Word Count question?

Use the Microsoft Word count - it's more accurate.

I agree. Hardly anyone uses the 250-word method anymore because word processors make it really difficult to actually ACHIEVE 25 lines of text on the page. MSWord's count will be fine. The publisher will know what to do with the long/short word differences.

Use the microsoft word count unless the agent/editor specifically tells you otherwise (and I've never seen one ask for anything but the microsoft word count, but I've heard of some archaic cmall press eds still asking for the page formula). But if you don't see in the submission guidelines a preferance, use the microsoft word wordcount.

~suki

Cathy C said:

I agree. Hardly anyone uses the 250-word method anymore because word processors make it really difficult to actually ACHIEVE 25 lines of text on the page.

Click to expand...

It's dead easy to get a uniform 25 lines of text in normal formatting with MS-Word. If you don't know how to do this, it's worth learning.

That being said, I agree with keeping it simple and just using the word-processor count. It nearly always comes out lower than the 250 WPP estimate because your actual writing contains white space at ends of paragraphs, in dialogue, and of course at the beginning and end of chapters.

The MS Word count is not more accurate, it's considerably less accurate. It's true almost no writers and agents use the 250 count these days, and they're all being hurt by it because publishers still use ink and paper, and they still want novels that use a certain amount of paper, NOT a certain amount of ink.

Sell a novel, and odds are very good you'll be asked to make cuts, and using the MS Word count is why this happens.

It can simplfy things if you place teh MS Word count on page one for those agents and such out there who have no clue why teh 250 count is so important, for your own good, use teh 250 count to actually know when to stop writing. It can save a LOT of problems after you sell the novel, and have to go through teh editing stage.

blacbird said:

It nearly always comes out lower than the 250 WPP estimate because your actual writing contains white space at ends of paragraphs, in dialogue, and of course at the beginning and end of chapters.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this is exactly the problem. Open a published novel. All that white space is in it, too. Regardless of how much or how little writing is on a page, publishers still have to use a full sheet of paper to print it.

The computer age hasn't changed. It's understandable when someone thinks the 250 count is less accurate, or when they think it was used because word count programs didn't exist back in the stone age. Not many really know anything about the actual publishing process.

As long as books are still being sold using ink and paper, page count matters, and the 250 method is the only way there is to tell exactly, right to the page, exactly how much paper a published novel will require. And as they say in publishing, "Ink is cheap, paper is expensive."

When an editor asks you to cut twenty thousand words, he's really saying you need to cut the number of pages in the published book.

And, of course, any good word processor allows you to quickly and easily set it for twenty-five lines per page.

Jamesaritchie said:

The MS Word count is not more accurate, it's considerably less accurate. It's true almost no writers and agents use the 250 count these days, and they're all being hurt by it because publishers still use ink and paper, and they still want novels that use a certain amount of paper, NOT a certain amount of ink.

Sell a novel, and odds are very good you'll be asked to make cuts, and using the MS Word count is why this happens.

It can simplfy things if you place teh MS Word count on page one for those agents and such out there who have no clue why teh 250 count is so important, for your own good, use teh 250 count to actually know when to stop writing. It can save a LOT of problems after you sell the novel, and have to go through teh editing stage.

Click to expand...

Not true. Not remotely true. And in fact I have repeatedly seen both agents and editors beg authors not to get all panicked about the word count thing and just use the Microsoft Word Count.

YOU as an editor may still use the 250 word count system, but in my rather vast interactions with editors I have yet to meet any who believe as you do. Remember what I always advise you James? Just because it's your personal experience doesn't make it universal.

(but if personal experience does make things universal, I would also like to say I use Microsoft Wordcount and I have never had any problems during my editing stage with my editors - and, in fact, I've never actually ever discussed word count with an editor. And if I am causing extra problems for them, they've been remarkably stoic in their silence about it - despite their requesting many other things from me)

Jamesaritchie said:

As long as books are still being sold using ink and paper, page count matters, and the 250 method is the only way there is to tell exactly, right to the page, exactly how much paper a published novel will require.

Click to expand...

Are you really saying that the 250-words-per-page method exactly matches the number of printed pages in every conceivable book? Regardless of everything that might be changed in the print book? This doesn't seem possible. And if it were true, wouldn't agents just ask for the number of pages instead of the word count?

James, your information is out of date. Agents these days (at least in the US) want the word processor's word count; they say so on their blogs, and they say so in presentations at conferences. Thus Miss Snark; Nathan Bransford; kt literary; and so forth. An editorial word count isn't needed until the book goes out to publishers.http://blog.nathanbransford.com/200...howComment=1204056180000#c7733371996268426638

... seems like James' way of calculating would work for a writer writing for a specific imprint with specific preset standards. There are a fair number of writers in such situations. So for them calculating word/page count in this manner would be beneficial, allowing them to write just as much as they need as stated.

For writers in general though who don't know which publisher may end up publishing their work I couldn't really see how that would be the case. A regular word count would seem to suffice just fine.

Parametric said:

Are you really saying that the 250-words-per-page method exactly matches the number of printed pages in every conceivable book? Regardless of everything that might be changed in the print book? This doesn't seem possible. And if it were true, wouldn't agents just ask for the number of pages instead of the word count?

Click to expand...

Weirdly, yes you can tell how many pages most books will end up at with that method. There are exceptions, but if we are talking about a novel, it will work.

Agents ask for word count because they sell stories, publishers need page count because they sell books.

Having said that, give the agents the MS Word count because that's what they want. You don't need to concern yourself with how the sausage is made at this point.

I vote for the MS Word count.

I vote for the MS Word count. As mentioned, different publications have different words per page counts, depending on type size, book design, and leading (spaces between lines).

To me the 250 words per page formula, as helpful as it is, is obsolete; it was a guideline for manuscripts produced on a typewriter.

In my experience MS word gets closer to 300 or even 330 words per page.

I would let the publisher do the figuring on how many typeset pages your manuscript would be. A word count is the best "raw data" to give them, IMHO.

I don't think anyone else here mentioned the OP's use of Courier? I know this is a personal preference and that Courier once was the standard, but not anymore.

I think Courier is super outdated. It can even make you look stuck in the past. Most writers seem to use Times New Roman or a similar font. Aggh I can't stand Courier.

(I know that's only my opinion, and using Courier would not be a dealbreaker even for the agents and editors out there who hate it, too.)

Off to try to manage my Courier anger issues now...

Font also varies the number of pages -- another reason to use the actual count via MS Word.

I believe TNR is taking over, except for scripts. Personally, I find TNR much easier to read than Courier. However, either TNR or Courier should keep you out of trouble.

Here's one agent assistant's thoughts on Courier (generally I think most agents prefer TNR - but it isn't a big deal especially if subbing electronically, and you won't lose points for subbing courier): http://agencygatekeeper.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-this-related-to-publishing-hmm.html