Forum: Author Hangout

I recently read a story that runs out to over 100 long chapters where about 65% of the total text was repetitive sex scenes which, in my opinion, did nothing to advance the story plot or character development at all.

That almost seems like a SOL requirement, since they typically get such higher scores--regardless of consistency.

I've recently gotten into a few 40 and 60 chapter stories, which I never would have considered if they'd noted their length beforehand, but once it nears 80, I figured the story's never going to end and abandoned ship, regardless of how much I like it. I prefer variety that stretches the mind, rather than the more repetitions of the same.

Explain the success of science fiction and high fantasy where the average size is more like 120 KW.

I suspect they're not outselling James Patterson ;-)

Most of the SciFi and Fantasy novels reviewed by my newspaper are shorter than that and, if not, the reviewer comments on the doorstop size or the author's worldbuilding skills.

AJ

I suspect they're not outselling James Patterson ;-)

It's not like he writes his own books anymore, either. (Which, we covered in another thread.)

Historical Fiction: 80,000–100,000

Oops, I'm going through my latest novel for the last time before publishing it. I don't write long stuff, but this historical fiction novel is pushing 136K words.

One difference between this story and my others is the time frame. It takes place over 5 years. A lot happens in 5 years.

Your 80K upper limit is bullshit.

Your opinion plus an opinion piece disagree with my opinion and the reviewers in my newspaper therefore my opinion is bullshit!

A quick trawl of classic novels on Scifistories turned up very few very long ones. One exception is 'The Mysterious Island' by Jules Verne, weighing in at 194,000 words. However it was originally published as three books.

Some of the seminal science fiction novels weigh in at under 60,000 words.

AJ

The reviewers post the length of each book they review.

Last week the range for novels went from just over 40K words to just over 125K words. There was a significant 'sweet spot' around 75K words.

No science fiction or fantasy novels were reviewed. The world-building aspects of those would probably have kicked the average upwards. There were a few re-released classic crime novels reviewed; their wordcount range was 60K to 105K.

AJ

Why should I give any credence to claims about the opinions of unnamed reviewers from an unnamed newspaper.

They might be critiquing the novels they're reviewing, but the lengths of the novels are objective fact.

AJ

You haven't named the newspaper

And I won't.

so I have no way of checking what novels they have reviewed. An objective fact is something I can check for myself. All I see is an assertion.

The only way for you to be satisfied is to do the research for yourself.

I apologise for namechecking James Patterson again but he's at the forefront of a trend of publishing short novels. Typically less than 150 pages (he calls his own version 'bookshots'), they're aimed at people who find it hard to make the time to read a full-length novel. Not everyone can hold down a full time job and manage a house and family and read 200K word doorstops, even if they could drag themselves away from binge-watching Netflix box sets. And dead-tree publishers are very aware of this.

AJ

your point that there is no market for longer novels

I didn't say that. And it's not true - there is a market for longer novels but the average size of dead-tree novels seems to be shrinking rather than growing so doorstep novels are probably losing market share.

You (and James Patterson) seem to think no one will ever read a novel unless they can read the whole thing all the way through in one sitting.

Again, I didn't say that. Apart from the unemployed and the retired (and, to take into account Covid, the furloughed and 'working from home'), who has time to read even a short novel in one go?

But if you're a new author wanting to bother a dead-tree publisher, you have to weigh up what's more important to you. If the top priority is to see your name on a novel in print, then aim for the sweet spot of around 75K words. If the top priority is telling the story you want to tell in the way you want to tell it, then write what you think is best for your story and damn the wordcount. (If you chance upon a really good agent or publisher, they might even advise you to split a behemoth into 80K word parcels.)

AJ

And I haven't claimed that there is no market for shorter novels. But that there is a market for shorter novels does not support your point that there is no market for longer novels.

At least in sci-fi and fantasy, the type of story better accounts for length than anything else. Some sci-fi stories are relatively short (i.e. those set in the normal everyday world, with everyday people. Those don't require the same amount of world building, nor delving in the scientific minutia many do.

What's more, while many sci-fi lovers LOVE world building, most knowledgable authors know how to minimize it, keeping even those types of stories from running out of control.

The shortest book on the list is 304 pages.

The longest is 608 pages.

Where does it list the sizes?

AJ

Thanks.

AJ

About half made the NYT best seller lists ...

Are there any books published in the USA that don't make the NYT best seller lists?

I read an expose article that showed how some works of fiction actually had a readership barely breaking 10,000.

AJ

Are there any books published in the USA that don't make the NYT best seller lists?

