splitting a novel

[Emurelda]

And... bump for the newbies!

In point of fact, this was even before I showed up. Having procrastinated for a few months at finding myself in the same situation with a book of 265k words, I would be curious to know what was your final decision, @K.J. Simmill.

This was interesting. Thanks for bumping

 

[K.J. Simmill]

Hiya, I had a good long chat with a few of my betas, and based on their input I kept Darrienia as a full length novel.
When I checked the pricing for the cx, it would cost them more if I split the book, truth be told, I set my royalties very low to make it affordable. However, I didn't feel that splitting the story would enhance the reader experience. In fact, I would have felt like I was cheating them.
Of course this probably means I have reduced my audience, the size of the book means it will appeal to perhaps fewer than if I had found a split, but I am happy with the choice.
Just a point of interest, the second book in the series is nearly as big, I am just editing it now, (or should be but popped on here instead) One thing I will do however, is make the chapters shorter. My chapters in Darrienia are quite large, though there are breaks etc, but in book 2 they will be better.
I did consider however, for book two, splitting the paperback but leaving the kindle as a complete one, but I recently decided against that too, the first 2 books in my series are almost a uniform size, the third and forth are smaller.
On a side note, I read a book recently that was spilt, I got to the end of the first and I was super disappointed because there had been no conclusion, yes there was a cliff hanger, but it seemed more like the author went, 'ah here, this'll do' *ends book* rather than tying up some of the events and leaving on a cliff hanger. Then book 2 starts at the exact moment book 1 left off. As a reader, it really annoys me, so looking back, I am really glad I didn't split it. When I did my writing course, many moons ago, I was always told that a book in a series must also work as a stand alone piece and the issues, but not the running theme, should be resolved, leaving the reader to feel like they have reached the end of that book, but wanting to know more about what happens with the continuing background story.
My advice, it's too soon to say if the size of my book has put people off, but I have had 6 5 star review since it was released in September (and might I add not from family etc), I sent my book to two reviewers, who promised a genuine and honest review in exchange for a free copy after I pitched the book to them, and they both gave it a brilliant review. If you can split the book without cheating the reader or breaking the story, then do so, otherwise, I would leave it as is. But that's just my thoughts on the matter, and I am sure there are many who would disagree.

 

[Jason Byrne]

Hiya, I had a good long chat with a few of my betas, and based on their input I kept Darrienia as a full length novel.
When I checked the pricing for the cx, it would cost them more if I split the book, truth be told, I set my royalties very low to make it affordable. However, I didn't feel that splitting the story would enhance the reader experience. In fact, I would have felt like I was cheating them.
Of course this probably means I have reduced my audience, the size of the book means it will appeal to perhaps fewer than if I had found a split, but I am happy with the choice.
Just a point of interest, the second book in the series is nearly as big, I am just editing it now, (or should be but popped on here instead) One thing I will do however, is make the chapters shorter. My chapters in Darrienia are quite large, though there are breaks etc, but in book 2 they will be better.
I did consider however, for book two, splitting the paperback but leaving the kindle as a complete one, but I recently decided against that too, the first 2 books in my series are almost a uniform size, the third and forth are smaller.
On a side note, I read a book recently that was spilt, I got to the end of the first and I was super disappointed because there had been no conclusion, yes there was a cliff hanger, but it seemed more like the author went, 'ah here, this'll do' *ends book* rather than tying up some of the events and leaving on a cliff hanger. Then book 2 starts at the exact moment book 1 left off. As a reader, it really annoys me, so looking back, I am really glad I didn't split it. When I did my writing course, many moons ago, I was always told that a book in a series must also work as a stand alone piece and the issues, but not the running theme, should be resolved, leaving the reader to feel like they have reached the end of that book, but wanting to know more about what happens with the continuing background story.
My advice, it's too soon to say if the size of my book has put people off, but I have had 6 5 star review since it was released in September (and might I add not from family etc), I sent my book to two reviewers, who promised a genuine and honest review in exchange for a free copy after I pitched the book to them, and they both gave it a brilliant review. If you can split the book without cheating the reader or breaking the story, then do so, otherwise, I would leave it as is. But that's just my thoughts on the matter, and I am sure there are many who would disagree.

