Good length for post-apocalyptic novel

jl1966ca · May 6, 2016

I know that ultimately the story determines the best length of a novel, but what would be considered an average word count for a post-apocalyptic novel? What are publishers looking for? What do readers want?

Any insight or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Lillith1991 · May 6, 2016

What sort of post-apoc novel are we talking about? It really does depend on the style of the novel. A thriller style post-apocalyptic novel should probably be about the same as other SF Thrillers, a Romance about the same as other SF Romance, a Horror novel about the same as your average Horror novel and such. And, of course, something that's more typical SF without the Horror element and such means the writer should probably try to shoot for the typical length of a SF novel that isn't a Space Opera, Hard SF etc.

blacbird · May 6, 2016

Somewhere between zero and 500,000 words.

caw

jjdebenedictis · May 6, 2016

What Lilith said; it depends on the subgenre.

However, 80,000 words is about right for most flavours of novel. Some genres favour books heavier or lighter than that, but if you're writing adult fiction, that length is unlikely to be considered "wrong" by anyone in publishing.

jl1966ca · May 8, 2016

I see the novel developing to be along the same lines of The Stand, in that it will have many storylines of groups of people gradually coming together. I envision two distinct novels (at this point I don't see a trilogy), with the first novel covering the travels and challenges of the people getting to the final destination and the second addressing the events at "the not what it appears" Utopia. This is not unlike the feeling I got between Justin Cronin's The Passage and The Twelve.

Don't know if this goes anywhere near explaining the type of novel it is. My view is it has multiple sub genres, which may be a bad thing.

semolinaro · May 8, 2016

It's really hard to say. For a budding author, publishers usually aren't interested in wordy debut novels because they can't guarantee how well they'll sell and don't want to waste money on printing. To be honest, just write it and see how it goes. End it where it feels right. Don't write a book based on length, base it on the flow of the narrative and plot. It will end when it's supposed to. For now, enjoy the journey.

Dennis E. Taylor · May 8, 2016

Strictly personal opinion, but I like post-apoc novels to be longer than average, if they're engaging. There's so much to cover, assuming you don't just turn it into a run-from-the-zombies or battle-the-biker-gang trope.

I thought The Stand was an excellent length. I just didn't like the last third of the novel...

Gillhoughly · May 9, 2016

Look up your target publishers to see what lengths they want in novels of any topic. The average is going to be between 75-100K words.

While you may want to write long like Stephen King, you can't do that until and unless you have a string of bestsellers on your resume. King has clout. You don't.

A debut writer shopping a first novel should consider heeding the publisher guidelines. There are plenty of other hungry writers who do pay attention to their rules and don't give the editors a reason to reject their books.

Fat books are expensive to print, take longer to edit, and cost more to ship. Publishers still doing print books--yes, those ARE still around--want titles they can fit into a specific size slot. They know how much it costs to produce a 75K word book vs a 150K word book. As a new author, unproved in sales, they are not going to invest in a long work unless it is truly exceptional. It took Rowling a long time to sell her first novel because it ran far too long for a kid's book. Even when accepted by a UK publisher, many US houses turned it down because of its size.

Consider The Hunt for Red October, which was an average length book when released. They'd done a tight job of editing it and it is still a good read. When it surprised everyone and became a massive bestseller, suddenly no one was editing Tom Clancy and his books got fatter and fatter and the plotting wandered all over the place. Sometimes he'd write the same exact scene two to three times over, but from different viewpoints. Sloppy. THRO remains his best work because it stayed on course for length.

While I don't have a string of bestsellers--I wish!--my first book with a new (to me) publisher ran long and I didn't think there would be a problem. My other publishers didn't seem to mind a longer book, but this group did. So on my 26th novel I was asked to cut 5K words. I squawked with outrage, but got to work. Turned out I was able to cut 8k and the editor was delighted. The book was better and tighter for it.

