How important is length? (I mean the manuscript, silly.)

How long are the books -- published recently -- that you're reading?

In my experience, 100K to 120K, tops, is the norm.

JD

I think it depends to some degree on the market. Some are accepting of longer works, others not so much.

150K is a 600-page book. 80K is a 320-page book. Hardly a Little Golden book. I have two AW writers' books here on my desk: dragonjax's Hell's Belles and ORION's Lottery. Both are just shy of 300 pages in trade paperback format. Neither felt like they were too small. Both are excellent books.

If the agents are telling you to cut, it's because they know what the editors want. Editors base their decisions on what their publisher is willing to shell out money for. In the end, it comes down to money.

I'm reading a book at the moment that's described on the cover blurb as a 'doorstoper'. It's 596 pages, which to me, is average.

A doorstopper would be something around 800 pages when printed and yes, there are plenty of those being printed these days. And yes, even by debut writers.

There's an interesting tool at Amazon for books that have a "search inside" option -- text stats.

If you look up RNP and Lescroart (DaVinci Code didn't have the link, as far as I could see), it will compare the book in question to the market in general, and both RNP's and Lescroart's books were in the 90th percentile for word count, at about 150K words, with about 90% of books being shorter and less than 10 percent longer. Another thing to check is the length of these authors' FIRST released books. What the publisher will accept from an author with a proven track record may be different from what it will accept from a debut author.

But what I was trying to say (and apparently failing) is that it can be helpful to see what it is you're reading yourself, to compare it to what you're writing. If you're reading books that tend to be in the 100K range (which is more the norm, at about 100K), then it's entirely possible that your book would work better in the 100K range, b/c that's the type of story you're drawn to. OTOH, if the majority of the books you read are in the 150K range, then it may well be that you've internalized that longer, more complicated story structure, and your book would work in that range too.

The same is true with respect to other aspects of writing. It always strikes me as interesting when an author opts to use first-person to tell a story, if the majority of that author's reading is in third person, whereas if the author's preference, as a reader, is first person, then it would seem entirely reasonable for the author to tell her own story in first person.

JD

Lannie said:

As I send off a blizzard of e-queries, my antennae are picking up subtle vibes that seem to suggest that many agents regard manuscripts over 100K words as "too long". This is a matter of some concern, since my manuscript is 151K (edited down from 172K.)

I had one agent tell me that my subject was "great", and to re-query when it was cut to 80K! (Thanks so much, hon, but I think not.)

What's up with this? Are all agents afflicted with ADD? Or is the pamphlet-sized novel de rigeur these days? I mean, I didn't set out to write a Reader's Digest Condensed Book.

Any observations, insights, experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

It really depends on the type of book, and most of all on the particular line of books it's aimed at. Agents want to represent books that publishers will buy, and publishers have always had pretty specific guidelines for length. Many say 80-120K, but when you get beyond 100K, you're making thngs tougher.

Books cost a lot of money to publish, and paper is very expensive. There's a reason the average novel is 100K, and a reason new writers most often have to prove themselves before moving a great deal beyond this point. At 151K, you 're asking a publisher to buy a lot of extra paper when the odds are your book will lost money anyway. And the more the book costs to publish, the more paper they have to buy, the more money they lose.

150K really is pushing the envelope past the point where many agents don't care at all about even reading the book, let alone representing it.

It isn't just vibes. Your novel is too long for an easy sale from a first time novelist. For several lines of books, it's almost twice as long as it should be, and even for the generous lines you still need to lose 30,000 words.

Selling a 151K novel is certainly not impossible, but every extra word over a publisher's guidelines does make it tougher, and I don't know of any publisher that has guidelines saying they want novels nearly this long.

Thanks for the kudos Deadly!!!
Lannie I know it seems harsh. Please do not take it that way but many writers feel their book should be at a particular length. It IS all about money. This is the business of publishing. Try to look at your book from a different perspective. Can it be two books? Can it be edited to 120 K?
I lost entire chapters which did not move my plot forward.
Lottery is now around 89,000 words.
It is commercial fiction. Fantasy tends to be longer.
The previous advice runs true. What is acceptable with a successful author is not with many debut authors.
Your goal is to get your manuscript read and many times an agent will balk at longer novels. This does not mean they do not sell longer projects. Often times editing results in longer works.
You may have to consider compromising.

Jamesaritchie said:

...paper is very expensive.

Click to expand...

And it's not just paper. It's more work for the agent to get a longer work ready for presentation. And readers are naturally going to be leery of a long book by an unknown quantity. I'm that way--I never pick up a fat book by a writer I don't know. Because I don't want to invest the time (not to mention the money) on something that might be crap.

Long books don't scare me either, because...well, I'm a reader.

Lannie said:

the reading public does occasionally fancy something longer than a Little Golden Book.

Click to expand...

I'd hardly call an 80k novel a "Little Golden Book".

Bigger doesn't automatically mean better.

And nor does it mean worse.

I think it's all a matter of taste what one likes to read. But that isn't really the issue being discussed.

Here's the thing. Even though tons of new writers get published a year, that is nothing compared to the percentage of new writers who want to be published. And a lot of that percentage find themselves writing either doorstops, because they can't edit, and 18 000 word novellas because they have no sense of structure. And because it is a new author, there is less proven quality in the work and unforunately because of the ratio, people are going to be more suspicious of a new author who writes so long or so short. And so there is a "general" rule that puts a book roughly between 80 000 - 120 000 words, which is long enough to get the depth of a story across, and not so longwided that you want to shoot yourself.

There are exceptions to every rule. Really short books by newbies get published as do really long ones. My MG (middle grade novel, 8 - 12 yearolds) is 80 000 words and the typical word count for this genre goes no higher than 60 000. At the same time however, I did wind up cutting it by 17 000 words too.

You are facing a harder struggle because you are a newbie with a longer book. But if the writing holds up, well then the writing holds up. If someone has read your book though and genuinely believes it should be shorter, maybe it isn't that they just want some "little golden book". Maybe it's because your book has great potential but is simply just a bit too long.

I thought Jan's comment on 'you write what you read,' to be very enlightening.
I read very few novels, but when I do they are usually in the first person. I also prefer to write in the first person. I'd never even noticed the link before.

With your manuscript Lannie, I think you will find that although there are some authors out there who publish longer works, the majority of debut authors get shorter works published. Basically for all the reasons people have outlined above.
Your personal preference may well be for the longer works, but you are in the minority. As long as you are aware that publishers want to sell the maximum number of books to the maximum number of people, then you know before you stick your toe in the water, that you are at a disadvantage.
If you feel your book cannot be revised to make it more compatible with what the markets require and give you the best chance of the reading population to actually read your book, then at least you will have an inkling as to why you receive rejections.
Most of us haven't got a clue

There you go then, you have essentially answered your own question.
Yes, 150k is too long for most publishers, but you are an optimist so keep on chucking out those subs!

I think many of us do tend to overlook the 'business' end of things though. I was reading an article yesterday (from a link on AW) that said 70% of novels lose money, it's only the other 30% that keeps the business going.

It ain't an exact science and that's a fact.

Lannie, a couple questions -- and my apologies if you've addressed these and I missed them somehow.

What genre is your book? Genre expectations can have a lot of influence on 'acceptable length.'

Did the agent who suggested cutting it to 80K words say this in response to a query that just gave the genre, subject matter, and length? Or was it in response to a partial/full manuscript? If the former, then they may just be stating a length preference for first novels; if the latter, they may also be signalling that they thought the particular piece of text you submitted would benefit from a severe pruning.