Getting to the question...does size really matter?
I remember someone saying (OSC, I think, but don't quote me) that a first novel should be around 70-90,000 words long, but can be longer, if you do it right.
Is a publisher more likely to reject a first novel if it's too long? Are they more likely to accept a shorter first work? Can a novel really be too big?
In conclusion...just wonderin'.
CVG
(edited to add
I was hoping y'all can clear something up for me. I've been looking, but I haven't been able to find anything on a midieval-type monarchy. So, from most powerful to least: king, baron, lord, soldier (and thusly any peacekeepers) and peasant?
[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited March 29, 2004).]
There are very real and practical reasons why it's easier to sell a first book if it follows certain rules. Shawn has been a huge advocate of this throughout the years 
From cost to produce to amount of shelfspace it takes for large books, it's not a good idea. Of course there are counter-examples.. but who wants to swim against the current? Publish a couple books, then put out those huge tomes -- or, roll the dice.
Rux
:}
quote:
Posted by Cvgurau:
I was hoping y'all can clear something up for me. I've been looking, but I haven't been able to find anything on a midieval-type monarchy. So, from most powerful to least: king, baron, lord, soldier (and thusly any peacekeepers) and peasant?
I think the common medieval class structure is:
-Monarch(s)
-Lords (Barons)
-Clergy
-Knights
-Merchants
-Men-At-Arms (and Yeomanry)
-Peasants (Serfs)
Check me on that, please...it's been a while since I learned the whole deal. Hope this might be of some help (if it's even remotely correct). As I've not published a novel yet, I don't feel qualified to give you advice on the subject of length. As for the more technical matters...hopefully it'll make your task a bit easier. Good luck!
Inkwell
------------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous
God
Pope
King
Duke
Marquis
Earl (for British noblemen)/Count (for other European nobles)
Viscount
Baron
Baronet
Knight
Squires
Tradesmen/Free Peasants
Serfs
animals
birds
amphibians
insects
[This message has been edited by punahougirl84 (edited March 29, 2004).]
What worries me more is that your tome will feel too packed with characters who aren't necessary for it and events that don't really advance the plot. If your novel needs all that to be what it needs to be, then its length will give it strength.
If you're including all that just to make yourself feel better about never finishing the stories they were meant for in the first place, cut them all now. They will make your story feel drawn out and disorganized. As Stephen King advised, murder your darlings.
quote:
The well-kept secret about first novels: if it's a Great novel, it will sell, no matter how many pages, no matter how many "rules" it breaks. Yeah, you want to keep enough to get it read, but if it's Great, it's Great. People will read it.
Not so--sorry. I do not agree. So many writers live by this--the rules don't matter etc., but they do matter esp on a first book. YES, you can find an exception to every rule--but the odds are already against you--so why stack the deck even further against you?
There are some unspoken rules and some well kept secrets but the hey break the rules and if it's good it will sell one is BS.
We've beat this horse to death--it isn't getting up and walking again.
Look up the February issue of writer's digest--I think for 2002 or 2001. There is an wonderful article in there on first novels and what it takes to break in. Everything from chapter length, book length to number f scenes and plot threads that will make you book more likely to sell.
Case study--myself.
Sent to publisher--300,000 some word novel, received rejection. Why? Letter stated that if i were to break the book not three and resend they would have another look.
Nuts, I screamed --I don't care if this breaks the rules! It is good. It will sell because it is a well kept secret that good writing sells even if it breaks all the rules.
Book 2--sent to same publisher as they said keep us in mind for future works. Length 190,000 words. Publisher says, love the plot and the idea, the writing is alive with detail that draw the reader in, but alas it is too long for our needs and I feel that it will not pass by the marketing department. (they asked about that other book even a year later.)(yes sent to same editor)
What the heck? Good writing sells, and hey this one was only twice the length needed.
Sent third book, 250,000 words--again same editor took the time to personally respond. Urgh!
Wrote 2 more books, found that article and said--OK, I have this idea what if I write is tailored to the "rules" for first novels? Hmm--4 months later i had that novel, 3 months after that I had an agent.
And now--well the book sits on the desk of above editor--requested from my agent for consideration.
Length-120,000 words (it was 90,00 when I sent it to my agent.)
