How Long should your Novel be?

[Paul Whybrow]

We've referred to word count many times on the Colony, but this article on the Reedsy site serves as a useful reminder of the widely accepted parameters:

How Long Should Your Novel Be? Our Editors Have the Answers

(I love the illustration!)

It's very easy, as a novice writer, to exceed the acceptable word count with your debut novel. I did just this, pumping out 179,000 words for my first Cornish Detective story: I was so pleased with myself when I broke through the 100,000 'barrier'!

I submitted queries to 160 literary agencies with that manuscript, and it was only when one agent mentioned that although he loved my writing, it would be impossible to interest a publisher in such a long work that the penny dropped for me. I've since hacked 45,000 words out of the story, but that's as far as I'm going.

It taught me a lesson, though, and the subsequent three novels have all come in at 80,000 words, as recommended for crime stories.

The advice on editing in the article is worthwhile, though, from my experience of reading voraciously, I'd say that what the Reedsy editors recommend applies mainly to authors seeking their first book deal. Established writers regularly break the rules, as they've already got the sales from a loyal readership and will do what's worked before.

For example, I love Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch crime series, but he frequently goes into 'extraneous movement of characters', exactly describing the route that his detective takes through Los Angeles in his car and also on foot. He often fills pages with family discussions between Harry and his daughter, which do nothing to advance the plot at all.

As for the over-use of words, it's hard for me to believe that editors bother to give experienced authors' manuscripts more than a cursory glance.

But then, the rules are there to keep novice authors jumping through hoops, training them how the circus of publishing works. Literary lions prowl free, doing just what they like!

 

[Carol Rose]

This is where both knowing the genre in which you're writing, and reading the submission pages of the publishers you're targeting is needed before writing the book.

Each genre has expectations, and those include the average length of the books in that genre. On top of that, publishers usually have word count expectations listed somewhere on their submissions pages. If they don't, use the average genre guidelines. Find a variety (not only the top best sellers/most popular authors, because they often are at a place where they can "break" those rules) of books in that genre and look at the word count. That will give you a ballpark of what you need to be aiming for.

Romance, for example, is all over the place. It used to be 90K for any traditional pub, unless you were writing what we call category romance here in the USA. In that case, there were very specific guidelines for what had to be in each chapter, how long the chapters were, etc. And the books were much shorter than 90K. As the genre evolved into half a million sub-genres (an exaggeration ... but it feels that way! LOL!!), each one took on its own characteristics, including average length of the book.

Evernight has it nice and spelled out on their submissions page, and they take a wide range of word counts, but I'd say the average erotic romance book that Evernight sells is anywhere between 20K and 80K.

 

[Geoff]

I have been told that I should stick at 70 to 75K, which is in line with Carol's post. The 250,000 worder, never sent out, that I wrote a few years ago could become a three chapter series

 

[Howard]

This is one of those bizarre parts of this industry that I will never understand.
A story is done when it is done. Therefore, the novel will be as long as it damn well needs to be.
But no. Publishers have set ideas in their heads which they must stick to, no matter what.

Just...baffling.

 

[Kitty]

Not baffling at all, it all comes down to practicalities and money. It costs a lot more to produce a 150k book than it does to produce a 80k word one, particularly in print. That's why hitting a word count in the vicinity of 80-100k for a first time novelist is sound advice.

 

[Howard]

Not baffling at all, it all comes down to practicalities and money. It costs a lot more to produce a 150k book than it does to produce a 80k word one, particularly in print. That's why hitting a word count in the vicinity of 80-100k for a first time novelist is sound advice.

Obviously I wasn't clear.
I fully understand the chosen reasons behind these fairly arbitrary size restrictions, but my point is that they are ridiculous. Trying to standardise an art just for the sake of convenience is a terrible way to do business.
Yes, longer books cost more to print. Of course they do. But restricting the size of all books, limiting and normalising the space into which all stories must be forced, is an enormously blinkered way of looking at writing.
Stories are done when stories are done. Extending one as it did not reach some arbitrary "standard" or limiting one because it went over, is only bad for the story and therefore bad for the art form.

But in saying that, we reach the crux of the problem, do we not? Publishers are less concerned about good stories or good writers, and far more interested in the bottom line of the equation. Seeing books becoming homogeneous, standard, uniform things because publishers expect a certain length, a certain style, a certain plot development and a certain selection of core genres and themes that they know will sell is disheartening. Stories, be they books, TV or films, are being forced into molds, neatly cookie-cuttered for standardised consumption, and I do not see how that is anything but a bad thing.
I for one am sick of physically feeling the wheels turning beneath the page whenever I read a new book. You can taste the regulated, means-tested flow of plot progression through the ink, can feel each scheduled rise and fall of drama and all but guess what is about to happen next simply by looking how far through the book you are. It is boring and it is not what I want from books.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

I agree with most of what you say, Howard, but those that matter in the publishing industry, be they literary agents, editors, publishers or publicists are more business executives than they are arbiters of aesthetic taste. They are driven by what will sell, not what's stimulating, exciting, brilliantly written and edifying for the spirit. Sadly, the most successful products of any form tend to be bland, highly processed, composed to a formula, utterly predictable and, in the long run, not very good for you!