I completely agree with everything you've said.

My first book is 265k, and the second nearly as long at 237k. The third will be in there, somewhere, and books four and five will be shorter, around 200k or 180k. The whole really would be much stronger than the thirds combined, and more an impression of, "well, I've got to chop it somewhere" than a complete narrative. The whole series will consist of five volumes of one overarching story, but that notwithstanding each of the five volumes will open and conclude all its major issues. When left intact.

I also run very long chapters, between 5k and 20k, and try to vary the length between long and longer.

The problem is — I am resolved to win an agent and publish traditionally. So that leaves me three choices: chop them into representable pieces; set these aside and publish a more manageable book first; or just keep sending it out and hope for the best...

 

[Chase Gamwell]

I completely agree with everything you've said.

My first book is 265k, and the second nearly as long at 237k. The third will be in there, somewhere, and books four and five will be shorter, around 200k or 180k. The whole really would be much stronger than the thirds combined, and more an impression of, "well, I've got to chop it somewhere" than a complete narrative. The whole series will consist of five volumes of one overarching story, but that notwithstanding each of the five volumes will open and conclude all its major issues. When left intact.

I also run very long chapters, between 5k and 20k, and try to vary the length between long and longer.

The problem is — I am resolved to win an agent and publish traditionally. So that leaves me three choices: chop them into representable pieces; set these aside and publish a more manageable book first; or just keep sending it out and hope for the best...

I was thinking about my sci fi novel the other day and feel the same. The whole thing would read better as one long science fiction epic, but would be around 300k words when finished. I CAN chop it into three separate books, BUT in order for me to do so, I would need to rewrite some portions of the book to avoid the cliffhanger scenario that @K.J. Simmill describes above. Right now, with the book split, the end of the first one really does read like "that's a great place to split it" and, to be honest, that's why I split it there. I have time skips between each part of my book (because of the nature of what exactly is going on), but as a single work it reads better as it is.

If I do wind up deciding to split the novel into three different parts, I can, it will just take a whole lot longer for me to get it to where it can be publishable because those rewrites are going to be monstrous...

 

[Jason Byrne]

Yeah — George RR Martin was a successful, published writer in print and television for twenty years before they risked publishing book 1 of A Song of Ice and Fire, called Game of Thrones. And it was almost ten years before the book actually became popular. It was published in 1996.

And yet Terry Goodkind's first-ever-published book in the Sword of Truth series called Wizard's First Rule was just as long!

Let's face it. If you or I try to traditionally-publish these as a debut author, chances are next-to-zero it will ever happen. But to break it up and publish them in thirds feels more like a tragedy than a victory.

 

[Alistair Roberts]

Better to split and get published, than not and well, not!

 

[Chase Gamwell]

At this point, I'm almost thinking it would be better to hone my skills, get other things published, polish the work I want to publish as one big chunk, then get it published as intended. As @Jason Byrne said above, splitting the work feels like a tragedy when it wasn't originally intended to be distributed that way.

Either way, I can see both sides of the argument...

 

[Nicole Wilson]

Another argument to remember is the times we are in right now are different than those in Terry Goodkind's first book days. Agents have more and more work being thrown at them (because we are in a culture that is demanding more work from less people) and more books being pitched to them (because it's so easy to have access to them). A lot of agents are looking for something obvious to delete your query and move on. And anything more than 120K is a red flag (not an immediate no, just a red flag).

Why? Because: 1) a good chunk of books that are that long are signs that the author needs serious editing help as they're incapable of cutting unimportant sections out themselves (or with an editor) and 2) printing 120K words is a lot of work and costs; your book better be darn worth it if they're going to print hundreds of copies of a 400-600 page book. They are more likely to trust the author with these undertakings if they've already proven themselves. Just some things to keep in mind.

