I'm not welcomed here at AW. I know that a long time ago, since the beginning. But I'm a bit defiant to leave.

Also basically because of this, by your opinion, I can't sell to your market. Trust me. You're wrong in this. You haven't read a single line from me.

[ChristineR]

The amount of time it takes to write 125K of vomit, versus the amount of time it takes to write 55K of brilliance, is irrelevant. It amazes me that I even have to point that out.

Every single word needs to be carefully thought out. If you have fewer words, you have less careful thinking.

There are factors which vary from book to book. For example, a historical might going to take more research than a contemporary, and the contemporary might be harder for entirely different reasons. So obviously that can muddle the arguments.

But ignoring all that, long books:

Take more typing.
Take more rewriting, at least at the "read every word and think about it stage."
Have more of the "red was her favorite color in chapter 8 and now it's blue" problems.
Have more plotlines to resolve.

Further, three short books as opposed to one long book:

Take the same amount of typing.
Take the same amount of revising, at least at the "read every word and think about it stage."
Have more of the "red was her favorite color in chapter 8 and now it's blue" problems.
Have more plotlines to resolve.

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me why this line of reasoning is wrong. It's sort of irrelevant that tt42 can write faster than ScarletPeaches, because neither of them can turn into one another. It's also irrelevant that ScarletPeaches can write a long book that she doesn't think is worthwhile in two months.

Toothpaste, do you really think that all 125K works are vomited? Then the amount of work put into them is irrelevant. They might as well not exist. The process of rewriting you describe has to be applied to all works, no matter what the length, and all other things being equal (which they frequently aren't), the shorter book means less work than the longer.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but lets start by not assuming that every long work is vomit, all right?

[Medievalist]

Please say it directly. I'm not from the United States, my native language is not English, so I'm not welcomed here at AW. I know that a long time ago, since the beginning. But I'm a bit defiant to leave.

Your English is so very poor that I was able to tell MacAllister that your native language was Bulgarian or Hungarian because of the way you misuse prepositions and pronouns.

Also, she's saying stop giving poor, incorrect, and stupid advice.

Is that clearer?

[Libbie]

Is there a point to fighting over whether it's "harder" to write a longer or shorter work? I'm not seeing it.

Some people will find constraining themselves consciously to a smaller wordcount more difficult than brainsplurging whatever they feel like writing and editing it down to acceptable length later. That's fine.

Other people would find it harder to write larger word counts because their brains just don't do the splurge thing. They prefer to write tight from the get-go. That's fine too.

Who cares? Just write your book the way you want to write it.

[ChristineR]

Freelancer, I'm deeply afraid that this is going to sound very harsh. Please know that it's well and gently-intended.

1. You very clearly do not have professional fiction experience, at least in the English-speaking markets. That makes your advice worse than suspect - it makes the very fact that you're giving advice arrogant and wrong-headed in the extreme.

2. Your grasp of English simply is not good enough to communicate your meaning on a message board, let alone in a novel. 300,000 words is going to make that problem worse, not better.

3. Until you've got a novel published by a mainstream commercial publisher? Stop giving fiction advice on this board. If you don't stop giving advice about stuff you know absolutely nothing about, I will remove you from the AW gene pool. You're not even bothering to parrot published writers who know better--you're making crap up because you wish it to be so.

You're blatantly, dangerously, ludicrously wrong. To the point that I'm starting to suspect you're actually a troll, rather than the misinformed-but-arrogant little ass I first figured you to be. Stop it.

Is that clear enough for you?

In a thread where the other side has resorted to obscenity and Freelander has been polite, that's extremely unfair.

[MacAllister]

Please say it directly. I'm not from the United States, my native language is not English, so I'm not welcomed here at AW. I know that a long time ago, since the beginning. But I'm a bit defiant to leave.

Also basically because of this, by your opinion, I can't sell to your market. Trust me. You're wrong in this. You haven't read a single line from me.
Dude, now you either really ARE trolling, or your reading comprehension is a lot worse than I thought.

You want it plainer?

I think someone in Hollywood has blown some smoke up your ass, you bought it hook, line, and sinker, and now you have an artificial idea of what it takes to sell fiction written in English. The people blowing smoke up your ass don't know, either.

But you're too arrogant to admit that other people really do know something about publishing, when you don't.

You are welcome on this site. You're certainly NOT the only ESL writer on this site. You are not welcome to give publishing advice here, because you don't know what you're talking about.

[Libbie]

You're English is so very poor that I was able to tell MacAllister that your native language was Bulgarian or Hungarian, because of the way you misuse prepositions and pronouns.

Also, she's saying stop giving poor, incorrect, and stupid advice.

Is that clearer?

Yeah, Freelancer.

MacAllister was saying that you're not welcome to continue with the same tone you've been using. It's NOT because you don't speak English as well as some of the rest of us -- that doesn't bother us much. It's because you're being an arrogant jerk and giving very, very poor advice, and pretending like it's good advice, just because you want it to be good advice.

That's what annoys us. The advice you're giving new writers could kill their careers if they were to follow it. Because it's wrong. It's so wrong, it's fractally wrong. We do not appreciate having to counter the same wrong advice again and again, and then having to deal with your defensiveness and pages and pages of angry gibbering when we do.

We're trying to help people have the careers they want. You aren't helping us help them.

[scarletpeaches]

Please say it directly. I'm not from the United States, my native language is not English, so I'm not welcomed here at AW. I know that a long time ago, since the beginning. But I'm a bit defiant to leave.There are people on AW whose first language is not English.

They are welcome here.

That's mainly because the advice they give is true and from a place of experience and publication.Also basically because of this, by your opinion, I can't sell to your market. Trust me. You're wrong in this. You haven't read a single line from me.Nowhere did Mac say this. Read the above part of my post - there are people on AW whose first language is not English, who are published in 'this market'.

As for not reading a single line from you? We've read your posts. They tell us a lot.

[Medievalist]

Notes: The Lord of the Rings has been mentioned. Note that Tolkien was not a first-time unknown author presenting his first novel.

Note also:

1. The publisher separated Tolkien's novel into three volumes--and insisted that Tolkien cut several thousand words, and that he not publish the fourth volume at all.

2. They dropped their standard typeface to use one that set tighter, and they reduced the size of the margins to save money (and paper).

3. If you look at the Tolkein papers (and you can if you ask nicely) you'll see his editor cutting giant swathes out at the last minute, when Tolkien said that there was nothing left to cut.

[Freelancer]

You're English is so very poor that I was able to tell MacAllister that your native language was Bulgarian or Hungarian, because of the way you misuse prepositions and pronouns.
It's a forum. Sorry that I'm not going to reedit every single sentence what I'm writing. AW is advertising itself as an international community as far as I know. Yet as I see people from other places are not welcomed here and not because of the grammar, not even the style. Just because they're from somewhere else.

Also, she's saying stop giving poor, incorrect, and stupid advice.Okay, I'm not willing to go into this. I explained these things via PMs to others whose asked. We're here to discuss things and sometimes other people also can be right by some reason or may have a different perspective.

As for not reading a single line from you? We've read your posts. They tell us a lot.It's a forum, not a novel. Wanna bet you're wrong?

[scarletpeaches]

In a thread where the other side has resorted to obscenity and Freelander has been polite, that's extremely unfair.Hahahahahahahahahaha oh that's funny. That really is.

Yeah.

Unfair? No. The advice Freelancer has given is wronger than Professor Wrongy McWrongcock who lectures in Wrongology at Wrong University, Wrongtown.

(n.b. If anyone has resorted to obscenity in this thread, there's a big red triangle under every user name for you to press).

[scarletpeaches]

It's a forum, not a novel. Wanna bet you're wrong?I would be willing to bet my entire stash of Jared Leto photos, and believe you me, I gots MENNY Jareds.

All 400 of them say we know all we need to know about your writing from your posts here.

There's wrongness where there should be clarity.

[willietheshakes]

In a thread where the other side has resorted to obscenity and Freelander has been polite, that's extremely unfair.

Oh my God - not obscenity!

Oh, the horror.

(shakes head)

Well, that's it then -- we're all fucked now.

[MacAllister]

You know what? You're gone, Freelancer. That's enough. You have seven days vacation from the burden of posting.

I mean it. Stop giving fiction advice. If you can't do that, then don't bother returning.

[Libbie]

Yet as I see people from other places are not welcomed here and not because of the grammar, not even the style. Just because they're from somewhere else.


You're wrong. We welcome people who speak languages other than English. The dislike we have for you has nothing at all to do with your language.

IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY GIVING HARMFUL ADVICE TO NEW WRITERS.

Period.

That's it.

[CaroGirl]

Funnily enough, despite the copious errors, I can always parse out what Freelancer is saying. That said, it's what he's saying that I find the most fault with, not how he's saying it.

The vehemence of the reaction is directly proportional to the erroneousness of the advice. Doesn't matter where the dude comes from.

[Medievalist]

It's a forum, not a novel. Wanna bet you're wrong?

No. I really don't.

It's not like I don't know how to Google dude.

[scarletpeaches]

Oh my God - not obscenity!

Oh, the horror.

(shakes head)

Well, that's it then -- we're all fucked now.MAC! WILLIE DID A RUDE WORD!You know what? You're gone, Freelancer. That's enough.Damn it woman, you're no fun any more.

[katiemac]

Anahid21, if you are still with us, I have more thoughts for you.

As others have said, there are differences between long stories that need to be long and long stories that include more than just the necessary plot information.

Once again, I must point to Harry Potter. This is an easy example, because Rowling has talked so much about her writing process. Rowling had an exceptionally long story. All together, the Potter series clocks in over one million words. Not surprising when you consider she created an entirely new world and more than 200 characters.