If you plan to indie publish, you can do any length you like, just make sure the writing goes somewhere and accomplishes something. Mark Twain's rules rule! http://www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~lim/twain.html

L. OBrien · May 10, 2016

Generally, anything between 80 and 100k is safe for a first novel. Lower if you're writing YA. Up to 110k for sci-fi and fantasy. Here's a pretty solid reference: http://www.writersdigest.com/editor...ovels-and-childrens-books-the-definitive-post

Laer Carroll · May 10, 2016

For a first-time novelist, the previous advice and especially "Keep it on the short side" is good advice.

But occasionally a first-time novelist will have a story that demands it be longer. If it's a compelling story cutting it too much will hurt your chances of finding a publisher.

So I'd echo semolinaro (intriguing pseudonym!) and say write it first. Then put it on the shelf long enough to be objective about it when you return to it. THEN worry about slimming it down - which you'll be better able to do because you do have a more distanced view. It will be easier to see what can be made leaner, and what should remain as it is - or even beefed up.

quicklime · May 10, 2016

as said, generally folks are looking for a relatively compact book.....King wrote The Stand at a very different time, and with a shit-ton of clout already. Ditto McCammon and McCarthy.

That said, length also depends on the story--Matheson wrote an excellent apocalypse novel of about, IIRC, 50K words.....because that's how many words "I am Legend" took. Granted 50K would also be a hard sell, but my point is the word count doesn't automatically go up at the survivorship goes down, a common assumption it seems for apocalypse novels. The Stand was long in a large part because it had so many intertwined characters, not because it was the end of the world--give a book ten major characters and their intertwined lives, and they could be busboys in 1990; they don't need to be at the end of the world to take up some serious page space.

peachesandscream · May 10, 2016

I think anywhere between 80 - 100k would be a safe bet. I love King but he tends to be wordy. Also, by the time he wrote The Stand he had several bestsellers under his belt already; the publishers knew he would sell. The same can't be said for a debut author, so it's best to stick to the guidelines.

maggiee19 · May 13, 2016

Gillhoughly said:
Look up your target publishers to see what lengths they want in novels of any topic. The average is going to be between 75-100K words.

While you may want to write long like Stephen King, you can't do that until and unless you have a string of bestsellers on your resume. King has clout. You don't.

A debut writer shopping a first novel should consider heeding the publisher guidelines. There are plenty of other hungry writers who do pay attention to their rules and don't give the editors a reason to reject their books.

Fat books are expensive to print, take longer to edit, and cost more to ship. Publishers still doing print books--yes, those ARE still around--want titles they can fit into a specific size slot. They know how much it costs to produce a 75K word book vs a 150K word book. As a new author, unproved in sales, they are not going to invest in a long work unless it is truly exceptional. It took Rowling a long time to sell her first novel because it ran far too long for a kid's book. Even when accepted by a UK publisher, many US houses turned it down because of its size.

Consider The Hunt for Red October, which was an average length book when released. They'd done a tight job of editing it and it is still a good read. When it surprised everyone and became a massive bestseller, suddenly no one was editing Tom Clancy and his books got fatter and fatter and the plotting wandered all over the place. Sometimes he'd write the same exact scene two to three times over, but from different viewpoints. Sloppy. THRO remains his best work because it stayed on course for length.

While I don't have a string of bestsellers--I wish!--my first book with a new (to me) publisher ran long and I didn't think there would be a problem. My other publishers didn't seem to mind a longer book, but this group did. So on my 26th novel I was asked to cut 5K words. I squawked with outrage, but got to work. Turned out I was able to cut 8k and the editor was delighted. The book was better and tighter for it.

If you plan to indie publish, you can do any length you like, just make sure the writing goes somewhere and accomplishes something. Mark Twain's rules rule! http://www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~lim/twain.html

Good length for post-apocalyptic novel

jl1966ca

Lillith1991

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

blacbird

jjdebenedictis

is watching you via her avatar

jl1966ca

semolinaro

Always lost in thought.

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!

Gillhoughly

Grumpy writer and editor

L. OBrien

Laer Carroll

Aerospace engineer turned writer

quicklime

all out of fucks to give

peachesandscream

maggiee19