 

[Jason Byrne]

Better to split and get published, than not and well, not!

I don't know... is it, really? There's K.J's words, to consider,

On a side note, I read a book recently that was spilt, I got to the end of the first and I was super disappointed because there had been no conclusion, yes there was a cliff hanger, but it seemed more like the author went, 'ah here, this'll do' *ends book*.

Maybe it's better for one's reputation not to be published at all, than to be viewed publicly as inept.

 

[Jason Byrne]

Another argument to remember is the times we are in right now are different than those in Terry Goodkind's first book days. Agents have more and more work being thrown at them (because we are in a culture that is demanding more work from less people) and more books being pitched to them (because it's so easy to have access to them). A lot of agents are looking for something obvious to delete your query and move on. And anything more than 120K is a red flag (not an immediate no, just a red flag).

Why? Because: 1) a good chunk of books that are that long are signs that the author needs serious editing help as they're incapable of cutting unimportant sections out themselves (or with an editor) and 2) printing 120K words is a lot of work and costs; your book better be darn worth it if they're going to print hundreds of copies of a 400-600 page book. They are more likely to trust the author with these undertakings if they've already proven themselves. Just some things to keep in mind.

Nicole touches on a good point — one this thread needs to include, as it's vital to a full understanding of the concept — there are good reasons that agents and publishers are wary of huge books. It is very hard to write a good story that actually needs to be that long.

Book 1 of A Song of Ice and Fire was called A Game of Thrones. It was 298k words long, and was turned into an entire season of a TV series, and get this — the TV series only covers about HALF of the material in the book. And in my opinion, it isn't the worse for leaving the other half out! So if you think about the idea that someone could take your book, chop out half of it, and still make a full and complete season of a TV series, imagine the trouble they'll have turning it into a 150-minute movie. And that's if you're arguably one of the best writers of your era. That's not even to consider the multiplied cost of the significantly-greater risk, and all for marginally-larger return.


Just for fun, here's how long the first 5 books of ASoIaF run:
A Game of Thrones: 298k
A Clash of kings: 326k
A Storm of Swords: 424k
A Feast for Crows: 300k
A Dance with Dragons: 422k
TO DATE: 1,770,000 words

 

[J. Rook]

My WiP storyline is long and basically continuous. But natural breathing places have occurred, shortly after big climaxes, and these are where I have written in the breaks which will separate the storyline into a trilogy. Each book is a quasi stand-alone in that it comes to a point of satisfactory conclusion, but there is no doubt that the storyline is still pointing into the future. This is a very vexed question I think.

 

[Jason Byrne]

That said... it would be really nice for a publisher to take a chance on me, or any of us! But if that's the plan, one would give oneself the best possible chance by writing something else with all one's present skill and of more marketable length, and getting that published first.

 

[Chase Gamwell]

That said... it would be really nice for a publisher to take a chance on me, or any of us! But if that's the plan, one would give oneself the best possible chance by writing something else with all one's present skill and of more marketable length, and getting that published first.

That's what I'm going for. Each work I write is just a bit better than the last. It might take me a while, but I'll eventually get back to my trilogy. It is my passion project and one I'll probably be polishing for decades before it gets where I want it to be.

 

[Alistair Roberts]

Or split the novel AND give a sensible ending, with a desire to read more. If it never gets read because its too huge, why even write it?

 

[Jason Byrne]

Or split the novel AND give a sensible ending, with a desire to read more. If it never gets read because its too huge, why even write it?

Well obviously, you would do work at the amputation site, try to give it a cleaner appearance, but you're not going to turn 1/3 of a story into a full story by giving it a sensible ending, are you?

And like Chase said, you write it because you need to write it, one because we all know we would keep writing even if we knew full well it would never be read, because it's what we do. And two because you need to write crap — here having the meaning of work that it turns out was too long-winded — before we turn out something worthy of public view.