However.

First, notice that she could not sell the first novel in the series as is. It's the shortest of the seven, but her publishers still cut out every single scene or word they could, because it was too long. It's still considered on the long side for a middle grade book. Also note her books did not get much longer until she proved she could sell copies. Still, every book underwent edits, and, subsequently, cuts. (And I defy anyone to take a hacksaw to Order of the Phoenix and not come out on the winning end. Rowling herself has said, looking back, she would make more cuts to that book.)

Second, and this is really the crux of my point, consider how much information Rowling knows about her characters and world that is NOT contained in the books. If you haven't already, go visit her website. She's got section of her site devoted to 'Edits' where you can read about a few (but definitely not all) of the bigger edits. Entire characters lifted. Entire characters' back stories removed, because another character's story was more important. Also note, too, that in seven big fat books you only really get one character's (Harry's) perspective on the issue, and when the POV does change it's not to the other major characters like you might expect. We never saw Ron's or Hermione's perspectives, despite the length, because they just didn't matter. More than 200 characters, and you only ever get four or five POVs other than Harry's, and never more than a chapter of each. And I'm actually counting one that reads more like a mistake (head hopping) than a true POV shift.

Things to think about. You don't need everything. In fact, some stories work better without the extra distractions. If Rowling wrote the dictionary people would buy it, so it's not a question of, in her case, writing too long of a story. It's a question of putting in too much information where it isn't needed. Even if you like it. Even if readers will read it.

It's about what is good for the story.

[ChristineR]

Is there a point to fighting over whether it's "harder" to write a longer or shorter work? I'm not seeing it.

Some people will find constraining themselves consciously to a smaller wordcount more difficult than brainsplurging whatever they feel like writing and editing it down to acceptable length later. That's fine.

Other people would find it harder to write larger word counts because their brains just don't do the splurge thing. They prefer to write tight from the get-go. That's fine too.

Who cares? Just write your book the way you want to write it.

I think I'm about to shut up because the tone of this thread is just not worth it, but what you're talking about is two different ways of writing books that work out to be the same length. I also think it's obvious that some people will find the "splurge then cut" method easier, where others will find the "tight then expand" method easier. But assuming you stick to the method you like, it's still going to be easier to come up with a shorter work in the end, unless you're a splurger and you just don't cut and polish the longer work--in which case you'll be comparing an inferior long work to a finished short work.

[Toothpaste]

Toothpaste, do you really think that all 125K works are vomited??

No, I don't. That's why I wrote this in my post: "Now that isn't saying that all long works are just that vomiting, some have every word that has been carefully thought out as well."

Okay. Here's the thing. You seem to be treating all books as being equal. That every author takes the same amount of time and effort to do the same things, therefore if a book is longer it will take more time. Time in your mind equates to effort. You don't understand how I can't see, all things being equal, why a longer book would take more work. There is nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, if that's the line you'd like to take.

My line is that your line is not correct in the first place. You push off to the side the whole research thing and genre thing, briefly touching on how that can muddle arguments. But to me, that's the whole point. Every book is unique, and every book takes a different kind of work to create it.

Everyone is different in how they write. Some people take a long time to write a short book because each word they pour out is a great effort to them, writing might not come naturally to them. Others (Stephenie Meyer anyone) can write a massive book very quickly because it just flows out. You can't say that just because Meyer's book was longer that it took more work for her in such a comparison.

However, most importantly I don't think you get that we aren't talking about the same thing. I am talking about first time authors, and you are somehow drawing a conclusion I think long books in general are easy to write. I am saying first drafts by first time authors tend to verge on the long end than the short and that is because first time authors tend to just write the first thing that comes into their minds. First time authors also might not realise that a first draft is not a finished draft and so will then come to a forum like AW and proclaim that they've written a long book, and are the exception to the rule about wordcount.

You are, like others who have appeared in this thread, defending the art of writing a long book (though doing so from a total logical fallacy - any author who insists one kind of writing is universally harder to write than another isn't doing herself any favours). While I have never once dissed long books. In fact I have many times said, "I WRITE LONG BOOKS" but no one seems to notice that. What you have demonstrated in your post is that you understand about the concept of revision. That you would put in a heck of a lot of effort before showing up on a website like AW and proclaiming you can't possibly cut down your work. You are not the person I'm talking about in the least.

But you simply can't say that long works are inherently harder to write. They aren't. Trust me. You can tell by my posts I am quite longwinded myself. Writing a short post would take far more effort for me, than a long one. I'd have to write a long post. Then go back over it and edit it down and down. I'd have to decide what I wanted to go, what I needed to keep etc. A post like this that just goes on and on . . . super super easy for me.

[Libbie]

Great post, katiemac!

[James D. Macdonald]

You are welcome on this site. You're certainly NOT the only ESL writer on this site. You are not welcome to give publishing advice here, because you don't know what you're talking about.


Heck, there are tons of things that I don't know either, but that doesn't stop me from writing about 'em. Besides, if no one presented ... stuff ... then I wouldn't have an excuse to write long-yet-fascinating posts on those same subjects.

I have faith that the newbie lurkers can tell the difference between stuff and not-stuff.

[Medievalist]

But assuming you stick to the method you like, it's still going to be easier to come up with a shorter work in the end, unless you're a splurger and you just don't cut and polish the longer work--in which case you'll be comparing an inferior long work to a finished short work.

This is an assertion of fact, when it is a matter of opinion that is entirely dependent on the writer, and the work.

It's going to vary. This is also so pointless and ancient an argument that Plato makes fun of it.

[scarletpeaches]

I think I'm about to shut up because the tone of this thread is just not worth it, but what you're talking about is two different ways of writing books that work out to be the same length. I also think it's obvious that some people will find the "splurge then cut" method easier, where others will find the "tight then expand" method easier. But assuming you stick to the method you like, it's still going to be easier to come up with a shorter work in the end, unless you're a splurger and you just don't cut and polish the longer work--in which case you'll be comparing an inferior long work to a finished short work.Look, despite the tone of my previous posts I have to say this plain and simple:

This just is not true.

Maybe for you it is easier to come up with a shorter work. For others? Not so.

And it has nothing to do with being unwilling to cut and polish. Nothing to do with quality of writing.

Different writers have different methods, different comfort zones and different 'defaults' when it comes to the size of their story. For the most part I come up with 125k stories, with occasional shorter ones.

You work your own way. I'll work in mine. But it is simply not true to say universally, shorter books are easier to write than longer ones.

Quicker? Perhaps. Easier? No, no, no.

[MacAllister]

ChristineR, Freelancer is not a member of either the writers or the directors guild. He has no published novels, in any language. He has no actual professional fiction credits to his name. He's telling people things that are so blatantly and damagingly wrong, that it's actually almost laughable. The alarming part is that he's doing a so via PM, a lot of the time, where he can't be rebutted.

Are you seriously suggesting that, because some other poster used a swear word, I continue to let him spout his particular brand of BS? Really? Because he was polite, I should let him continue to openly, blatantly lie about his experience and how publishing works?

Because even though I get that he thinks he's got cred -- he's flat-out lying his ass off, to himself, and to the naive newbie who wanders in here trying to figure out why agents don't even want to look at their 230,000 word manuscript.

[cwfgal]

AW is advertising itself as an international community as far as I know. Yet as I see people from other places are not welcomed here and not because of the grammar, not even the style. Just because they're from somewhere else.


I would like to see examples of this. I'm betting there aren't any.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[cwfgal]

At the risk of bringing the wrath of others down upon myself, I have to say that I think it's wrong to ban freelancer. Yes, he touts poor advice, but I've given questionable advice myself a time or two. And all the experts who have chimed in help keep things balanced. I think most if not all newbies popping in here can see freelancer's claims for what they are and the counteradvice for what it is. And as freelancer himself said, time will tell. I'm on the side of those who would wager we'll never see that 300,000 word behemoth get commercially published, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I say let him post.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan) -- ducking for cover.

[Libbie]

ChristineR, you seem to be implying (please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm just trying to understand your point of view) that it is by definition easier to write tight and concise from the get-go and end up with a shorter novel that needs less editing than it is to write long and splurgey, and pare the results down to the same size as you would have written if you agonized over every word in the first draft.

Is that a fair representation of your point?

If it is, please consider that I wrote a 110,000-word historical novel in eleven weeks, and in three days (after letting it sit for a while) chopped it down to an 82,000-word historical novel. This is, admittedly, a longer process than some people would take to write and edit the same, but it's a lot shorter than most novelists' processes.

I did not find the process difficult or taxing at any point, except for one chapter (which ended up being edited out anyway.) In the past, I've tried to write novels with a specific wordcount in mind, and picked and chosen my words very carefully without allowing myself freedom to experiment, take risks, or write a bunch of poop. I found the "write tight from the start" approach stressful and trying, and I didn't like the results anyway.

My splurge-written, eleven-week novel now has the eye of an agent at a major agency, and she has been so far quite enthusiastic about it (though hasn't offered representation yet, to be fair.) So I don't think I've written a crappy novel, based on her enthusiasm and interest.

I'm just using my experience to illustrate a point that is counter to the point I think you're making. But I could be wrong about your point.

I've used the word "point" too many times now.

[Libbie]

cwfgal -- it looks like it's just a time-out.

[CaroGirl]

Don't forget that writers have different methods of working. Some writers edit as they go, some do it after they complete the work. If I write a short novel but I edit while I write, I could conceivably complete it in the same amount of time, with fairly equal effort, as the writer who writes a long novel from beginning to end without re-reading or changing a single word. Each work still needs at least one further draft before either is ready for the query stage.