The famed NYT best-seller list ain't what it used to be. For much of the last second (second-half, at least), the same book mostly stay in the 10-ten list for years, rather than week, as the count is now prone to open manipulation by both the author and his fans, but also by the publishers. I'll still consider NYTimes bestsellers, but I ignore both the list itself and any relative ranks entirely!

However, to clarify your question, the NYTimes list is based on American publications exclusively, so a foreign author may sell well in America, cut foreign publishers aren't even considered.

This is only anecdotal, but my latest book is 175k words, which is 2 and 1/2 times the size of the other series I write, and it is outselling that series by quite a bit with people already asking for book 2. I don't think people are disinclined for longer books if you keep the pacing going.

I don't think people are disinclined for longer books if you keep the pacing going.

I'll just rather slowly raise my hand here, agreeing with you.

ATH Book One - 436.430 words
ATH Book Two - 427,352 words
ATH Book Three - 411,276 words

Over one million downloads combined, with ATH Book One winner of two Clitorides categories.

The biggest thing is that these are e-books. It IS possible to print a dead tree novel of that length. Battlefield Earth had 428,750 words. (I know that's a REALLY poor example, but they ARE out there.) David Weber regularly puts out 800 - 1000 page novels, which puts him writing 300k - 400k works, using BFE as a guide (1,070 pages)

This is only anecdotal, but my latest book is 175k words, which is 2 and 1/2 times the size of the other series I write, and it is outselling that series by quite a bit with people already asking for book 2. I don't think people are disinclined for longer books if you keep the pacing going.

All of my books (my current work-in-progress is my 34th) are in the 20-some chapter variety. Once they go beyond that range, they tend to meander, so to keep the story focused, I tend to break them into multiple books, which each has its own conflicts and focus, keeping them more tightly controlled and on topic.

As I've stated (multiple times) in the past, the difference is in content-focused and DITL (Day-in-the-Life stories), which each story begins when the wake up, and included virtually every single thing they do each day, only to start again the next day, which leads to exceptional bloat. Even back when I first started and wrote that style of book, I managed to keep it someone constrained to 20-some chapters (the range is 17 to 28).

Explain the success of science fiction and high fantasy where the average size is more like 120 KW.

That's the necessary 'world-building' quotient, where they have to explain how the current situation came out, the cultural differences, and what roles everyone plays in them. The size difference is expected for those types of story. Romance used to be know for short shorties, but has now morphed into more lengthy romantic sagas, which is an interesting phenomenon of it's own.

Hmm, probably a similar effect as with books in a series. As long as quality stays the same, the second and third book will get higher ratings by fewer downloads. Understandable, because readers not really impressed with book one – and had shown it in their rating – will probably not read the sequels.

More likely, its the deterrent effect, as few readers will dive into the middle of the story if they're unfamiliar with it--despite how promising it may seem.

The key to a series, is to have a VERY strong start, because the number of readers will rarely grow beyond that established base, however by keeping the story conflicts unique for each book, its relatively easy to keep the quality up, since each book focuses on new story threads and elements. That said, my best sellers are typically series (partially because readers are more likely to read a promised multi-part series by an established author they trust, while they're notorious leery of an all new story premise). Not only that, you don't have the typical 'getting to trust' the author phase, as the sales will typically start much sooner, making it much easier to turn a profit than an unknown story would.

As for the scores, typically your lowest scores are from those who were never interested in the book to begin with, and only leapt into the pool once they saw how much everyone liked it. When they find they're still not interested in the premise, they tend to vote punitively. However, there's none of that in the sequel, as everyone reading is already committed to the story, and as the story grows in new ways, their appreciation for the story's richness does too.

Also, SOL voters very rarely vote only once, as they tend to vote on each chapter, and then provide a final vote once the entire story is complete, while the critics tend to vote negatively once (typically after only a few chapters) and then NEVER change that initial vote.

I've had a number of 1-bombers, who after objecting to my 'perceived' politics (actually the character's rather than mine), it was very easy to track their votes since they were the ONLY 1-votes (this was before Lazeez's 'smoothing effect' which hides the loosest and highest votes). Despite voting my story as 'totally unreadable' they were guaranteed to read each new chapter (and each new book) within days (typically 1 to 2), while still giving it the same 1-bomb as all the others. They were diehard fans, but they had something to prove and didn't want to anyone to upset their world view (and this was LONG before 2016).

Once you take out those few punitive votes, the scores naturally shoot up on their own, as a single 1-bomb counts substantially more statistically, than yet another 10 vote.