So by following the rules for first novels i have gotten an agent and have a big name publisher actually considering the book. (5 still looking at this point)
Shrug--one thing this many years on these boards and others has taught me--writers only believe what fits with their idea of what is. If you have reached the point where you have stacks of rejections and are ready to say OK let me try this--then this will make sense, if not you will say that Shawn she is so full of poop--and go on thinking whatever you want.
LOL
I can only offer the same advice--get the back issue--and read the article. I'll see if I have it around ( to let you know which one for sure--I know Feb but not the year anymore) but I recently got new office stuff so did a lot of culling.
Shawn (oh so tired of beating the dead horse or hitting my head on a brick wall--or maybe it was the 10 hr shift I worked today)
Two pieces of advice.
First, listen to Shawn. She knows what she's talking about.
Second, what you do with these new ideas really must be determined from your philosophy about writing. Should you, as Jon Hassler does, throw everything you have into a novel? Or should you, as Holly Lisle, does, refrain from doing so because in order to be a professional writer you have to write a lot of books which means you have to have a lot of ideas?
I can not find the issue, but I remembered when I first posted about this and went and looked it up.
Shawn
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited March 30, 2004).]
I'm currently wondering about the project I'm working on right now. I originally intended it to be a trilogy, but now I'm working on it, I think its going to come out a bit short (the 3 books would probably be something like 70k, 50k and 80k respectively). But it'll also probably be a bit too long for a single volume, by the sounds of things.
Perhaps its time for a new subplot for that middle volume...
Brian
I am talking about what will sell--to the publisher or to the agent. Don't fool yourself into thinking what you send is what is going to end up on the shelf. Good grief. My story was great, agent loved it--but we added chapters, added sub plots, took out a character, developed one character further--on and on. We argued, I yelled (not at agent)( I smashed a keyboard)(kicked my metal desk)(that hurt) Agent said in all caps--I DON'T SEE WHY YOU CAN'T JUST GET RID OF THE BROTHER-- we picked over a very graphic chapter--intern said tone it down, agent later asked what the hell happened to that great stuff you had in here?
So I found creative way to keep brother, changed graphic chapter to way agent wanted it, getting rid of an entire theme that ran the length of the novel to do so. I went through two summer interns and finally ended up working hand and hand with my agent. LOL
Like page count--stop thinking about what the final book will be. Title will most likely change, text will change, page length will depend on font they use ect. Cover will be out of your hands--
Really, find that article read and apply--you will be amazed at what comes out of your keyboard when you use your idea and that guide. Others have done this as well with great success.
Shawn
I got that "well-kept secret" from Dave Wolverton. He published everything he ever wrote. His first novel, Runelords is monstrously long. He told a whole class full of sf/fantasy writing students that they could be published if their work was good enough.
On the flip side, I know someone who has written ten novels, two of which I have read. I thought they were both excellent. He is working on publishing his first, but yes, the first few he sent in were rejected simply because they were too long. The publishers even told him so.
What I'm willing to believe is that Wolverton was able to break in with a long novel thirty years ago but that the same thing can't happen now. I still think that if a novel knocks a publisher's socks off, it will sell. But knocking a publisher's socks off is something that only happens once in a great while, so it's a lot safer to just follow the rules.
And Shawn, I don't care how much more experience with the writing/editing/publishing world you have, your condescending attitude is really, really getting on my nerves. Every time someone disagrees with you, you say you're banging your head on the wall, or repeating this for the umpteenth time, or something along those lines. Yes, you have experience. Others do too. Just because one thing has been true for you doesn't mean it is true universally. Please, please, please, cut the attitude. I generally enjoy what you have to say, but the way you say it almost always makes me want to argue with you. And I don't argue with anybody.
[This message has been edited by Brinestone (edited March 30, 2004).]
I can't agree with the it will sell if it's great line. I guess I don't have any experience to say yay or nay, but the trouble with "great" is that it's also subjective. Publishers are in this to make money. This isn't a charity or even an artistic displayl. It's about the bucks. And if your "great" novel follows the rules so much the better, they know it's ok and will make money. It's a good risk. But a "great" novel that breaks rules is going to be a difficult sell because it's different. It's a risk. Think of it in capitalistic terms.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited March 30, 2004).]
If you're good enough to break the rules and still get published, then you already know it. For anyone that wonders "can I get published if I break publishing rule X?", the answer is no.