So, in terms of amount of time, there's your answer. It can take THE SAME amount of time to write short as it does to write long. But, wait a minute, so what?

[Phaeal]

3. Until you've got a novel published by a mainstream commercial publisher? Stop giving fiction advice on this board.

Gee, I wasn't aware that publication by a mainstream commercial publisher was required for posting advice in these forums. If it is a requirement, an awful lot of us have violated it.

[MacAllister]

Beth, you're fine. He's not banned - he's in a seven day time out. And that's much more for stuff happening backchannel than stuff happening on this thread--the details of which I'm not going to go into.

[Phaeal]

At the risk of bringing the wrath of others down upon myself, I have to say that I think it's wrong to ban freelancer. Yes, he touts poor advice, but I've given questionable advice myself a time or two. And all the experts who have chimed in help keep things balanced. I think most if not all newbies popping in here can see freelancer's claims for what they are and the counteradvice for what it is. And as freelancer himself said, time will tell. I'm on the side of those who would wager we'll never see that 300,000 word behemoth get commercially published, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

I say let him post.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan) -- ducking for cover.

Thank you, Beth. Well said.

[MacAllister]

Gee, I wasn't aware that publication by a mainstream commercial publisher was required for posting advice in these forums. If it is a requirement, an awful lot of us have violated it.Phael, it's actually not. But it's going to make a difference in whether I continue to let someone make blatantly false assertions as if they were true, just like I'm not going to let someone troll for clients here as an agent when they have absolutely no experience, contacts, or knowledge.

There are always a great many things any given person does not know. Myself included.

What I do know? This isn't a democracy. Freelancer wants to call me xenophobic because I tell him to stop giving bad advice? That's his business. But I'm under no obligation to provide him a platform with which to do so.

[scarletpeaches]

Gee, I wasn't aware that publication by a mainstream commercial publisher was required for posting advice in these forums. If it is a requirement, an awful lot of us have violated it.Can't speak for Mac, but...well, here I am guessing.

I think the post you quoted was directed at him personally, not at all unpublished folks on AW. The reason being, his advice was all wrong. Compeltely. And being published by a mainstream publisher (for which I won't hold my breath) is possibly the only thing that would make him see the error of his ways regarding how fiction publishing works.

ETA: Ah, I see Mac beat me to it.

[cwfgal]

Beth, you're fine. He's not banned - he's in a seven day time out. And that's much more for stuff happening backchannel than stuff happening on this thread--the details of which I'm not going to go into.

Okay, I defer to your judgment.

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[cwfgal]

Okay then...now that the fireworks are over with, I guess I can leave here and go do something. Like write. Crap. Just when you think you've found a perfectly justifiable reason for procrastination....

Maybe we can steer this thread back to the OP's work???

Beth (aka Annelise Ryan)

[job]

-First off, word count is somewhere in the 300,000 region, give or take 1000. Like I said it's huge. But I know with a deft hand it could be knocked down to, say 250,000.

Go to a brick-and-mortar.
Look at the shelf you want your book to be on.
Pick out the debut authors on that shelf.

How many of them weigh in at 250K?
At 150K?
Ok. How many are over 120K?
How many are over 100K?

You may well find that every single debut book in your field is under 100K.

This is what's being published.
This is the hard reality.

... setting it aside and writing another novel.

There's an old saying -- 'The first million words are for practice.'


Keep in mind I'm lifting a slightly heavier weight here, introducing a completely unique world, unique form of magic, characters and places with unfamiliar names, foreign culture,

<cough> We all think our own field of writing is the hardest.

But the fundamental fact is, though we grouse about the difficulty of cramming a rich fictive world and a good story into commercial length, that is what we have to do. The reader, (and the agent and the publisher and the bookseller,) really don't care whether it is hard or easy.

So. Look at writers who world-build in a short book. Study their methods.


Idiot first time writer taking up a crazy epic thing. It just happened..

It is not at all uncommon for folks to start off with a 320,000-word epic set in Ninth Century Thailand. I imagine agents see a couple of these every week.

FWIW . . . One way to tell a long, involved story set in a richly developed fictive world is to place several stand-alone books in that same world.

[ChristineR]

No, I don't. That's why I wrote this in my post: "Now that isn't saying that all long works are just that vomiting, some have every word that has been carefully thought out as well."

Okay. Here's the thing. You seem to be treating all books as being equal. That every author takes the same amount of time and effort to do the same things, therefore if a book is longer it will take more time. Time in your mind equates to effort. You don't understand how I can't see, all things being equal, why a longer book would take more work. There is nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, if that's the line you'd like to take.

My line is that your line is not correct in the first place. You push off to the side the whole research thing and genre thing, briefly touching on how that can muddle arguments. But to me, that's the whole point. Every book is unique, and every book takes a different kind of work to create it.

Everyone is different in how they write. Some people take a long time to write a short book because each word they pour out is a great effort to them, writing might not come naturally to them. Others (Stephenie Meyer anyone) can write a massive book very quickly because it just flows out. You can't say that just because Meyer's book was longer that it took more work for her in such a comparison.

However, most importantly I don't think you get that we aren't talking about the same thing. I am talking about first time authors, and you are somehow drawing a conclusion I think long books in general are easy to write. I am saying first drafts by first time authors tend to verge on the long end than the short and that is because first time authors tend to just write the first thing that comes into their minds. First time authors also might not realise that a first draft is not a finished draft and so will then come to a forum like AW and proclaim that they've written a long book, and are the exception to the rule about wordcount.

You are, like others who have appeared in this thread, defending the art of writing a long book (though doing so from a total logical fallacy - any author who insists one kind of writing is universally harder to write than another isn't doing herself any favours). While I have never once dissed long books. In fact I have many times said, "I WRITE LONG BOOKS" but no one seems to notice that. What you have demonstrated in your post is that you understand about the concept of revision. That you would put in a heck of a lot of effort before showing up on a website like AW and proclaiming you can't possibly cut down your work. You are not the person I'm talking about in the least.

But you simply can't say that long works are inherently harder to write. They aren't. Trust me. You can tell by my posts I am quite longwinded myself. Writing a short post would take far more effort for me, than a long one. I'd have to write a long post. Then go back over it and edit it down and down. I'd have to decide what I wanted to go, what I needed to keep etc. A post like this that just goes on and on . . . super super easy for me.

I pretty much agree with all this. I would never say that every short book is easier to write than every long book. But I would also never say that every long book is easier to write than every short book.

So that's why I'm trying to qualify it by saying that "all other things equal..." which I realize is a huge cop-out, but it's still the only thing I can say.

The problem I have is that I have seen, over and over on this forum, people claim that it's easier to write long than short. They aren't qualifying it with things like "for some of us," or "unless there's a lot of research." They're just saying it. I just don't buy it. Even writers like yourself who find it easy to send out words and are later forced to cut, will have to send out more words to make a long work of quality than a short work of quality. Otherwise you'll end up with a long-winded short novel in disguise, not a fine long novel.

Now if you mean that first-time authors have a tendency to overwrite, I think you're probably right. I don't have any hard proof of that, but let's assume it's true. Then an overwritten first novel that conceals a good short novel is still going to be less work than the overwritten novel that conceals a good long novel.

(If the novel is 100K, overwritten by 20%, that's 20K that needs to be sought and destroyed, if the novel is 50K, overwritten by 20%, that's only 10K.)

I have in front of me, several novels in various states of done-ness. The mostly-done short one was so much easier to write than the long one that it I laugh just to think of it. There were fewer characters, and fewer interactions, and not all of the characters had to grow and change nearly as much. There was only one main plotline, and each important minor character had a major part in a subplot. It was still easier because I only had ten things going on at once and interacting, instead of a hundred.

Now I would never say that the long novel could not be cut. Hell, I did cut it down to 5000 words, and even 250 words. (I was experimenting with my synopses.) What I would say is that the short versions would not be better than the long versions. If someone wants to pay me a fair price to make a 100K, or a 50k version, more power to them. From my point of view, it's better if someone reads the shortened version than if no one ever reads it at all.

Oh, and to the misguided fools who are throwing obscenity around? I'm smart enough to read naughty words in context.

[willietheshakes]

There's an old saying -- 'The first million words are for practice.'


That's a very polite version of that "old saying". ;)

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Good lord, I missed a lot. Well at least Threadstarter took some good advice and went on his (her?) merry way with it before this thread blew up.

As for the "writing more words takes longer!" argument: Meh, I disagree. It takes as long as takes, and that length of time has nothing to do with wordcount. Speaking solely from my observation of the NaNo part of this forum: It's been nearly one month since everyone in there started their manuscripts. Some have over 100K right now. Others have 20K. We all started on the same day, and took the same amount of time to get to wherever we are now. It just depends on the individual writer. Edits on the other hand are a WHOLE different ball game.

[ChristineR]

This is an assertion of fact, when it is a matter of opinion that is entirely dependent on the writer, and the work.

It's going to vary. This is also so pointless and ancient an argument that Plato makes fun of it.


I'm not the person who insists that writing long books is always easier. I assumed that it was so obvious that it depended on the writer and work that I didn't have to bother to say that.

[Cyia]

The hardest thing to write, IMO, is a specific range. If you write a book until it's finished, then it may clock in at 50K or 97K or 112K, but if someone says, "We only take 52K - 60K", then the whole time you've got this internal counter in your head trying to edit you as you go.

AFAIK, the only 200,000+ word novel published in the last few years as a stand alone was The Historian. I thought it was too long and very dry, but that's me. For the current market, I know Janet Reid has said on her blog that 120K is pretty much the ceiling even for established writers.