Beta reader is totally equivalent to editor for these purposes, are are critique partner and writers group, for that matter

Beta reader is totally equivalent to editor for these purposes, are are critique partner and writers group, for that matter

Not in the least. An editor, in whatever role they play, won't rewrite your story for you, they merely note what's correct or which pieces are problematic.

Beta Readers are unlikely to ever even notice typos. Their sole role is to report the isolated things that shocks them, the things that'll make readers put the book down and walk away, typically the things that the author never anticipated having that effect. Essentially, it's a wake-up call to the author that certain passages have very different meanings for different demographics, and once you're aware of that, you can temper that response. Typically, you simply acknowledge the problem within the story, and once you do, the readers, knowing that you're aware of it, will then trust that you'll eventually deal with it, later in the story, so they'll put their critical eye aside, and wait to see how the rest of the story plays out. However, you still have a address those issues, but knowing where they lie, they're much easier to tackle and address.

Editors are plentiful, decent Beta-Readers are a true blessing, especially if they have any idea of what they're doing!

Why would any sane person consider the word count be even a marginal factor in judging a book?

Because publishers only exist if readers buy the books they publish. Therefore they have to tailor their output to what the market will bear.

Would anyone judge the saleability of a new car by the number of parts used in its construction?

They'd judge the saleability of a new car based on size. It's not funny navigating crowded city streets in a juggernaut. And it's not funny driving long distances in a 1 litre three-pot.

AJ

So not on the number of parts then. Which means we are in agreement.

Oddly enough, there is some leeway for disagreement. For example, Skoda provide a courtesy umbrella in the door pocket of the top-of-the-range version of its electric SUV. They must have thought the 'extra' part increased its saleability. ;-)

AJ

Would anyone judge the saleability of a new car by the number of parts used in its construction?

If the number of parts increased the cost of the car.

Would adjusting the story word count actually make the story better? Would it increase the intrinsic value?

It could. For example "Look Homeward, Angel" — Thomas Wolfe (author) and Max Perkins (editor).

So in effect you believe that a reader would look at the new book from their favourite author and decide not to buy it because it was 10,000 words longer and $0.10 more expensive that the previous blockbuster the author published?

Aha, you added an important variable. A known author is a different beast. They can do what debut authors cannot. The publisher knows there's a market for their novels.

I believe the issue boils down to the cost of producing the novel which directly impacts the sales price. The more words, the more cost for editing, paper, printing, shipping, etc. The publisher has to cover those costs and make a profit. The more words, the higher the cost to produce the book and therefore the price it is sold for is higher. And some of those costs are actually the same for ebooks, like editing, but that's not important. The publishing industry is built on print books.

So why can a SciFi novel be 140,000 words while a Romance novel can only be 70,000? I believe some of it is the expectation of the target reader, but I have no idea.

All I know is the first thing a literary agent asks for when you query them is the genre and word count. And it's not because it takes them longer to read a longer novel. They make most of their decisions without reading the manuscript. Simply by your marketing pitch, the synopsis, and sample chapters. They ask for the word count because they have to sell the manuscript to a publisher and know what the do's and don't's are. And a don't is a 140,000 word Romance novel from a debut author. Are there exceptions? Sure. But it better be an amazing novel.

So in effect you believe that a reader would look at the new book from their favourite author and decide not to buy it because it was 10,000 words longer and $0.10 more expensive that the previous blockbuster the author published?

Try establishing the publishing costs between a 30,000 and a 40,000 work novel, and see how significant the price differential. You'll NEVER find it anyway near 10-cents!

Why would any sane person consider the word count be even a marginal factor in judging a book?

By all means judge the quality of writing, the plot, characterisation and all the other factors that have relevance.

Would anyone judge the saleability of a new car by the number of parts used in its construction?

It's simple: excessive work count is a clear signal that the story lacks focus and is likely to meander incessantly . A story with a clear focus will deal with the central story components, and wrap things up quickly, not allowing the story to drag. Without that clear focus, an author is essentially making it up as they go, unsure of their destination and easily distracted by the newest character, who's likely to drag the story somewhere unrelated to the rest of the story, rather than revealing the main characters' internal conflicts (i.e. character development).

every time an author rewrites a story (typically long after they complete it), the rougher and less wonderfully worded it'll be

Really? My experience is the opposite. The re-written story is better.

My experience is the opposite. The re-written story is better.

I think it can work both ways.

I was going to follow that with a rant, but the effects of differing author editing priorities are probably obvious.

AJ

I think it can work both ways.

It does. Sometimes revisions polish and tighten the story, sometimes it belt-sands the life out of it. It can take a lot of insight and experience to know when to stop tinkering and let it go.