And besides, if you're good enough to break the rules and get published, you're also good enough to follow the rules of publishing without any sweat.
Just my two cents, which expends all my knowledge of and interest in this subject. If you want to know how to get published, listen to a published writer and editor. SR may or may not be the world's greatest artiste, but she knows publishing.
Marianne
But about three times in the past few weeks, she and I (or she and someone else) have disagreed on things, and I always felt she was acting as if the fact that I disagreed with her made me an unpublished, immature vermin who was just wasting her time. Kathleen is also much more experienced than I am, but she never makes me feel that way. That's all I'm saying.
[This message has been edited by Brinestone (edited March 30, 2004).]
I used to do a lot of freelance editing for FREE. I got good wages for the editing I did, but I would take people on for free, just because I saw a lot of potential in what they wrote. Publishers rarely take on "work with just potential" anymore. I rarely do anymore.
Why?
Because the frustration factor has gotten too big.
It seems that no matter what, people will say--the big secret is, hey but so and so broke in this way--on and on that becomes the mantra of the new writer (and no I do not mean everyone) just seems it is a lot of people.
It is stated as fact that this is the big secret--but disagree with what seems to be the chance for the big break and then you are condescending. I think most people realize that I am not coping a 'tude. The second post on here brought up the dead horse, I brought up the fact that in dealing with my agent I smashed things-- so thus--(humor) I am beating a dead horse and blah blah--
So, someone else can call the thread a dead horse but I can't?
It is also very very frustrating to see good writers, very good writers who have a real chance at shelf space, say hey but the big secret is and the exception is--I want to grab them and shake them and say WAKE UP.
Thus the line about after so many years I have learned that writers will only listen to what they are ready to listen to. I know, my point was--I was there--I tried it, others have tried it or why the article published in WD about that very thing, that is why I often back up what I say with nationally published things.
And I do see why very few published writers or those close to it do not hang out on BB and offer advice. Kathleen is the moderator--I can act that way too, but why should I? Sheesh--one set of rules for Shawn--she can't speak her mind, but others can--why? Heck, if I know.
Shawn, shakes head. That's fine. I don't have a lot of time to add to BB anymore. I hang here and absolute write. I used to proof what I said and get rid of the "me" in it. I am a type A person --my own hubby calls my formidable, but in the interest of still trying to help, I don't do that much anymore.
sigh
got off work early tonight, so must go get some writing done.
I am sorry if I offended anyone--wait till you deal with an agent---LOL
Note the LOL. Also note I went through two interns--ate them for lunch, then ended up dealing with Mr. Zack directly. Came head to head with someone as strong willed as I am--just the right agent for me.
Shawn
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited March 30, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited March 30, 2004).]
Second, there were little to no freemen peasants until the high-middle ages, nearly 1200 A.D. or so, and there weren't very many until the beginning of the Renaissance. It was actually the merchant freemen that brought about a good deal of the change that allowed the Renaissance to happen.
[This message has been edited by JBShearer (edited March 30, 2004).]
(For what it's worth (FWIW), I'm capable of being every bit as intimidating in person as Shawn. I wonder which one of us is taller.)
I'm guessing that KDW is taller. SR writes like a short person, if you know what I mean Just kidding...I saw a picture of her somewhere, and she looked pretty short.
JBShearer brings up one reason I haven't bothered to comment on the other question...there isn't a set answer. The German princes went Lutheran so that they could effectively abolish the political power of the church, there were always these little heritic groups forming up in the mountains which had no kings or nobles, the entire middle ages was crawling with non-Christians that could go from lower than insect nobodies to virtual princes or just a little more powerful than some kings with a shift in the political/economic/hygenic winds (or the other way round)...and then you have the Gypsies running around.
How long should a first book be if you want to get published? Ask a publisher. Who's got the more power in a "medieval" society? We're talking about hundreds of years and dozens of different countries. There is no final answer.
I'd guess that Shawn is shorter too, just on the odds. But I wouldn't be surprised if she and I were the same height.
Obligatory on topic comment (OOTC): Good point about the German princes. That probably explains why there were so many German principalities, too. "Balkanization" in some form or another is a very old thing.
Shawn
Shawn
quote:
Getting to the question...does size really matter?