[ChristineR]

ChristineR, you seem to be implying (please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm just trying to understand your point of view) that it is by definition easier to write tight and concise from the get-go and end up with a shorter novel that needs less editing than it is to write long and splurgey, and pare the results down to the same size as you would have written if you agonized over every word in the first draft.

Is that a fair representation of your point?

If it is, please consider that I wrote a 110,000-word historical novel in eleven weeks, and in three days (after letting it sit for a while) chopped it down to an 82,000-word historical novel. This is, admittedly, a longer process than some people would take to write and edit the same, but it's a lot shorter than most novelists' processes.

I did not find the process difficult or taxing at any point, except for one chapter (which ended up being edited out anyway.) In the past, I've tried to write novels with a specific wordcount in mind, and picked and chosen my words very carefully without allowing myself freedom to experiment, take risks, or write a bunch of poop. I found the "write tight from the start" approach stressful and trying, and I didn't like the results anyway.

My splurge-written, eleven-week novel now has the eye of an agent at a major agency, and she has been so far quite enthusiastic about it (though hasn't offered representation yet, to be fair.) So I don't think I've written a crappy novel, based on her enthusiasm and interest.

I'm just using my experience to illustrate a point that is counter to the point I think you're making. But I could be wrong about your point.

I've used the word "point" too many times now.

Absolutely not! That is not my position at all. I understand that either approach may be easier for a particular person, or a particular project.

This is my position: If you write tight and grow, it's easier to write short and grow to perfection than it is to write long and grow (even more) to perfection. If you write splurgey and cut, it's easier to write splurgey and cut to short and perfect than it is to write longer and splurgey and cut to long and perfect. In either case, I am only comparing the sizes of the finished product, which we hope is perfect.

[ChristineR]

ChristineR, Freelancer is not a member of either the writers or the directors guild. He has no published novels, in any language. He has no actual professional fiction credits to his name. He's telling people things that are so blatantly and damagingly wrong, that it's actually almost laughable. The alarming part is that he's doing a so via PM, a lot of the time, where he can't be rebutted.

Are you seriously suggesting that, because some other poster used a swear word, I continue to let him spout his particular brand of BS? Really? Because he was polite, I should let him continue to openly, blatantly lie about his experience and how publishing works?

Because even though I get that he thinks he's got cred -- he's flat-out lying his ass off, to himself, and to the naive newbie who wanders in here trying to figure out why agents don't even want to look at their 230,000 word manuscript.

Mac, I do not object to your banning the guy because he's wrong, stubborn, and won't take advice. I object to people's tone, including yours. As he was polite, I would say you owe it to him to be polite.

If you really think he's trolling, then I guess I must give you a pass, although I did not think he was trolling. However, I am not the mod who must fight off armies of vicious trolls everyday, so I will withdraw any complaints I made on this point.

[IdiotsRUs]

Oooohkaaay

See, I go out for the afternoon so the docs can check I have a brain ( turns out I do, who knew?) and this happens! :D

Anyway. Ahem, back to the OP

Once upon a time, many moons ago, well about 18 give or take, I had a novel. It was big it was beautiful, it was glorious!

It was a monster. 225k.

At first I didn't realise quite how much harder this would make it to sell. Then I came here and found myself slack-jawed at the fact that my word count had probably dismissed me from every agent I subbed to - and of course, resubbing is not reccomended so....

So I cut it, to 175k. I got a nibble. Ooooh! Nibble said 'Like the voice, and the synopsis, but it's too long. Please cut to 110k max'

So...I had a choice. Keep all those lovely scenes and worldbuilding and stuff...or cut.

But it's my baby! It can't be shortened! it'll lose all its charm!

Then my little brain kicked in with traitorous comments such as 'You know that comic relief character? He doesn't need to be there.' 'You know scene X and scene Y? Basically saying / doing the same thing only in different ways. If you combined them....'. 'That really cool bit of world-building, does it actually add to the plot?' 'That scene where they're just going from A to B - how about a quick tell of 'Three days later they arrived at X' and drip any important info into the next scene?'


So, after saving a copy of Biggest Bouncing Baby, I cut all that, combined scenes and gave comic relief's important lines to someone else. Down to 140k words. Contractions coming at two minutes!

Then I discovered that if I started a scene later ( without all that intro stuff) or ended it earlier ( giving it a punchier finsih) I could save a few k more words! Down to 120K words. OMG it's almost there! One more push!

*pants*

With a look at every sentence to see if it belonged there, and another run through tto see if the story still worked ( it did) I got that sucker down to 110K. Then I sold it.

And do you know, it's ten times a better book for it. And guess what - the story is is still essentially the same!

It can be done, without ruining the story. You just have to decide which bits are THE story and which bits are flavour. Cut back the flavour and / or combine them with THE story. It's damn hard, and looking at it seems like it'd be like climbing everest wearing a pair of trainers. But - for most stories - it can be done.

Even if you really can't get it down to 100k or so - you can get it to a more managable level that is more likely to sell, and likely will have a much tighter, better book.


*eyes post*

I still overwrite I see

*brings out shears*

*snips*

[job]

That's a very polite version of that "old saying". ;)

I'm a very polite person.<g>

[Anahid21]

Wow, what happened? I just posted a thread after a long time and it exploded. I hope no one got banned and no one got offended. At least those of you who read my posts know I have no hard feelings about people who try to help me, even if the advice is delivered in a harsh way (Toothpaste, I must admit you do come across as a little derisive towards first time writers, but it doesn't matter because what you say is right.)

Ok, here is what I concluded after reading as much as I could from the thread (and skipping the drama):

-I completely disagree with those who say agents don't care about word count. If I thought that was true I would have shopped around my original 300k manuscript, not split it up into 3 and worry about book one feeling incomplete.

-I completely disagree with those who say an agent who rejects your work for reasons X or Y is unprofessional. I'll know my professional agents from the sales they've made, not from what they think of my manuscript.

-I'm not proud of the length I my book. I see it as a problem. I saw it way before I even started sending it out. Once again, I'm unpublished, not naive.

- I agree with those who said trimming the book too much would run the risk of turning it into a shell of a story. I was just reading Angie Sage's third book in the Septimus Heap series and I truly enjoyed a part where she was describing the royal barge. It was a one paragraph long description too but it didn't bother me at all.

-I would have to change the story. In fact I'm not only going to cut characters, I'm going to cut three whole arcs with the characters in them. Will the story become better? Who knows. It will be a different story entirely, and a major twist will be gone. But including that twist requires a lot of secondary plot development and background story so I'm thinking it may not be worth it.

-I try to trust my readers more. So let's say a character is going from location A to location B where a major event is going to happen. Is it ok to describe the events in room A, make them exit, then cut right away to room B without describing how they got there (bearing in mind the path to get to room B has no bearing on the plot but includes a good description of the environment?)

[Izz]

As he was polite, I would say you owe it to him to be polite. I wouldn't call Freelancer's being rude, arrogant and dismissive polite, but that might just be me.

As to this: This is my position: If you write tight and grow, it's easier to write short and grow to perfection than it is to write long and grow (even more) to perfection. If you write splurgey and cut, it's easier to write splurgey and cut to short and perfect than it is to write longer and splurgey and cut to long and perfect. In either case, I am only comparing the sizes of the finished product, which we hope is perfect.

But assuming you stick to the method you like, it's still going to be easier to come up with a shorter work in the endI'm sorry, but i really can't get this to make sense. I think perhaps the majority of your argument is based on the assumption that while people might write in different ways, every other part of their creative process is basically the same as yours, which is most definitely not correct.

That may not be your position, but i've really been trying to get my head around your argument and can only do so with that modifier thrown in.

ETA: Looks like we cross-posted, Anahid. Let's hope your post gets more airtime than mine :)

[IdiotsRUs]

-I try to trust my readers more. So let's say a character is going from location A to location B where a major event is going to happen. Is it ok to describe the events in room A, make them exit, then cut right away to room B without describing how they got there (bearing in mind the path to get to room B has no bearing on the plot but includes a good description of the environment?)

Yes it's OK. If fact, better than OK - if nothing important happens between A and B, you don't need anything there. ( if really necessary, a short 'Two hours later in Bill's office....' tell to orient your reader is fine) I'm sure that you can figure an elegant way to slide that description in somewhere else. :D

[Izz]

Yes it's OK. If fact, better than OK - if nothing important happens between A and B, you don't need anything there. This. Filler may be nice-sounding, but that doesn't stop it from being filler.

[LuckyH]

What an interesting thread, in more ways than one. Writers are fickle people, with fickle opinions. They’re touchy, opinionated, proud of their words, sometimes reluctant to accept advice, whether sixteen or sixty.

I joined this forum because I love a discussion with fellow writers, I didn’t join to instruct, or brag, or to post silly, sarcastic comments, but I can’t write without humour and I find humourless writing appalling.

It seems that 300k words for a new author is not acceptable. I can’t argue with that, nor can I argue that the banned poster was wrong, and wrong again in his posts. I’m going to stop here because I also know that arguing with the management is futile.

I have personal knowledge of a writer who, as a first timer, although she was slightly famous, submitted an MS of 750 pages; I don’t know the word count, but it was more than 300K. She was eventually edited down to 450 pages after a lot of pain.

The book sold like hot cakes, so did the next, much shorter one, and then the author faded. She had written herself dry. (I can post her name if anyone wants to know).

I have one final question. Why did most of the contributors get so upset over such an innocent topic?

[ChristineR]

I wouldn't call Freelancer's being rude, arrogant and dismissive polite, but that might just be me.

