An issue of length

[RandyPendleton]

I have two books: one that I’ve self-published and one I’m in the revision stages of. I didn’t feel as though book 1 would have found an agent, thus I didn’t try much at all to land one. Book 2, on the other hand, is special to me (it’s dedicated to my mom, RIP). I spoke to a publicist who agreed with me: the length of my work would likely be frowned upon by most agents. The book I have released (I can’t post the url here, as I’ve under 50 posts) is 132,500 words. It’s been edited thoroughly, edited to as fine sheen as I could make it. But from all I’ve read, agents get scared senseless with novels over 100k words. I’ve queried about 6 agents for that one, receiving replies to 3 (all negative). After that, I decided to just self-publish it, just to get the book outta my way. Note: this didn’t quite work as planned, seeing as I spent long with promoting it.

Now, I’ve got book 2 to worry about. It is 16 chapters--15 of which are complete. It will require an extensive edit, but I estimate it will be 172,900 words once I’m finished with this draft. Being a calculative guy, I believe the final draft will be around 135,000 words. But it’s the same: I’m not sure if any agent would even consider this from such an unknown writer. From all the traumas incurred during the writing process of this book--spanning 8 years--I want this to have all that it deserves. The word-count is too restrictive, though, for much other than self-publishing.

I’ll tell you now: the book is full of stories, not fluff. Like my other book, this will be revised as close as I can make it (this time, I might even pay an editor to ensure it’s as perfect as possible). Agents seem to fear that “bloated” books are not revised properly and are full of rigmarole. It’s not as easy as writing into a query letter that “This is edited extremely well, and the fat had been cut off.” Sure, EVERYONE says that in the pursuit of representation. That option doesn’t exist. And this is a story that requires a rather large word count to tell. If I weeded this down to 100k words, the entire book would be destroyed. This is more like the concise Harry Potter 1, opposed to the fluffed-up, unnecessarily bloated Harry Potter 5. So editing far enough to sate most agents isn’t practical, either.

Now, I’m simply lost. Should I take my chances with agent-querying, or should I just self-publish? I don’t want to do the latter but at this length, I’m not sure what I should do.

I’m not totally sure which genre I should classify this as, but I’ll go with a boiling-pot of elements, namely: action/crime/mystery/drama Plus it’s fiction. I heard books similar could go up to about 120k, but even that was trying. So really, I just dunno

 

[Marian Perera]

Hi Randy,

I clicked on the sample chapter link in your sig, to get an idea of whether the writing could be cut down, but couldn't read it. I don't think my computer and/or internet connection were up to accessing wherever your sample is. Is there another site I could try?

As for a book that's 135K and isn't epic fantasy or epic historical... you could try crafting the best query letter possible, tight and stripped down to show the word count is justified. Even then, it's a risk.

Or, if you've got your heart set on trade publishing, is it possible to write a leaner, meaner book - maybe set in the same world, same characters - and pitch that first? It could be the prequel, and then when that sells, the 135K word epic would have a foot in the door.

 

[gettingby]

You have nothing to lose my querying agents, but I would say you might need to query a lot more than six. Heck, I get six rejections before breakfast. Query a hundred if you have to or even more. It's not like you have written the longest book ever written. It is not impossible for you to find a trade publisher. More difficult maybe but not impossible.

That said, while you are editing really look for anything you can cut. This can be hard, but it might be necessary to reach your goal. Make sure you have an awesome query. That is going to be very important as it is with selling any book. But if you can make your query make your book sound irresistible, someone will take the bait. Don't be too quick to give up. Good luck!

 

[Osulagh]

Let me clarify a few things:

Success in genres likely formulate a word count. Publishers see this. Agents know of it. It's not like agents will frown upon a word count outside of the standard fair, but it makes for a hard sell on sight. They don't want word counts that go outside of the standard because publishers don't.

I’ll tell you now: the book is full of stories, not fluff. Like my other book, this will be revised as close as I can make it (this time, I might even pay an editor to ensure it’s as perfect as possible). Agents seem to fear that “bloated” books are not revised properly and are full of rigmarole. It’s not as easy as writing into a query letter that “This is edited extremely well, and the fat had been cut off.” Sure, EVERYONE says that in the pursuit of representation. That option doesn’t exist. And this is a story that requires a rather large word count to tell. If I weeded this down to 100k words, the entire book would be destroyed. This is more like the concise Harry Potter 1, opposed to the fluffed-up, unnecessarily bloated Harry Potter 5. So editing far enough to sate most agents isn’t practical, either.

