Verbosity - Wave of the Future?

Ctairo · May 21, 2009

With more and more writers posting shelf busting word counts for novels—at least in these parts—are we meant to believe bigger is better? As a self-confessed "naked" writer, that is, someone who has to add text, I don't quite get the impulse to super-size manuscripts. Does anyone have thoughts on where the impulse to "go big" comes from? Am I missing a new trend? Can we lay blame partly at the feet of new writers who've published debut novels with ridiculously inflated word counts? Why would anyone use many words when a few would do?

(Note: Novels involving world building get a pass from me.

)

Cyia · May 21, 2009

Personally, it's not a matter of setting out to tell a "long" story. It's just a matter using the number of words required to tell a whole story. Intricate plots require more words than straightforward ones. Thrillers are (usually) shorter because it's hard to maintain the sense of urgency. Fantasy is (usually) longer because - as you said - it requires world building.

Dale Emery · May 21, 2009

Some writers use more words to tell more story. For example, Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth didn't seem verbose to me.

Dale

sunandshadow · May 21, 2009

I think writers are more influence by anime and tv than ever - when you conceive of a novel idea inspired by or comparable to a whole anime series, there's no way it's going to be short. Also, multiple main character stories have become a staple in the past few decades, and those are also naturally big.

ChristineR · May 21, 2009

I've never seen any statistics, but my general feeling is that right now we are at the end of a low point--that is, novels are about as short as they are going to get, and they are currently trending longer.

Some of the word counts people describe as long aren't really that long. The average length of Dickens is said to be something over 350,000 words. I'm not saying that's short or anything, but I wouldn't call it "shelf-busting," or "supersize," or "ridiculously inflated." There are far worse offenders out there.

Arkie · May 21, 2009

I think a lot of long stories have a lot of fluff in there that readers skip over, I know I do. I like my novels at about 275 pages. I know I've read interviews with editors who stated they like a book at about 300 pages, that publishers think they need 300 pages to make it worth while to publish, but go to a bookstore and look at the novels that are coming in at 200 pages and less.

Elmore Leonard's latest book, "Road Dogs," is 262 pages. Leonard has stated he leaves out what readers skip over. On the other hand, read one of the John Updike novels. He turns out books well over 300 pages, but when you weed through all the layers of descriptive material, he's only got about 100 pages of story. On my reading table now is a book of 945 pages and contains 5 complete Dashiell Hammett novels. Now that's the kind of big book I like.

Ctairo · May 21, 2009

Dale Emery said:
Some writers use more words to tell more story. For example, Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth didn't seem verbose to me.

Dale

That's one HUGE novel.

And you bring up a good distinction: an accomplished writer can make a lot of words work for him/her. Less skilled wordsmiths seem to use a lot of words because they can (hey, words are free and all)--or because they feel like they should.

ChristineR said:
I've never seen any statistics, but my general feeling is that right now we are at the end of a low point--that is, novels are about as short as they are going to get, and they are currently trending longer.

Some of the word counts people describe as long aren't really that long. The average length of Dickens is said to be something over 350,000 words. I'm not saying that's short or anything, but I wouldn't call it "shelf-busting," or "supersize," or "ridiculously inflated." There are far worse offenders out there.

Maybe that's part of it. There's been an expectation, a desire and a hunger for conciseness. Good point re: hitting the low. What goes down has to go up eventually, yes? I'm not sure if the publishing world created the hunger or if it merely served it, but either way, hmm.

Re: Dickens. When he was writing, stories were also told differently. There was a smaller market and there wasn't pressure for "shelf space" or "positioning." I can't imagine any debut author today would be encouraged to write 350,000 words. Yet, some seem to try. I'm thinking of one debut novel that clocked in at 130,000 words when the story did not warrant it. It was probably edited down to somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000, and that was still too long.

Arkie said:
I think a lot of long stories have a lot of fluff in there that readers skip over, I know I do. I like my novels at about 275 pages. I know I've read interviews with editors who stated they like a book at about 300 pages, that publishers think they need 300 pages to make it worth while to publish, but go to a bookstore and look at the novels that are coming in at 200 pages and less.

Elmore Leonard's latest book, "Road Dogs," is 262 pages. Leonard has stated he leaves out what readers skip over. On the other hand, read one of the John Updike novels. He turns out books well over 300 pages, but when you weed through all the layers of descriptive material, he's only got about 100 pages of story. On my reading table now is a book of 945 pages and contains 5 complete Dashiell Hammett novels. Now that's the kind of big book I like.

300 pages=a novel? Interesting. I wonder if that number represents some sort of "critical mass"--looks good on the shelf, consumers feel like they're getting their money's worth, etc.

Leonard is a man after my own heart.

And 5 novels in 945 pages? *swoons*

Ctairo · May 21, 2009

Cyia said:
Personally, it's not a matter of setting out to tell a "long" story. It's just a matter using the number of words required to tell a whole story. Intricate plots require more words than straightforward ones. Thrillers are (usually) shorter because it's hard to maintain the sense of urgency. Fantasy is (usually) longer because - as you said - it requires world building.