As to this:

I'm sorry, but i really can't get this to make sense. I think perhaps the majority of your argument is based on the assumption that while people might write in different ways, every other part of their creative process is basically the same as yours, which is most definitely not correct.

That may not be your position, but i've really been trying to get my head around your argument and can only do so with that modifier thrown in.

ETA: Looks like we cross-posted, Anahid. Let's hope your post gets more airtime than mine :)

I'm sorry, I'm not following. Where have I even mentioned my creative process? I might have, but I'm not sure. Anyhow my creative process has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. I really don't think it matters what your creative process is, as I tried to make clear in the snippets you quoted.

I'm sorry if I missed something you thought was important. What are you referring to?

[Anahid21]

Oooohkaaay

See, I go out for the afternoon so the docs can check I have a brain ( turns out I do, who knew?) and this happens! :D



Lol, imagine my surprise. I went to bed in the wee hours and woke up not recognizing my own thread. For a moment I thought I was clicking through something else.

Your experience seems like something I would have to do. And I'm glad because it means the book is still salvageable. Although it makes me sad to know I can no longer resubmit to my favorite agents. But I only submitted the first book (1/3 of the giant) so maybe after I cut it down and include the other two, it would be a different enough manuscript to fool them not to know it's a resub ;)

[Toothpaste]

I would like to state for the record I have no issue whatsoever with new writers. We were all new writers once, and I still consider myself fairly new. I know that reading some of my posts some might conclude I am being derisive towards new writers, but I am simply stating facts, not drawing conclusions.

First time writers are naive. Many first time writers have a lot to learn. That is neither a good nor bad thing. It is a fact.

You can consider my opinions to be putting them down, and maybe they truly read as such, but that was never my intention. I'm being blunt definitely. But see I came into a thread where the supportive thing was already taken care of. I commented because I thought there was another perspective that was missing.

I teach writing workshops. I blog regularly not only offering advice, but always hope, that if you work hard enough you too can achieve your dreams. I have never once put down new writers. Stating facts (which include "most new writers write works that are too long and overpadded") isn't stating opinion. Stating an opinion on that fact would look something like "and they are horrible people and should just give up" (for the record, I don't believe that). No every single time I said that point I then said, "And it's important for them to learn this so that they can start to improve."

It was all in aid of improvement.

I'm sorry that I have offended some of you. I take responsibility for the words, and the possibly slightly too harsh tone (which I will be honest, comes from me being incredibly stressed and so I confess was probably more harsh than I usually post). I didn't intend it.

[Anahid21]

I have one final question. Why did most of the contributors get so upset over such an innocent topic?

I want to know this too. If anything, the comments about new authors being naive, foolish and too proud of themselves for writing a long book were directed at me. Why did some other people get offended and confrontational? Hope it didn't derail the conversation. I really appreciate all the advice.

[Libbie]

Wow, what happened?

Freelancer found your thread. This happens from time to time.


-I completely disagree with those who say agents don't care about word count. If I thought that was true I would have shopped around my original 300k manuscript, not split it up into 3 and worry about book one feeling incomplete.

-I completely disagree with those who say an agent who rejects your work for reasons X or Y is unprofessional. I'll know my professional agents from the sales they've made, not from what they think of my manuscript.

Good. You're a smart cookie.


- I agree with those who said trimming the book too much would run the risk of turning it into a shell of a story. I was just reading Angie Sage's third book in the Septimus Heap series and I truly enjoyed a part where she was describing the royal barge. It was a one paragraph long description too but it didn't bother me at all.

Descriptions are good, and Sage is generally a pretty good writer, from what I've read. Based on reading your prologue, you need more critiques to get to the point where your descriptions of setting will make sense and enhance the experience, rather than detracting from the story.

That's not an insult -- we've ALL been at that point in our writing progress! And none of us ever stops learning, of course. We're all on a continuum.

The way to improve is to seek out criticism and apply it to your work. Application of critique is arguably the most important skill a writer can have. It may also be the most difficult to develop, depending on the writer.

-I would have to change the story. In fact I'm not only going to cut characters, I'm going to cut three whole arcs with the characters in them. Will the story become better? Who knows. It will be a different story entirely, and a major twist will be gone. But including that twist requires a lot of secondary plot development and background story so I'm thinking it may not be worth it.

It might be, though. You never know until you try it. You can always save the original version of the book, and if you decide you hate the rewrite, you can go back to the first one. :)

-I try to trust my readers more. So let's say a character is going from location A to location B where a major event is going to happen. Is it ok to describe the events in room A, make them exit, then cut right away to room B without describing how they got there (bearing in mind the path to get to room B has no bearing on the plot but includes a good description of the environment?)



YES!! Is the journey from Room A to Room B really important? Is it going to make a difference to the plot? Is it going to show character development? If the answer to either question is "no," then it doesn't need to be there. :)

[Libbie]

I want to know this too. If anything, the comments about new authors being naive, foolish and too proud of themselves for writing a long book were directed at me. Why did some other people get offended and confrontational? Hope it didn't derail the conversation. I really appreciate all the advice.

NOOOO! No, m'dear, those comments were NOT directed at you, I promise you. We've all been seeing Freelancer turn threads into the same kind of circus for months now, and we were venting our frustration with him. Any insinuations of naivete, stupidity, or head-in-buttism was NOT directed at you. Please be assured of this.

Nobody has been in the least offended by anything you've said in this thread. I can only speak for myself here, but I've actually been really inspired by your honest search for improvement.

[Cyia]

Are we sure that Freelancer is a "him"? Maybe it's the language difference, but "he" regularly uses "we" and plural verbs. It could be more than one person using the same account (Like Team 2012 a while back).

[scarletpeaches]

I have one final question. Why did most of the contributors get so upset over such an innocent topic?Because the advice given by He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named was wrong and as such, dangerous, most especially to newbie writers.I'm sorry that I have offended some of you. I take responsibility for the words, and the possibly slightly too harsh tone (which I will be honest, comes from me being incredibly stressed and so I confess was probably more harsh than I usually post). I didn't intend it.Good grief; you're one of the least offensive people on this site. And I'm not just saying that because you occasionally send me photos of James Purefoy. (Check your reps).I want to know this too. If anything, the comments about new authors being naive, foolish and too proud of themselves for writing a long book were directed at me. Why did some other people get offended and confrontational? Hope it didn't derail the conversation. I really appreciate all the advice.Libbie's already got this covered but I'll chime in with a "Don't give it another thought." Honestly. Nothing you've said has been deraily (that's a proper word you know) or confrontational. None of the above shitstorm was directed at you. :)

[Anahid21]

NOOOO! No, m'dear, those comments were NOT directed at you, I promise you. We've all been seeing Freelancer turn threads into the same kind of circus for months now, and we were venting our frustration with him. Any insinuations of naivete, stupidity, or head-in-buttism was NOT directed at you. Please be assured of this.

Nobody has been in the least offended by anything you've said in this thread. I can only speak for myself here, but I've actually been really inspired by your honest search for improvement.

Glad to hear this. I was a bit surprised when people started scolding me for thinking I'm Better Than Thou because I had a long book. Nothing is farther from the truth. I came here marveling at the skills of those who could write shorter stories and hoping they could teach me how. I had no idea the reaction was based on other such arrogant first-timers posting similar threads. And I certainly had no clue who Freelancer was, just that his advice seemed rather off.


I'm sorry that I have offended some of you. I take responsibility for the words, and the possibly slightly too harsh tone (which I will be honest, comes from me being incredibly stressed and so I confess was probably more harsh than I usually post). I didn't intend it.

None taken. It also helps that I agree with you. All the agents I talked to asked about word count. No one said, "Oh that seems gigantic, but you look slightly like J. K. Rolling so I'll first read and then judge." Why would they think I'm the next bestselling author to give me their time of the day?

[Linda Adams]

To the original topic, here's a very good article on editing a novel for length (http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Vision45/Workshop.htm). It gives some really good examples.

Though it mentions "repetition of events," I'll go one step further and add repetition in general. Like when you say something in a paragraph and then say it again a few paragraphs later. It's really easy to do--I found numerous instances of repeating the same phrases over and over (i.e., bad guys "lurking in the trees" or telling the reader numerous times that it's cold outside). I even will sometimes find a repetition in the next sentence.

One of the things I ran across with mine was that I had a story-related issue that I picked up on during revision. I fixed the problem and discovered that 70 pages were suddenly no longer needed--they'd been used to shore up the problem area. You'd think I learn--I did something similar in the current one and I ended up chopping out nearly fifty pages!

Just make sure that if you launch into hacking mode, save a pristine version first. I've often found that sometimes a scene I cut out fits better elsewhere once the editing starts.

[IdiotsRUs]

Though it mentions "repetition of events," I'll go one step further and add repetition in general. Like when you say something in a paragraph and then say it again a few paragraphs later. It's really easy to do--I found numerous instances of repeating the same phrases over and over (i.e., bad guys "lurking in the trees" or telling the reader numerous times that it's cold outside). I even will sometimes find a repetition in the next sentence.

Oh, I'm a bugger for repitition!

I'd recommend Self Editing for Fiction Writers (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Editing-Fiction-Writers-Renni-Browne/dp/0062720465), king and browne

It's got lots of really good advice that will help you with your count, such as Resisting the Urge to Explain, not showing something and then telling it too. ( 'You bastard!' she said. She was angry) and stuff like that

I found it invaluable

[Linda Adams]

It's got lots of really good advice that will help you with your count, such as Resisting the Urge to Explain, not showing something and then telling it too. ( 'You bastard!' she said. She was angry) and stuff like that



Yeah, I've had this problem, too--though because I tend to run short. Never again will I set a word count limit for chapters. It practically invited me to do this just to get the word count up--and it was very painful watching pages drop when I was trying to expand.