Explain to me what "full of stories" means. If there's multiple stories in the book that can be a far more complicated problem.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard this and those people have been proven that their books can be cut down. Yes, we all feel strongly for our books the way they are. Like we do for our own children. But many times parents are wrong and writers don't see the flaws that are holding them back.

It seems like you're very defensive in the paragraph which tells me you're more unwilling to change your book than you are willing to see where it could be changed. Whatever, I'll just say: I read a few pages into the second chapter listed in your signature and the first page can be boiled down to a single paragraph is you got to the point of the conversation from the get-go and didn't let it dawdle. That is just an example.

I’m not totally sure which genre I should classify this as, but I’ll go with a boiling-pot of elements, namely: action/crime/mystery/drama Plus it’s fiction. I heard books similar could go up to about 120k, but even that was trying. So really, I just dunno

Action, crime, mystery, drama and whatever aren't exactly genres because most stories have some form of those elements in them. A genre is a marketing label where you put your book into to find readers who'll likely read similar content. Probably best to ask beta-readers and the forums when you've completed the book.

Here's some general advice:

Books with longer than suggested word counts aren't impossible to sell. Harry Potter and Twilight are very good examples. They are both at extreme lengths in their genres, but sold very, very well regardless of that. Why? Because regardless of their length, they made readers read. If you're able to do that with an agent, editor, and the readers on the other end, you're golden.

But, that's both a gamble and a risk. Having around the standard word count won't guarantee your book will sell, but will appear to be a better buy to publishers and an easier sell for agents.


Here's some suggestions:

- Finish writing the book. No matter what.
- Revise it. And please, don't aim for a word count. Instead, aim for the lowest you can go. Try finding character you can tear out of the book or mix together, sub-plots that you can cut out, wording and phrasing that you can boil down, scenes that you can cut or reduce for more impact.
- When you think you're done reducing it all, edit and proofread it like hell--all the while finding more to reduce.
- Then post the first chapter in the SYW section here in AW and say that you wish to cut the word count down. Critics will most likely show you where you can do it, and you can try finding similar areas in the rest of the story.
- Finally, seek beta-readers if everything is fine after that (like, several dozen). Tell them you'd like to reduce the book down. They'll lead you if they can.

After going through all of that, if everything goes well, IMHO, you'll have one of two outcomes: A book that meets genre standards. Or, far more confidence in the writing and the story regardless of word count.

 

[Thewitt]

My feeling in this is 135k isn't long enough to buy any more. I'm sick and tired of buying cut down books that fit the cookie cutter mold that current publishers demand and I'm boycotting short books and letting my favorite authors know exactly how I feel.

Self publish

Stepping down off soapbox

 

[mccardey]

My feeling in this is 135k isn't long enough to buy any more. I'm sick and tired of buying cut down books that fit the cookie cutter mold that current publishers demand and I'm boycotting short books and letting my favorite authors know exactly how I feel.

Self publish

Stepping down off soapbox

I really think you'll find it's all a bit more complicated than that.

 

[Thewitt]

I really think you'll find it's all a bit more complicated than that.

It's an opinion isn't it.

I find myself really disliking short books, and the trend to less than 100K words has really turned me off.

Two of my favorite authors - people with dozens of books to their credit - have now changed to self-publishing and one just released 220k words (if the math at 250 per page works out).

I love it. I feel like I'm getting value for my money, and not something the author can sell for $2.99

You may have another opinion and I have no problem with that.

 

[cornflake]

It's an opinion isn't it.

I find myself really disliking short books, and the trend to less than 100K words has really turned me off.

Two of my favorite authors - people with dozens of books to their credit - have now changed to self-publishing and one just released 220k words (if the math at 250 per page works out).

I love it. I feel like I'm getting value for my money, and not something the author can sell for $2.99

You may have another opinion and I have no problem with that.

It's a trend?

I don't need more words to make value - I need better-crafted story.

A longer movie isn't better because of length either. Some movies work long; a lot that are long probably should have been edited further. Same with books.