I've said it before on the Colony, but we're all librarians at heart: we classify everything we're considering consuming by what it resembles that we already know—and that includes books—publishers themselves do it, with cover blurb that says things like 'John Grisham look out'.

It's usually when an author has made pots of money for a publisher, that they're allowed free rein. Look at the length of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, with the first novel a conventional 76,944 words, though the sequels ballooned to a colossal 257,045 words by the fifth story. I thought that Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix was as bloated and full of gas as a beached whale, but I could easily imagine her publishers being terrified to offend Rowling by suggesting cuts as she was the goose laying golden eggs!

 

[Howard]

I agree with most of what you say, Howard, but those that matter in the publishing industry, be they literary agents, editors, publishers or publicists are more business executives than they are arbiters of aesthetic taste. They are driven by what will sell, not what's stimulating, exciting, brilliantly written and edifying for the spirit. Sadly, the most successful products of any form tend to be bland, highly processed, composed to a formula, utterly predictable and, in the long run, not very good for you!

I've said it before on the Colony, but we're all librarians at heart: we classify everything we're considering consuming by what it resembles that we already know—and that includes books—publishers themselves do it, with cover blurb that says things like 'John Grisham look out'.

It's usually when an author has made pots of money for a publisher, that they're allowed free rein. Look at the length of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, with the first novel a conventional 76,944 words, though the sequels ballooned to a colossal 257,045 words by the fifth story. I thought that Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix was as bloated and full of gas as a beached whale, but I could easily imagine her publishers being terrified to offend Rowling by suggesting cuts as she was the goose laying golden eggs!

I know, I am beating a fairly old and obvious drum, but I still think its a point worth making.
And yes, the rules are also there to try and keep nutbag writers from turning out phone books when really their opus is more of a pamphlet.
Rowling is the epitome of that. But then, she is in the enormously odd position of being one of the best selling writers ever to have walked this earth, regardless of the fact that she is a truly terrible writer.

 

[Kitty]

It's all too easy to blame the publishing industry but at the end of the day you have to remember that it is a business and publishers are going to publish the books that sell and that readers want to buy. You mention JK Rowling and I don't believe that she's a terrible writer. Remember her market is children and kids want a cracking good story filled with interesting and memorable characters (which JK does in abundance) and are less concerned by the literary prowess of the authors. The same can be said of Dan Brown. I'm not a fan but I can still see why people enjoy the romp.

 

[Howard]

It's all too easy to blame the publishing industry but at the end of the day you have to remember that it is a business and publishers are going to publish the books that sell and that readers want to buy.

It is easy to blame them, yes, largely as its their fault.
Look, you are right: publishers will publish what people want to buy. Blatantly obvious. My point is that just because you can sell awful, simplistic, badly-written hackery by the truck load, does not mean you should try and make everything that is published fit into the same package.
Bad books will always outnumber good be an overwhelming margin, because cheap and cheerful sells just as well in the publishing market as it does in any other. If we look to the music industry and the success of boy bands, you can see why any producer with an ounce of sense has tried to create one. And I am fine with that! My issue is when said producer tries to box up and package, say, David Bowie in the same way they do Boyzone. Imagine if that happened. Imagine if "Insert Amazing Artist Here" was forced to take their lovingly crafted, unique work and run it through the mill to make everything more radio friendly. It would be insanity of the highest order, and yet that is what the publishing industry does!

You mention JK Rowling and I don't believe that she's a terrible writer. Remember her market is children and kids want a cracking good story filled with interesting and memorable characters (which JK does in abundance) and are less concerned by the literary prowess of the authors. The same can be said of Dan Brown. I'm not a fan but I can still see why people enjoy the romp.

Well, we can agree to disagree there. I think she is a monumental hack who got unbelievably lucky. Her first book was an OK MG book with a cute world, no argument. My issue is that all her acclaim as a crafter of characters and spinner of ripping yarns is just beyond me. Her characters are the most vanilla stereotypes I have ever seen and her stories have no internal logic at all. Even worse, I still say she has managed to create the worst hero in all of existence, as Potter spends about 2 million words doing literally nothing of use while all around, everyone else picks up the slack. (And do not even start me on what a depraved, stupid, sociopath Dumbledore is!!!)

But, I digress

 

[Kitty]

Well, we can agree to disagree there.

And I think we can agree to disagree with our views on the publishing industry as well.