[Albannach]

Ugh. I WISH my first drafts were long. Which doesn't mean most "new writers" don't write long but I sure don't. And I personally consider adding more painful that cutting. But that's me and I rarely have to cut much.

It's too short....

No, it's still too short....

No, dammit, it's STILL too short....

(grumble grumble)

[Anahid21]

Ugh. I WISH my first drafts were long. Which doesn't mean most "new writers" don't write long but I sure don't. And I personally consider adding more painful that cutting. But that's me and I rarely have to cut much.

It's too short....

No, it's still too short....

No, dammit, it's STILL too short....

(grumble grumble)

Out of curiosity, how can a novel be too short? We described at length in this thread how is can be too long and what the problems are with that, but what is meant by "too short?" I mean unless it's the length of a short story (in which case you might want to consider it one) or the story lacks a meaningful arc, I can't see how a publisher could have a problem with it.

[Slushie]

I usually fall on the short side too. On the first round of revisions I end up adding several, several thousand words. Second round is checking for plot holes, logic gaps, etc. Third round I focus on pacing. Fourth, fif, sixth, (infinitiy) are all grammar, useless descriptions, etc. So far this loose formula has worked *for me*.

If I wrote a 300,000 word story, I'd be so sick of the characters by then end that I'd kill 'em all in some kind of apocalypse.

[scarletpeaches]

Out of curiosity, how can a novel be too short? We described at length in this thread how is can be too long and what the problems are with that, but what is meant by "too short?" I mean unless it's the length of a short story (in which case you might want to consider it one) or the story lacks a meaningful arc, I can't see how a publisher could have a problem with it.Just as an example, if you're subbing to e-publishers, many have a lower limit for print copies of your book. One I can think of doesn't print anything below 50k, another has a limit of 60k. So there's that.

Even going the traditional agent/publisher route, it might not be worthwhile for a publishing house to print your book if it's short story length, rather than around the 50-60k mark. They'd have to charge a certain amount to recoup their costs, and how many people would pay, say, £10-15 for what amounts to a short story or novella?

[Maxinquaye]

If I wrote a 300,000 word story, I'd be so sick of the characters by then end that I'd kill 'em all in some kind of apocalypse.

It's what Stephen King did in the Stand. He got so lost and confused with all his characters that he killed most of them with a bomb.

[Linda Adams]

Out of curiosity, how can a novel be too short? We described at length in this thread how is can be too long and what the problems are with that, but what is meant by "too short?" I mean unless it's the length of a short story (in which case you might want to consider it one) or the story lacks a meaningful arc, I can't see how a publisher could have a problem with it.

It runs 65K when the minimum word count for the genre is 80K. Adding to bring that much up is a lot harder than editing down, IMO. I can weedwhack a novel down easily, but writing up requires extensive revision and kicking at the story repeatedly. Not fun.

[Slushie]

It's what Stephen King did in the Stand. He got so lost and confused with all his characters that he killed most of them with a bomb.

I've never read it. Seen it in the book stores though and it's gotta be pushing 1k pages, right?

ETA: 823p according to Wikipedia. If it's roughly 250 word/page then that's...ummm....lil' over 200k words.

[eyeblink]

I've never read it. Seen it in the book stores though and it's gotta be pushing 1k pages, right?

ETA: 823p according to Wikipedia. If it's roughly 250 word/page then that's...ummm....lil' over 200k words.

462,138 words in its uncut version (1141 pages), as per Amazon.com text stats.

[ChristineR]

A novel can be too short because the fixed costs of cover, design, printing plates, distribution, advertisement, etc. can make the cost of a short book almost as much as of a longer book. People balk when asked to pay six dollars for a book that's half as long as the seven dollar book right next to it. Shorter novels have to be published in anthologies or magazines, or as e-books.

The Stand is way more than 250 words per page. Almost all printed books are more than 250 words on the page, and certainly they would use smaller type in this case. One source gives 520K words, which would be 620 words per page. I think this is reasonable, even if it's only someone's estimation and not an official count.

That's pushing the limits, both on book length and the number of letters you can cram onto a single piece of paper.

[Maxinquaye]

I've never read it. Seen it in the book stores though and it's gotta be pushing 1k pages, right?

ETA: 823p according to Wikipedia. If it's roughly 250 word/page then that's...ummm....lil' over 200k words.

Worst thing is... it's pretty good, in the bloated kind of way that was King's writing style then. That man didn't write very short books there for a while.

But he talked about this in "On Writing". He blew them up because he got writers block because of it.

[Slushie]

Worst thing is... it's pretty good, in the bloated kind of way that was King's writing style then. That man didn't write very short books there for a while.

But he talked about this in "On Writing". He blew them up because he got writers block because of it.

I really liked The Body. It's the only work of his I've read. Maybe I'll get around to The Stand someday.

[LuckyH]

Shackle-less, brave and truthful, I’m reminded of the cobbled streets of Dundee. I only visited when my team played the heathens of the east coast.

I remember bumpy roads and ginger-haired lassies, and munties that couldn’t fight.

The ‘Road and the Miles’, yeah, it makes me sit up, ginger hair and ginger lips, It reminds me of rabbits, fuck knows why.

[willietheshakes]

Shackle-less, brave and truthful, I’m reminded of the cobbled streets of Dundee. I only visited when my team played the heathens of the east coast.

I remember bumpy roads and ginger-haired lassies, and munties that couldn’t fight.

The ‘Road and the Miles’, yeah, it makes me sit up, ginger hair and ginger lips, It reminds me of rabbits, fuck knows why.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

[Anahid21]

I can weedwhack a novel down easily, but writing up requires extensive revision and kicking at the story repeatedly. Not fun.

I wished I was like that. Then I'd add that little back story about that supporting character everyone thought was just a face.

I just discovered I'm too fond of side stories and back stories. In fact there are chapters in my book that have nothing to do with the main arc but describe a historical event that happened a long time ago and somehow affected the universe (these of course will soon end up on the editing room's floor.) It's because I personally love books that include such details, and books that first introduce a character as a bit character, only to later bring up stories about their past that makes you see them in a whole new light.

Writing my own book, I think I got a little caught up in these penchants of mine.

[HConn]

I've never read it. Seen it in the book stores though and it's gotta be pushing 1k pages, right?

ETA: 823p according to Wikipedia. If it's roughly 250 word/page then that's...ummm....lil' over 200k words.

250 words per page is the rule of thumb for books in manuscript format (double-spaced, one-inch margins, 8.5x11 inch paper) when the author is using a font like Courier or Courier New. Words per page in a published book varies wildly, and is part of the book designer's art.

To guesstimate the number of words in THE STAND, you'd have to count the number of words in a few lines, average them, multiply that by the lines per page and then by the pages per book.

Also, a very short book with have a slender spine, and therefore have less visibility on a bookstore shelf.

[Anahid21]

I completely forgot something Libbie mentioned a few pages ago. She said even though the characters are young the story doesn't have to be YA. I understand that YA has a stricter page count than straight fantasy so I wonder how many of you agree with that. Can one have 14 year old characters in a story and call it adult fantasy? (Harry Potter was read by lots of adults but it was first marketed as a children's book, right?)

[Slushie]

250 words per page is the rule of thumb for books in manuscript format (double-spaced, one-inch margins, 8.5x11 inch paper) when the author is using a font like Courier or Courier New. Words per page in a published book varies wildly, and is part of the book designer's art.

To guesstimate the number of words in THE STAND, you'd have to count the number of words in a few lines, average them, multiply that by the lines per page and then by the pages per book.

Also, a very short book with have a slender spine, and therefore have less visibility on a bookstore shelf.
Yeah. That'd be where the 250 came from, just wasn't thinking. I've derailed this thread enough. Sorry OP.

[MacAllister]

I completely forgot something Libbie mentioned a few pages ago. She said even though the characters are young the story doesn't have to be YA. I understand that YA has a stricter page count than straight fantasy so I wonder how many of you agree with that. Can one have 14 year old characters in a story and call it adult fantasy? (Harry Potter was read by lots of adults but it was first marketed as a children's book, right?)The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon is a great example of how well this can work.

[Izz]

I completely forgot something Libbie mentioned a few pages ago. She said even though the characters are young the story doesn't have to be YA. I understand that YA has a stricter page count than straight fantasy so I wonder how many of you agree with that. Can one have 14 year old characters in a story and call it adult fantasy? (Harry Potter was read by lots of adults but it was first marketed as a children's book, right?)Ender's Game--the protag starts off at age 6, finishes (apart from an epilogue-type final chapter or two) at age 11. Definitely wouldn't call that book YA.

[Linda Adams]

I wished I was like that. Then I'd add that little back story about that supporting character everyone thought was just a face.


I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's not a matter of adding a backstory about a character and 15K appears. One of the things I have to be careful is to make sure the additions are important to the story and not just filling space. Remember, even with a story running short, unnecessary stuff needs to be edited out, so it's possible to add add ten pages and lose fifty.

[Toothpaste]

YA has a lot to do with tone and subject matter, so that's what you should look at more with your work to determine if you think it's adult or YA. Have you read much fantasy YA? Do you think yours suits the tone? Is there a coming of age element in your work? It's a tricky question which genre you fall into. After looking at your prologue, I have to say that it reads YA to me. But that could just be the prologue.

Anyway, those are some questions to ask yourself!