I definitely don't have a problem with longer if it makes sense (like fantasy). I'd expect thrillers to be shorter for the reason you mention. Yet, they don't seem to be. It's almost like writers forget what the genre requires (if that makes sense).

sunandshadow said:
I think writers are more influence by anime and tv than ever - when you conceive of a novel idea inspired by or comparable to a whole anime series, there's no way it's going to be short. Also, multiple main character stories have become a staple in the past few decades, and those are also naturally big.

Anime? Interesting! I never would've linked anime to fiction writing, but it makes sense.

I mean, if anime's influencing film, why not novels too?

SilverBirch · May 21, 2009

If the story truly calls for all of those words to be included, then I don't mind - I'm a fast reader, and I love a book I can really sink my teeth into. But as Arkie said, there is a LOT of padding in most books now, and I can't stand reading pointless filler - which is why I refuse to waste my time reading trilogies and series. They always strike me as one story stretched out over three (or more) books worth. No thanks!

Ahem. All JMHO, of course.

Dale Emery · May 21, 2009

Ctairo said:
That's one HUGE novel. And you bring up a good distinction: an accomplished writer can make a lot of words work for him/her. Less skilled wordsmiths seem to use a lot of words because they can (hey, words are free and all)...

At some point, they may realize that words aren't free after all. Each word is a cost for the reader; it consumes the reader's time and attention. That's a high cost, so each word had better pay its way.

In my writer's group I noticed something. Whenever somebody says that a scene or story was too long, it always turns out that what they really mean is "I got bored." Nobody ever says, "I was rivited! I hung on every word! But it was too long." If somebody says, "too long," the real problem is that the words aren't carrying their weight.

Dale

Shadow_Ferret · May 21, 2009

I have a bad back. So when I'm in the bookstore, I naturally gravitate for shorter, thinner books, which seem harder to come by. A big book might be a good read, but certainly isn't worth the pain.

vrabinec · May 21, 2009

I'll struggle to hit 80k on my sci-fi, and I'll struggle to keep my historic saga under 120k. Just depends on the story you're telling. I'm not even thinking of cutting or adding unless a publisher/agent tells me to.

dawinsor · May 21, 2009

Dale Emery said:
At some point, they may realize that words aren't free after all. Each word is a cost for the reader; it consumes the reader's time and attention. That's a high cost, so each word had better pay its way.

In my writer's group I noticed something. Whenever somebody says that a scene or story was too long, it always turns out that what they really mean is "I got bored." Nobody ever says, "I was rivited! I hung on every word! But it was too long." If somebody says, "too long," the real problem is that the words aren't carrying their weight.

Dale

QFT

ChristineR · May 21, 2009

I prefer longer books. When people say that longer books are padded, I could counter that shorter books are lacking key elements. But I think the standard now is for books to have very little actual plot content (compared to something like Dickens) and to make up for it with a lot of colorful language. In other words, I find more padding in short books, than in long books.

But obviously it depends on what you are looking for in your books, and what you expect them to do for you.

K_Woods · May 21, 2009

Ctairo said:
Anime? Interesting! I never would've linked anime to fiction writing, but it makes sense. I mean, if anime's influencing film, why not novels too?

I don't buy it. First, anime is nowhere near mainstream (and I say this as an anime fan). Second, I have a sneaking suspicion the age of the average anime fan is MUCH lower than the age of the average writer. Combine those two factors and I just don't see anime as a prevailing influence on verbosity at all.

If I'm going to pull any anime influence into my work, it's going to be from (subjectivity alert!) the paragons of the genres I'm working in. Twelve Kingdoms. Story of Saiunkoku. Crest of the Stars. Wait a second -- they're all based on novels. Hmm...

Ctairo said:
300 pages=a novel? Interesting. I wonder if that number represents some sort of "critical mass"--looks good on the shelf, consumers feel like they're getting their money's worth, etc.

In fantasy and science fiction the "critical mass" is closer to 400 to 450 pages (from what I've noticed). If it's a relatively short series (say, three to six books), the critical mass spikes to 550-600 or therabouts. Discworld, on the other hand, reliably hovers around the 350 mark nowadays (they used to be shorter).

I'd rather see some shorter (sub-250 page count)fantasy novels on the shelves. Good long fantasy is fulfilling, but so is good short fantasy. And nowhere near all long fantasy is good.

Sure, on my current project I'm aiming for 100K, mostly because that seems to be the Fantasy Magic Number right now, but I'd rather see my draft come up short than go over. Better to have the right words than just lots of 'em.

Toothpaste · May 21, 2009

As a "verbose" writer, I will say that I don't go out of my way to be one. I don't do it because people tell me I should. Or that I feel my genre requires it. I do it because I like to put together sentences. Maybe a little too much.

I wind up cutting thousands of words from my MSs in the end, but even then, my MG was 80 000 upon publication, and that's twice as long as the typical word count. It will always be my issue, and while yes I am told to edit down by my agent and editors alike, at the same time they still appreciate that quality of my style.