Our tastes in books differ. What you may deem 'bad' another reader will love. It would be a boring old world if we all liked the same thing!

 

[Howard]

And I think we can agree to disagree with our views on the publishing industry as well.

Fair enough. Not looking for fights, just discussion.

Our tastes in books differ. What you may deem 'bad' another reader will love. It would be a boring old world if we all liked the same thing!

I never understand this reply. What do preference and quality have to do with each other?

 

[Kitty]

I never understand this reply. What do preference and quality have to do with each other?

Ah, you are a judge of quality then. Fair enough. I interpreted 'bad' as merely meaning it didn't work for you.

 

[Howard]

Ah, you are a judge of quality then. Fair enough. I interpreted 'bad' as merely meaning it didn't work for you.

Well, everyone is, no? You do not consume without opinion.
You are getting your sentiment and your logic confused. Something can be bad - obviously and demonstrably so - and yet you can still like it. And who am I to judge?
I can say that Rowling is a poor writer - an opinion shared widely across the world - but that I still enjoy her work. In my case, I enjoy the films more than the books, as it takes her ideas and puts a higher level of skill behind. But, it is still undeniably a Rowling product I am consuming and enjoying.
I still think that the film, The Chronicles of Riddick is a bloody brilliant thing, but it is, by any sane measure, a pretty bad film. Hell, after a few gentle snifters of sherry, I can get my giggle on with Eurotrip! Me liking it, does not, however, make it good.
If you read and enjoy Rowling's work, then bully for you! I have no qualms there (If I did, I would be a bloody idiot, as she, from the lofty reaches of her private castle, does not care one damn what I think!).
Not being able to look at her work objectively and seeing the issues it is rife with is a different matter. Reading anything after Chamber is like having an adverb bomb go off in your head while you watch in bafflement as her hero sits inert and she desperately tries to convince us that she had the Deathly Hallows plot planned out all along.
I'll sit down, right now, and bung in the Half Blood Prince Blu Ray and enjoy the hell out of it, but it don't mean I won't cringe every time Snape does his thing or Dumbledore acts like a mental. I can enjoy it and still recognise its flaws. As a writer, I have to, in fact.

 

[Kitty]

I have opinion and I have preference. I simply don't feel qualified to judge another author as a 'bad writer'. But I'm guessing you know more about the writing craft than I do, so defer to your better judgement.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

In browsing my weekly newsletter from the excellent WritersServices website, I found this quote which struck a chord with the debate in this thread:

'Writing ought either to be the manufacture of stories for which there is a market demand—a business as safe and commendable as making soap or breakfast foods—or it should be an art, which is always a search for something for which there is no market demand, something new and untried, where the values are intrinsic and have nothing to do with standardized values.'

Willa Cather

Cather's use of the word manufacture is apposite when applied to bestselling authors who've hit upon a winning formula, by accident or design, for changing it could well be commercial suicide. We can all think of examples of cars, soft drinks, movies, superheroes and book covers that were rebooted and failed miserably. Many people like what they like because it's a reliable experience, and they don't want the maker to get experimental on them. That includes book readers, some of whom only ever read one author.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

It's as readers that we are all absolutely qualified to form judgements of writing. I can't help judging some writers as great writers. I therefore won't be able to avoid arriving at some judgement in respect of deciding some books are feeble or outright stinkers. And they may be highly successful, and there will good reasons for that, but the exercise of judgement as distinct from claiming to pass judgement, is humanly impossible not to do.

Dickens is pretty much inviolable. William Harrison Ainsworth, who wrote 40 historical novels, could match Scott any day, and knock spots off Dickens...in my judgement, and did we ever look at him once at skoool? Not many nowadays have even heard of him.

It's a fascinating, funny business.

 

[Geoff]

Harrison Ainsworth is an excellent writer. Old St Paul's is one of my favourite books. Probably the best account I have ever read of the Great Plague.

 

[MaryA]

Bookmarks Harrison Ainsworth for future reading. Victorian novelists are my secret vice.

I'm also passionate about the great sprawling Russians (Tolstoy, Doestoevsky, Gorky). And I've read Proust's A la Recherche twice, all the way through in translations by Scott Moncrieff and Lydia Davis. I don't mind lengthy novels, but you have to take a year out of your life to do justice to Proust and it is a long haul.

My own novel-in-the-making is going to take a another few decades to produce, but I don't want to exceed 70 000 words. In my experience, unless you're Proust, cutting always improves copy. I learned to write in media by writing to strict word counts and brevity is a useful skill to acquire. Succinct doesn't bore readers.

 

[James Marinero]

I have been told that I should stick at 70 to 75K, which is in line with Carol's post. The 250,000 worder, never sent out, that I wrote a few years ago could become a three chapter series

Yes, I did this. When I was half way through and the word count was mounting and still with plenty to say, I realized I could convert it into a triliogy.