[Anahid21]

YA has a lot to do with tone and subject matter, so that's what you should look at more with your work to determine if you think it's adult or YA. Have you read much fantasy YA? Do you think yours suits the tone? Is there a coming of age element in your work? It's a tricky question which genre you fall into. After looking at your prologue, I have to say that it reads YA to me. But that could just be the prologue.

Anyway, those are some questions to ask yourself!

Is Harry Potter YA? Because mine sort of follows a similar style: Young teens handling adult situations and having to grow up. Some already act beyond their age due to past experiences.
I would call it YA but then I think of the Twilight series and it makes me pause.

[brainstorm77]

The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon is a great example of how well this can work.

LOVED that book.

[katiemac]

Is Harry Potter YA? Because mine sort of follows a similar style: Young teens handling adult situations and having to grow up. Some already act beyond their age due to past experiences.
I would call it YA but then I think of the Twilight series and it makes me pause.

Scholastic categorizes the first six Harry Potter books as middle grade and the seventh book as YA. Personally, I believe the first three are middle grade, the last three are YA, and the fourth book bridges the gap.

Like Toothpaste said, it's very much about voice and subject matter.

For instance, you might have a novel with a 14-year-old protagonist, yet the narrator is an adult (like the 14-year-old is grown up and looking back--Life of Pi is a good example of this tactic). Harry Potter had a decidedly younger subject matter, but still managed to appeal to adults. It also helped that as Potter's age group grew, so did Harry. (The 11-year-olds who started the series when it was first published were 21 when it was finished.)

ETA: I've posted this (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4269123&postcount=7) a few times before. Might be helpful.

[Slushie]

I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's not a matter of adding a backstory about a character and 15K appears. One of the things I have to be careful is to make sure the additions are important to the story and not just filling space. Remember, even with a story running short, unnecessary stuff needs to be edited out, so it's possible to add add ten pages and lose fifty.

Yep. Whether it's 60k or 160k, fat is fat.

Cutting is much easier than adding, for sure. I try to put a positive spin on it, like: first draft is the bones, second adds the flesh, third is the makeup (lame, I know). There's that saying about writing scenes:

enter late, leave early

I sometimes leave too early and the climax comes before I've fleshed out all the tension building (still talking about novels), so second draft is focusing on that balance of creating tension without slogging the scene out. Adding stuff is tough, so OP is definitely on the relatively easier side of the fence. *shrugs* Writing is writing. :)

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Adding is a HUGE pain. I think my problem with writing "short" is that it was drilled into me early on that your second pass should be focused on cutting out, rather than adding on, and that screwed up my editing/writing style a *lot*. I tend to run out of plot between 30k and 40k, and I wind up scratching my head over what to do with it to make it longer, but without adding unnecessary filler. It's much easier to chop something you can eventually deem unnecessary.

Hey, how about us short-writers team up with long-writers and beta each other? That way at least one of us will wind up with a more normal-length novel.

[James D. Macdonald]

I wind up scratching my head over what to do with it to make it longer, but without adding unnecessary filler.

Add more plot.

[Linda Adams]

Add more plot.


This is probably one of the reasons I ended up being very plot-driven. A pitfall of it is that I have to watch out for overcomplicating the story, because I tend to pretty dense on the plot. Had to get out the shoehorn to insert a subplot.

[Toothpaste]

Harry Potter is YA - in fact the first few books are even younger, MG (middle grade - for 8 - 12 yearolds).

Twilight is definitely YA as well.

So if you think you match either of those, then you are probably writing YA.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

This is probably one of the reasons I ended up being very plot-driven. A pitfall of it is that I have to watch out for overcomplicating the story, because I tend to pretty dense on the plot. Had to get out the shoehorn to insert a subplot.
So, you're saying add a subplot? I know that's just one suggestion, and maybe this is me reacting to seeing lots of unnecessary subplots that made no sense, but when I hear "subplot" my instinct is to recoil slightly...

[Slushie]

So, you're saying add a subplot? I know that's just one suggestion, and maybe this is me reacting to seeing lots of unnecessary subplots that made no sense, but when I hear "subplot" my instinct is to recoil slightly...
lol, me too. I tend to associate "subplot" with "randomly distracting tangent", but I think a good subplot will reveal something about character and/or move the main plot forward. That's something I'm working on now; it's tricky figuring out where and for how long to take it before winding back into the main story.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

^Yeah, I think I'm confusing it with something else. *goes to lurk the "Learning to Plot" thread*

[James D. Macdonald]

If I'd meant "add a subplot" I'd have said "add a subplot."

[Slushie]

...I think Rhoda was responding to Linda Adams' shoehorn.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Yeah I was directing that at Linda, hence the quote. Honestly I have no clue how to respond to "add more plot," except to just blink at the screen.

[Linda Adams]

So, you're saying add a subplot? I know that's just one suggestion, and maybe this is me reacting to seeing lots of unnecessary subplots that made no sense, but when I hear "subplot" my instinct is to recoil slightly...

Me, too. I was a short story writer first, so it was a hard concept to get--especially seeing books where the subplot felt like it was padding the story. But a novel isn't a long short story, so subplots are part of that.

Because I am plot-driven, I also found that I had to use plot-focused subplots, rather then the more traditional character arc ones (i.e, romance, problem in the characer's life, etc.). Once I identified that, I discovered that I already had vague hints of one in place--just undeveloped. It follows along so closely to the story that I actually mistook it for being another element of the main storyline. Since then, I've added a second one, also plot-focused that added a new complication in the main story.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Ah--see, I'm more character-driven when I write. Maybe that's part of the problem.

[Linda Adams]

Yeah I was directing that at Linda, hence the quote. Honestly I have no clue how to respond to "add more plot," except to just blink at the screen.

Start with "What else can go wrong?"

[Albannach]

Out of curiosity, how can a novel be too short? We described at length in this thread how is can be too long and what the problems are with that, but what is meant by "too short?" I mean unless it's the length of a short story (in which case you might want to consider it one) or the story lacks a meaningful arc, I can't see how a publisher could have a problem with it.
Oh, I assure you that agents and publishers have problems with novels in the 75-80K range. They've told me so.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

hahaha--Okay, just had an idea. My MC's going to hate me even more now, I've tortured him plenty already...

(Thanks! I'll be done talking about my short novel issues now, since this thread is supposed to be going in the other other direction.)

[Albannach]

Then I'd add that little back story about that supporting character everyone thought was just a face.

I just discovered I'm too fond of side stories and back stories. In fact there are chapters in my book that have nothing to do with the main arc but describe a historical event that happened a long time ago and somehow affected the universe (these of course will soon end up on the editing room's floor.) It's because I personally love books that include such details, and books that first introduce a character as a bit character, only to later bring up stories about their past that makes you see them in a whole new light.

Writing my own book, I think I got a little caught up in these penchants of mine.
That's the basic difference in people who write short and those who write long, I think. I hate all that stuff when I read and invariably skip it. Then I take Leonard Elmore's advice to "leave out the stuff that people skip" a bit too far. If there is a detail that you don't need to understand the story--chances are 99 to 1, I'll leave it out.

That is until I'm forced to go back and bring my word count up to a length that will make a publisher happy. Since I mostly write historical which do NOT tend to be short... *sigh*

Edit: My MC's main problem is killing people while managing not to get killed. Sometimes it's hard to add subplots to that. Maybe I should add more about why he and the king's brother hate each other--except that I really never was quite sure why they did. They just do. =)

[Albannach]

Adding more plot tends to involve re-writing the whole blinking thing in order to change the whole plot. Like I said, adding is a whole lot easier than cutting or it seems that way to me. If there's an easy way to do it, I sure haven't found it.

[HConn]

Yeah I was directing that at Linda, hence the quote. Honestly I have no clue how to respond to "add more plot," except to just blink at the screen.

The first step is to see where the protagonist received cooperation or help, then take it away.

The second step is to look at every character, even small ones, and give them goals. If you can make their goals incompatible with the protagonist's, you have more plot. You get betrayals, or additional antagonists, or whatever.

The third step is to look at the hero's successes and turn them into failures. Indiana Jones is a guy who failed in the most amazing, spectacular, and admirable ways.

There are certain kinds of video games where you have to run around doing side errands to collect the plot coupons you need to complete the plot. Mr. Jones will give you X but only if you can find Y. Ms. Smith has Y but won't give it to you until you complete Task Z. And so on and so forth, spinning outward into the twelve hundred labors. You don't want that. The plot you add should match the plot you already have, both in pacing and in tone.

But adding plot isn't so hard, once you look at your characters, decide what they want, what they're willing to do, and what resources they have to get to their goal.

[MicheleLee]

I know professional writers on both sides. Everyone works for their words. Some people overwrite and still end up 20k below on the first draft. Some people have to cut down a 150k novel to 80k because they didn't have enough plot and have to make room to make it a satisfying read.

A couple years ago I finished a fist draft UF novel that came in at 42k *eyebrow waggle* I added a whole new character as a red herring and in the process also turned the flat, cliche bad guy into something else. Second draft was still only 68k.

The point, as a writer, is to keep improving with every project. If it means hitting a certain word count, there ya go. If it means writing tighter, wha-la.

[Medievalist]

I want to call attention to this; it's true, and practical, and real. Y'all might wanna print it out.

The first step is to see where the protagonist received cooperation or help, and then take it away.

The second step is to look at every character, even small ones, and give them goals. If you can make their goals incompatible with the protagonist's, you have more plot. You get betrayals, or additional antagonists, or whatever.

The third step is to look at the hero's successes and turn them into failures. Indiana Jones is a guy who failed in the most amazing, spectacular, and admirable ways..