They just don't want it all the time.

At any rate, I guess my point is, just because some people write long doesn't mean they are trying to prove something. Some people write long, some people write short. We have to deal with our crutches.

Clair Dickson · May 21, 2009

I've read far too many BIG books that just felt like they could be edited down. Minute details about the character's morning routine (I brushed my hair and teeth, then went and selected my clothes. I wore the jeans from yesterday since they were still clean...blah blah blah. Often these scenes add nothing important to me. I try to skim past them wishing the writer would have just written, "I got ready to go".) and scenes of people chatting that don't seem to add to the story.

I admit to being a thin writer. Oh, I do write some of those scenes that move the story forward only mere centimeters down the mile of plot, but I edit them out because they're not important.

Some stories need more words to tell. Some have uncessary things. Many readers don't notice that there's superflous scenes mucking up the plotline. In fact, there are readers who feel like they're getting more for their money when the book is thicker.

I'm a harsh critic. Don't waste my time as a reader. Don't show me the same thing in three different ways because they're all slightly different... and for the love of reading, don't tell me what the character has for breakfast, lunch and dinner every time it comes up! Please... once or twice is fine. I only need to know if they're a health nut, a convenience connoisseur, a cook, or a whatever type of eater. (And so on and so forth... =)

I don't think small books will ever go away just as big books never did. There are always books all along the spectrum of size. Just as there are readers who like different styles of prose. (My cousin loves every book as long as she understands what's going on in the story.)

K_Woods · May 21, 2009

Clair Dickson said:
In fact, there are readers who feel like they're getting more for their money when the book is thicker.

This.

(Oh my, I think I'm abusing the poor italics button today...)

I agree with most of what Clair had to say, but this in particular. I'm sure I've seen comments in the past that verify this. Bigger books give the impression of more book, and more book is a better bang for the buck -- as if money was the only factor that matters.

What about the time investment? I'm a stay at home mom with a three year old son. I have other hobbies including writing. My time is at a premium. The internal editor is a constant reading companion. The odds are not in favor of the 800-page book faring well.

Willowmound · May 22, 2009

Dale Emery said:
Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth didn't seem verbose to me.

No, just really badly written.

motormind · May 22, 2009

sunandshadow said:
I think writers are more influence by anime and tv than ever.

I doubt that is true. And even if it were, it doesn't mean much. First, not all anime series are long--and then there are the movies. Writers and the script-writers for anime also fish in the same pond of stories, so it all still depends on how you work out the same basic ideas.

Epiphany · May 22, 2009

I only enjoy lengthy novels when the plot moves at a quick pace. In other words, lengthy novels with a crap ton of description are not my forte. It doesn't matter if your novel is 100 pages or 1000, as long as you can grip your reader for the entirety of it and have stayed true to your plot and characters, you should be fine.
I have heard of many agents wanting to solicit novels no less that 80,000 words. I don't know how true this is though.

Leah_Michelle · May 22, 2009

Ctairo said:
With more and more writers posting shelf busting word counts for novels—at least in these parts—are we meant to believe bigger is better? As a self-confessed "naked" writer, that is, someone who has to add text, I don't quite get the impulse to super-size manuscripts. Does anyone have thoughts on where the impulse to "go big" comes from? Am I missing a new trend? Can we lay blame partly at the feet of new writers who've published debut novels with ridiculously inflated word counts? Why would anyone use many words when a few would do?

(Note: Novels involving world building get a pass from me. )

Personally, I did not at all intend for my book to be 102k words, it just happened to fall that way, albeit I plan to take out several chapters and I'm not sure if I'll replace the ideas with different chapters or merge them with other chapters.
I agree with Cyia that depending on the genre, you'll get more/less of a story.

Izz · May 22, 2009

I think the trend is edging towards longer books right now. But, like all trends, it will change again. In reality, what we should be worried about rather than actual word count--as has been mentioned a couple times already--is making sure every word carries its weight.

aadams73 · May 22, 2009

*Blinks* I guess I must be blind. I haven't seen any evidence of a trend towards longer books. Am I missing something?

Epiphany · May 22, 2009

Popular fiction (esp young adult) you can look at twilight and harry potter. Before then YA novels were no more than 300 pages from what I can remember. I could be wrong though.

Verbosity - Wave of the Future?

Why Isn't IGNORE Available in RL?

Rewriting My Destiny

is way off topic

Impractical Fantasy Animal

What happened?

a reader's ear and a writer's heart

Why Isn't IGNORE Available in RL?

Why Isn't IGNORE Available in RL?

I really should be writing

is way off topic

Court Jester

Dipwad

Dorothy A. Winsor

What happened?

9 of 10 Overlords prefer Evil Pie!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

A dark core to every cloud

9 of 10 Overlords prefer Evil Pie!

Lightly salted

Don't kill the bar, Dude.

Fangirling

Doing the Space Operatic

A Work in Progress

Don't kill the bar, Dude.