Shawn
But this brings forth more questions. Do I kill off entire characters and storylines, or do I try and turn this one book into two, or even three books?
Sorry to keep pestering you, but the thought has been eating at me for a while.
Edited to add: I'd hesitate to split the book into a two- (or even three-) parter, as this seems incredibly vain of me, like I'm saying my story is so important, and so well-written, and gosh-darn it, so danged entertaining that you have to read three books to finish it.
[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited April 01, 2004).]
Say you have something like: The woman with gray hair who was fifty decided to cross the street with a lot of cars on it. (ugh lame--I worked ten hours yesterday just spent several hrs in HTML hell)
You can reword with less words to say the same thing and make a better sentence to boot.
The gray haired woman (do we need to know she is 50?) crossed the crowded street. (we don't need decided because we know she decided to when she crossed otherwise why would she cross?
If you edit this way, really thinking about each word and sentence, does it move the plot, is it filler fact (not needed to move the plot) you can eliminate a lot of words without losing story.
Shawn
quote:
I'd hesitate to split the book into a two- (or even three-) parter, as this seems incredibly vain of me, like I'm saying my story is so important, and so well-written, and gosh-darn it, so danged entertaining that you have to read three books to finish it.
When George Lucas originally released Star Wars in 1977, he did not include the words, "Episode IV." (That came when he rereleased it in 1980 to prepare for the release of Empire.) He didn't know how well the movie would do, and so he made it as self-complete as possbile. But becasue he knew there was a story after Star Wars, he left open the possibility for a sequeal by showing that Darth Vader survived the attack on the Death Star.
So why not follow Lucas's lead? Why not write a essentially self-contained story, leaving open the possibilities for further books?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 01, 2004).]
quote:
So why not follow Lucas's lead? Why not write a essentially self-contained story, leaving open the possibilities for further books?
The Fellowship of the Ring, for example, does not work as a self-contained story leaving open the possibility of a sequel. It only works as the first part of a larger work.
There are two types of "Volume 1." On the one hand, you have a self-contained story that is open to sequels. On the other hand, you have a story (such as Fellowship) that isn't self-contained.
My point was to write a self-contained story that's open to additional stories.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 01, 2004).]
quote:
That's because Tolkien wrote it as such. He conceived a giant work which, if I'm in the know, was never supposed to be published in three volumes.
And that was exactly my point.
If someone has conceived a giant work, they may not be able to just split off the beginning as a standalone novel left open for sequels. Telling them to do that is no help under those circumstances.
For instance, even in the work as written, Frodo doesn't know that he has to take the Ring all the way to Mordor till the Council of Elrond. What if we defer his determination to go all the way till a "Council of Galadrial" in Lothlorian? Then we could write the first book as a fairly independent seeming quest, to take the Ring to Lothlorian, where Frodo can presume his task will be finished. When he gets there, we have larger elements which cry for a sequel, but Frodo's quest would seem to be completed, and thus the book is complete.
Just like in Star Wars, the Death Star is destroyed, and a victory won for the Alliance, but of course the Empire is still intact and Vader is still at large.
But all this only means that The Lord of the Rings isn't the best example, since Tolkien could have made it into a more logical trilogy if he'd had the idea before the entire thing was already written. I do have to agree with the general principle...that there are some larger stories which could not be easily split into smaller books.
But consider, in most cases this might well be because the book is already too structurally simple. I think that as the structural complexity of a story increases, the potential to create an independent initial book rises. Remember, even the famously never-ending Wheel of Time stories started off with a book that came to a logical conclusion (in point of fact, the first three or four books ended with a minor resolution). And here we speak of an author that had been published dozens of times in a number of genres before.
I think, as a general rule, that if your story is getting to the point where the first third would be a book lengthwise, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a way to make that first third it's own book structurally as well. There will be exceptions, but they will be few and far between, and tend to occur in stories that do not have a conventional narrative structure at all (you know, where the entire story is nested flashbacks or some such thing).
(Why is that so popular for sci-fi and fantasy, by the way?)
Not that I have any experience --
But in theory I agree with the idea that, for a first novel, do whatever you can to sell it to a publisher. If you can't bear to "kill your darlings" in this book, write a different first novel. Then, when you're established, you can wow your editor by cranking out a 2,000 page epic in three months.