[Anahid21]

The second step is to look at every character, even small ones, and give them goals. If you can make their goals incompatible with the protagonist's, you have more plot. You get betrayals, or additional antagonists, or whatever.


Allow me to add my two cents for our fellow "short" writers by saying I agree with this absolutely. In fact this might be the trap we "long" writers sometimes fall into. There's nothing more enticing than multidimentional side characters with dubious intentions. Any author that includes a traitor in their story and does so skillfully has my respect.

Unfortunately the trap for us is taking this too far, hence ending up with a side character who gets too much spotlight. One of the characters in my monster story enters a scene as a reformed bandit who invites the protagonist and his crew to a banquet, only to reveal in the end that it was a trap to capture them. The problem with him however (and this I found out through my paid editor, way before posting this thread,) that he spends near 50 pages telling his back story until he reaches a point where the other characters, and the reader, understand why he is still a villain. I will cut all that out, yet keeping the surprise would be a challenge. I may have to get rid of him or the surprise entirely.

[K.L. Townsend]

Oh, I assure you that agents and publishers have problems with novels in the 75-80K range. They've told me so.

Really? Because I hear from a lot of publishers and agents that shorter is better. Obviously not too short, but even 80k is considered too short?

[Toothpaste]

I must confess that surprises me too, every agent I've met, and every agent blog I've read, places the typical wordcount between 80 and 120K.

[K.L. Townsend]

I must confess that surprises me too, every agent I've met, and every agent blog I've read, places the typical wordcount between 80 and 120K.

Yes, this is what I heard as well, dependent on the genre of course. Some genres tend to have novels which are shorter while others go for long.

I was under the impression that 80k was okay. I hate it when I'm reading a story and I see obvious filler to get the wordcount up. But I can understand from a publisher's pov why they would prefer novels that weren't too short.

[scarletpeaches]

I took it as a blacbirdesque pisstake.

[eqb]

...The problem with him however (and this I found out through my paid editor, way before posting this thread,) that he spends near 50 pages telling his back story until he reaches a point where the other characters, and the reader, understand why he is still a villain. I will cut all that out, yet keeping the surprise would be a challenge. I may have to get rid of him or the surprise entirely.

I haven't read your ms, but I confess my first thought was, Why fifty pages of backstory for any character? That seems an obvious candidate for trimming and compressing.

One technique I like is to add a character who isn't a villain, but who still has an agenda that conflicts with the protagonist. That lets me add a subplot that intersects and intensifies the main plot.

[job]

Anahid21 **I'm too fond of side stories and back stories. In fact there are chapters in my book that have nothing to do with the main arc but describe a historical event that happened a long time ago and somehow affected the universe **

That's the basic difference in people who write short and those who write long, I think. I hate all that stuff when I read and invariably skip it.

Certainly adding sidestories and excursions into unrelated historical events can be the reason some folks write 'long'.

Many folks, though, are simply telling stories that take more words to tell. I'd say the 'shape' of the plot determines how long the story is going to be.

Fr'instance.
Let's say I'm toying with a subplot.
It'll run 10K - 12K. I know I have 110K for the whole manuscript. I'm going to look at my main story and jiggle the likely scenes back and forth and decide I can afford five scenes, (for me, 10K,) of subplot. I plan the story accordingly.

Now let's say they come back and tell me I only have 90K.
I'd leave the subplot out.
Simple.

But not so simple. Leaving the sublplot out doesn't just mean some events are gone and two minor characters are missing from the manuscript.
I'm telling a different story at 90K than at 110K.

When I reduce the work to 90K,
I have to move plot elements around to adjust for missing structure
and to make the pacing work.
I have to expand one of the minor character so now he can do three or four little plotty transitional bits that were in the subplot.
I might even have to modify the character of my protagonists.
That's because there's going to be a chain of emotional events that's partly carried by the subplot. When that subplot gets yanked out, some of the scenes carrying emotional freight have to be reassigned to the main plot and the action of the main protagonists. This changes the protagonists.

Shortening a story is like ...
let's say you have to shorten Little Red Riding Hood and leave out the four scenes with The Huntsman. Subplot is gone.
Now, Little Red has to kill the wolf.

It's not just that you've left out a subplot. You got a new and different protagonist because the story has been shortened.
You're telling a different story.

Or -- going the other way --
If you wanted to lengthen LRRH and decided to add the heroic Huntsman and now Little Red is going to marry him at the end.
You can't just open some cracks and mortar in the Huntsman and his actions. Everything changes. Little Red is now a different person.

What I'm saying is . . . if you want to lengthen or shorten a story, you now have a different story. Plot, structure, pacing, emotional development, characterization -- these are all going to be different for the same writer using different wordcounts.

It's like ... If you wanted to change the square footage of a house.
Easy to say you can leave off, (or add,) two bedrooms and chop out the foyer. But then your water pipes all run crooked and the kitchen isn't big enough, (or it's too big) and there aren't enough bathrooms for a family of five and where are you going to fit the new half-bath so it can have plumbing but the entry foyer is now turned into a mudroom off the porch?

In a well-designed book, as in a well-designed house, all the element fit together harmoniously and you can't pull something out or drop something in without changing everything.

May I add -- dipping a toe into the short-versus-long controversy -- that a small house is just as hard to design as a big one. The construction costs, however, differ.

[Albannach]

Really? Because I hear from a lot of publishers and agents that shorter is better. Obviously not too short, but even 80k is considered too short?
Sorry. That should have been BELOW the 75-80k range. Mine seem to invariably start around 60k at the first draft. That is "officially" novel length but not long enough.

Edit: But it also depends on genre. I think for a fantasy, possibly a lot would consider 80k a bit too short and it might actually be a disadvantage. I think it would be for a historical which are known to run even longer than most fantasies.

[Albannach]

Anahid21 **I'm too fond of side stories and back stories. In fact there are chapters in my book that have nothing to do with the main arc but describe a historical event that happened a long time ago and somehow affected the universe **



Certainly adding sidestories and excursions into unrelated historical events can be the reason some folks write 'long'.

Many folks, though, are simply telling stories that take more words to tell. I'd say the 'shape' of the plot determines how long the story is going to be.



I don't necessarily agree. Sure, SOMETIMES it's because the story is long, but (I think this happens more often than not) a lot of novels that are long are that way because the author likes to describe every single blade of grass and every bit of clothing that every minor character wears and does so at every opportunity as well as all of their backstories and NOT because the story is longer.

Edit: There are exceptions and I LIKE long books IF they actually have a long storyline involved. :)

[Libbie]

Why would they think I'm the next bestselling author to give me their time of the day?

You are way smart and way realistic. I have no doubt you'll be published some day.

[Libbie]

Is Harry Potter YA? Because mine sort of follows a similar style: Young teens handling adult situations and having to grow up. Some already act beyond their age due to past experiences.
I would call it YA but then I think of the Twilight series and it makes me pause.

Harry Potter and Twilight are both marketed and shelved as YA but both sell extremely well to adults. There are books that cross over between reading groups, but this has more to do with marketing than the content of the book. Generally, YA deals with the struggles of growing up specifically -- that's a major part of the plot. But to be honest, I find the line between YA and adult books thin and superficial, and probably only placed there to encourage kids to read more. ("We have these special books that are just for you! No lame grown-up stuff in them!" When in reality, stories are stories, and are really universal among cultures, including the cultures of adults and kids.)

As for books with young protagonists that were marketed to and sold extremely well to adults, I can think of several. Lord of the Flies, A Clockwork Orange, Tom Sawyer, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Lovely Bones...somebody already mentioned Ender's Game; there's also Ender's Shadow. In fantasy, there are even more. Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn series, The Wheel of Time (love it or hate it -- I fall into the latter category, but it does sell well and nearly all the main characters are teens for most of the series), David Eddings' The Belgariad series...the list goes on and on. There are literally tons of fantasy books out there with teen (and younger) main characters, that have been sold and marketed as adult reading. In the romance genre, particularly in novels written in the 70s and 80s, the main female characters were often seventeen through twenty-one; these were certainly not marketed as kids' reading.

You'll find an insistence on these forums that "if it has teen characters, you must sell it as YA." I've seen nothing to support this in the reading I've done, and I've heard nothing to support this from the people I know who work in the publishing industry. Unfortunately this belief is so wide-spread that some people have even gone back and revised their books to change the age of their MC just because they wanted to write an "adult" book instead of a YA book. I think that's too bad. Whether a book ends up being YA or not depends a lot more on its publicity campaign than on the age of its characters, and this becomes more true by the year as more and more intelligent, honest, gritty YA novels are published and sold to YA readers.

On the other hand, YA is smoking hot and is a growing genre that's making a lot of money. It wouldn't be a bad idea to market your novel as a YA, if you can achieve the required word count.

Speaking of word counts, you asked about smaller word counts. In many genres there is a lower range of 50 - 60K. Below that, you end up with a novella. There is certainly nothing wrong with novellas, other than the fact that their size tends to make them sell less than novels. For whatever reason, people who buy fiction want a book of a certain length. That length satisfies the reading expectations of most book-buyers -- perhaps they want something to read over a weekend, or on a plane flight, or to last them one week's worth of bedtime reading. Whatever the reason, many, many years of bookselling has taught the industry that X length sells well, while Y and Z lengths do not. The exception seems to be romance; many well-liked romance authors sell novellas very well, and most of the big romance publishers also release entire themed series of novellas written by various authors. (Amusingly -- to me, at least -- one of the popular themes is "Secret Babies.")

So in some genres, lower word counts work out well. In others, novellas are typically sold into anthologies or short-story collections by one author.

I hope that helps! :)