 

[mccardey]

It's an opinion isn't it.

I find myself really disliking short books, and the trend to less than 100K words has really turned me off.

Two of my favorite authors - people with dozens of books to their credit - have now changed to self-publishing and one just released 220k words (if the math at 250 per page works out).

I love it. I feel like I'm getting value for my money, and not something the author can sell for $2.99

You may have another opinion and I have no problem with that.

Yes, but shorter doesn't necessarily mean

cut down books that fit the cookie cutter mold that current publishers demand

I'm all for self-publishing, by the way. I just don't think that trade-published short books are short because cookie-cutters.

 

[Marian Perera]

Yes, but shorter doesn't necessarily mean

"cut down books that fit the cookie cutter mold that current publishers demand"

Thank you. Exactly.

If a story can be completely told in 50K worth of words, then it's poor writing to stretch this out to 250K. And that has nothing to do with publishers' guidelines.

 

[Thewitt]

Yeah I know. I'm wrong and you will all tell me so, but as an avid reader I hate short books.

Tell me I'm wrong, but it's an opinion and last I knew, my opinions by definition are by definition mine and the way that I feel about a book.

You may love a well crafted story of 80k words that you can read in three hours and you can purchase for $2.99. I am not interested in a book that I can read in one session.

Yes the writing has to be good. The story has to hold my attention and I have to enjoy where it's going and ultimately where it ends.

I will say that one of the authors I have recently abandoned now publishes 4-5 times a year. Her books - professionally edited and published through a major Fantasy publisher - are complete junk now. The last one had 22 typos in it per my count. Double words, missing words, word processor corrections that made the wrong word out of a misspelled word - one paragraph that was duplicated and placed roughly half-way through the next chapter.

Junk.

Shorter? Yep. Meets the cookie cutter length requirement and she can sell for $3.99. Yep. The last book I will read by that author - and I've let her know via email. Yep.

Shorter does not equate to well crafted.

Tell the story in as many words as it takes you to tell the story, and give your readers the chance to tell you whether you did the right thing or not.

 

[Marian Perera]

Yeah I know. I'm wrong and you will all tell me so, but as an avid reader I hate short books.

As an avid reader I hate badly written books. I've found that books can be badly written whether they're short or long.

Shorter does not equate to well crafted.

Neither does longer.

Yep.

 

[Thewitt]

Which is why I say the length "rule" is foolish, and to be rejected by a published just because your work doesn't fit the cookie cutter is absurd.

Tell a good story. Tell it well. Let your readers decide.

If you believe your story is damaged by shortening it to the point where it meets an arbitrary limit imposed by a publisher, and you cannot find another publisher to print your book, then self-publish and let the reader decide.

 

[Marian Perera]

Which is why I say the length "rule" is foolish, and to be rejected by a published just because your work doesn't fit the cookie cutter is absurd.

What is this "cookie cutter" you keep going on about?

To imply that publishers should publish anything regardless of length is absurd.

 

[Thewitt]

I'm sorry the term "cookie cutter" is foreign to you. When a publisher rejects a book because it's too long, without reading it, that means it falls outside of their predefined format. Their cookie cutter.

Reject for the content, not simply the length.

 

[Helix]

Which is why I say the length "rule" is foolish, and to be rejected by a published just because your work doesn't fit the cookie cutter is absurd.

Tell a good story. Tell it well. Let your readers decide.

If you believe your story is damaged by shortening it to the point where it meets an arbitrary limit imposed by a publisher, and you cannot find another publisher to print your book, then self-publish and let the reader decide.

Why do you think the length is arbitrary? Could there not be good commercial reasons for preferring MSS of certain lengths?

Also publishers do a little bit more than just print books.

 

[Toothpaste]

Wait, didn't you just say above that anything under 80K was a book you would reject? Right here: "You may love a well crafted story of 80k words that you can read in three hours and you can purchase for $2.99. I am not interested in a book that I can read in one session."

So basically you are rejecting books based solely on their length not their content (hell you even say the book is well crafted, so it's not even badly written and you're still rejecting it). What makes you so much more special than publishers/agents? Why are you allowed to, but no one else is? (quite frankly I still don't believe the premise, I know, at least in my markets book length has grown hugely, in MG it is now twice what it used to be)

 

[Marian Perera]

I'm sorry the term "cookie cutter" is foreign to you.