I was halfway through book 4 of a 5-book series. Book 1 was about 473k words, or some such. Book 2 was 565k words, and was longer than War and Peace. Book 3 was somewhere in that range as well, at like 450k-ish, and I was probably about 300k words into book 4. So that's a rough estimate of 1,788,000 words into the series. I invented two complete languages, and wrote songs in them. I wrote a bible for the story religion. They were too long, too gratuitous, too graphic, and I just plain dropped them. Imagine George RR Martin writing all five books of A Song of Ice and Fire, and then just throwing them away. That's what I did, word-count-wise. And then I started writing something better.

I got about halfway through two books, and set them both aside to work on my current series. If this is still too long, I'll just toss it out and try again. This is what we do.

 

[Carol Rose]

There are always going to be exceptions, but I don't think it's a great idea to take an epic fantasy series like A Song of Ice and Fire, written 20 years ago, and apply it to anything written/submitted today as an example of a high word count book that made the cut.

For one thing, George R.R. Martin has been published since 1976.

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/bibliography/

ASOIAF weren't his first attempts at publication. He's written short stories and teleplays. He's been around a long time and has his hand in many things besides novels. Apples and oranges to compare an author's first attempt at publication with the books behind Game of Thrones.

Secondly, genres evolve over the years. Expected word counts in genres ebb and flow because readers' tastes change over time. Agents' and publishers' needs change over time. This is why it's important to research all this before writing.

And of course, never forget that it's still the writing they look at. Regardless of the word count or genre, if they aren't pulled in right away, it's still a no.

 

[Jason Byrne]

There are always going to be exceptions, but I don't think it's a great idea to take an epic fantasy series like A Song of Ice and Fire, written 20 years ago, and apply it to anything written/submitted today as an example of a high word count book that made the cut.

For one thing, George R.R. Martin has been published since 1976.

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/bibliography/

ASOIAF weren't his first attempts at publication. He's written short stories and teleplays. He's been around a long time and has his hand in many things besides novels. Apples and oranges to compare an author's first attempt at publication with the books behind Game of Thrones.

Secondly, genres evolve over the years. Expected word counts in genres ebb and flow because readers' tastes change over time. Agents' and publishers' needs change over time. This is why it's important to research all this before writing.

And of course, never forget that it's still the writing they look at. Regardless of the word count or genre, if they aren't pulled in right away, it's still a no.

That's what I was saying — he had books and television out with his name on it for twenty years before they took a risk on him publishing a book that large.

And you're right — writing something that meets all their requirements (length, genre, style, etc.) is requisite just for the chance of acceptance, not for acceptance itself.

 

[Emurelda]

There are always going to be exceptions, but I don't think it's a great idea to take an epic fantasy series like A Song of Ice and Fire, written 20 years ago, and apply it to anything written/submitted today as an example of a high word count book that made the cut.

For one thing, George R.R. Martin has been published since 1976.

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/bibliography/

ASOIAF weren't his first attempts at publication. He's written short stories and teleplays. He's been around a long time and has his hand in many things besides novels. Apples and oranges to compare an author's first attempt at publication with the books behind Game of Thrones.

Secondly, genres evolve over the years. Expected word counts in genres ebb and flow because readers' tastes change over time. Agents' and publishers' needs change over time. This is why it's important to research all this before writing.

And of course, never forget that it's still the writing they look at. Regardless of the word count or genre, if they aren't pulled in right away, it's still a no.

This is exactly my thoughts. Why compare a new writers work with decades worth of experience by an established writer.

As Nicole says don't give them a reason to reject. If we're only doing it to write for the love of the craft then that's fine but then why submit at all knowing our submission goes against their suggested guidelines. Using different ways to get the agents attention is one thing, however creating a book that is outside their guidelines doesn't make sense to me and seems to be a lot of wasted time going on for just an off chance it might be noticed.