Given that you seemed to have a very different version of J. K. Rowling's success story than the rest of us, I thought it best to check your definition of this term too.

When a publisher rejects a book because it's too long, without reading it, that means it falls outside of their predefined format. Their cookie cutter.

If someone sends a 600K romance to Harlequin's category line, which prints mass market paperbacks that are 60K, why should the editors spend their time reading this 600K manuscript when they know it cannot be printed as a category romance?

To expect them to do so would be absurd.

Likewise, if someone sent a 6K romance, I expect that to be rejected too, without being read, because it would be commercially unfeasible to print and market what's essentially a short story. That's why publishers have guidelines.

 

[cornflake]

I'm sorry the term "cookie cutter" is foreign to you. When a publisher rejects a book because it's too long, without reading it, that means it falls outside of their predefined format. Their cookie cutter.

Reject for the content, not simply the length.

First, as noted by the duck, the reasons for preferring certain lengths are not arbitrary.

I also daresay most of the reading public doesn't hanker for nothing but 800-pg novels.

Second, where do you get the idea publishers reject books on length alone without reading them? That kind of doesn't happen so often.

 

[mccardey]

derail

First, as noted by the duck, the reasons for preferring certain lengths are not arbitrary.

Helix - did the cereal just call you a duck?

Oh, I don't see this ending well....

/end derail

 

[Helix]

derail

Helix - did the cereal just call you a duck?

Oh, I don't see this ending well....

/end derail

I've been called worse!

*quack*

 

[mccardey]

I've been called worse!

Braggart.

 

[RandyPendleton]

My replies are typically long, so I'll shoot a long reply in awhile (I need to start writing). I'll address/answer everyone. But I'd like to say this, as it's being debated: According to what I was told, long manuscripts are rejected without being read for the simple reason of cost. Paper is cheap, but ink isn't. If you submit a large manuscript, publishers won't take a chance on it unless you are a bankable writer. That's the explanation I was given, anyway. With eBook's popularity, that might change a bit. But the physical book might never die

 

[Osulagh]

According to what I was told, long manuscripts are rejected without being read for the simple reason of cost. Paper is cheap, but ink isn't. If you submit a large manuscript, publishers won't take a chance on it unless you are a bankable writer.

Not exactly correct.

It's not that longer books are harder to publish because paper and ink costs money, but that it's a gamble for a publisher to take on a larger book because they have to charge more and pay more into it. Take that you're a writer with limited publishing experience--meaning you have a limited track record and fans--that gamble increases.

Although, good stories that are written well have been gambled with by publishers--even debut authors. Yes, you need to be "bankable", but "bankable" means your writing is worth a damn to the readers. You're not a cash cow to publishers, you're a producer wishing to use their resources to profit from.

I know cases where debut authors have been given six-figure advances, their series published consecutively within months, and more. Publishers have to take riskes, some of them greater than others because they think something greater can turn out. Who knows if that'll be you or not, but you'll never know if you don't try.

I still suggest you follow my suggestions in my first post. Cutting it down as much as possible--as far as you are comfortable will--might improve your chances.

Thewitt, any publisher who has rejected a book based off of a reasonably high word count without reading the synopsis or the first chapter made a terrible choice, IMO. But I highly doubt that any case like that exists. I could see cases where books were three times as long as the market standard is. But no smart agent would represent a book that will not sell in the genre's market, nor submit to publishers without having the slightest hint that the publisher would take their submission seriously. Agents have networks of people who trust them--if they submit something to a trusted editor, that editor will take it seriously no matter what.

And, the market is the market. Regardless of how the book was published, the market will react the same as it always has. Publishers don't decide the market's word count standards; the market--in other words, the readers--has through trail and error. Publishers are only following the market's standards.

 

[Quickbread]

Paper is cheap, but ink isn't.

The reverse is actually true. Aside from covers and binding, paper is usually the most expensive component of printing books. That's why length matters so much to publishers. They know their markets, and they know what readers in their various publishing categories are willing to pay for books. And they can't charge the same price for a 320-page book as they do an 800-page one because the latter uses so much more paper, in print anyway.