My word count is giving me nightmares.

Catherine

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
285
Reaction score
35
Location
US
(returned books are never restocked; it's cheaper to pulp them)

I'm guessing this is a form of recycling? This makes me sad--brand new books never read. Please tell me this doesn't happen to children's books.:cry:

Also, the story about the errant decimal point? That's awful. But I guess these types of things happen everyday, and most of us are none the wiser.

Even so, it's good to hear the truth about how things work. Thanks for explaining how publishers look at word counts.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,537
Reaction score
24,109
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I'm guessing this is a form of recycling? This makes me sad--brand new books never read. Please tell me this doesn't happen to children's books.:cry:

What I've been told is that a ~20% return rate is common, and yes, they pulp them. It's built into the estimates. (And alas, I can't imagine it's much different for children's books.)
 

onesecondglance

pretending to be awake
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
5,359
Reaction score
1,661
Location
Berkshire, UK
Website
soundcloud.com
Perhaps I'm being naïve, but I can't understand how word count differences would make or break deals.

As I understand it, there are standard numbers of pages for printing based on cost efficiency. Those imply a reasonably consistent word count (from memory: circa 100k = 500 pages, i.e. a standard "airport thriller"). But if you're "short" of word count, that doesn't imply a change to the print run. You just increase the typeface a touch, pad the margins, bulk out the colophon, possibly stick in the author's biog and bibliography, some critic quotes, etc. Likewise if you're "over", you decrease the typeface, trim margins, and cull all that extra to cram it in. The reason typesetters are employed is to make the manuscript print-ready, and that includes fitting the manuscript to a standard print size so it's cost effective.

Yeah, if you're enormously over or under count to the extent that you'd need a non-standard print run then this might be an issue, but it would be flagged early on and worked on with the acquiring editor. Exceptions (as always) are made for big name authors - I seem to remember reading that the longer Harry Potter books required non-standard print runs, but by that point they would have printed them on gold-pressed latinum if they thought they'd sell. Another example of a non-standard print would be S by Doug Dorst and (the celebrity connection) JJ Abrams, not because of the book's length but because of the inserts. Ink costs would only come into play if the run required full colour or high density blacks - i.e. just printing more words on a page would have a negligibly small impact. I think they can even just run the printers at a slightly lower quality to compensate for the ink usage!

(Info based on conversations with my brother, who programs presses at a company that prints for most of the larger UK publishers.)


Edited to add: so yeah, I'm agreeing with the point that non-standard sized books come at different, quite possibly non-profitable price points, but what I'm saying is there are tons of ways that publishers make books fit those price points. Only if there's some kind of egregious error (as described) or if the work is irrevocably out of price point does it make sense to reject a marketable property.
 
Last edited:

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
I think that's partially the beauty of online publishing, though. As much as some characters are 'unnecessary', you can afford to fall in love with them and it won't really make any effect on margins as far as page count/profit are concerned.

I don't think writers can ever afford to leave in characters who don't improve the book. No matter how they are published.

It makes sense that a proven best-seller would have more leeway on word counts (Rowling, anyone?). But are you telling me what I've been told (by multiple sources, also in publishing for many decades) about debut authors being desirable is incorrect?

Debut authors are golden for most publishers. That debut status provides so many brilliant opportunities for marketing and promotion: it's like gold dust.

returned books are never restocked; it's cheaper to pulp them

That's not true for most publishers. I've dealt with restocking, I've dealt with rebinding bruised or damaged books, I've dealt with checking for damage. Returned books are restocked wherever possible, and it's possible a lot of the time. The only exception is when you're talking about POD books, which don't stand up to shelf wear nearly as well as offset books.

At HM&B I think it's true, but they have a pretty unique business model.

Many novels received positively by acquiring editors an fall if they can';t create the relevant costing points. The writer never gets to know this. My best mate worked in estimating and I was predominantly in development and marketing and neither of us ever saw a writer. Each writer had a BSI (bullshit interface; that's what we called them) who dealt with them, kept them sweet, talked about creativity.

Caffrey, I've worked in publishing in both the UK and the US, and have only ever encountered one person (a production manager who was not very skilled, and who was swiftly let go) who treated writers and editors with the level of contempt you describe here. Calling editors "bullshit interfaces" is offensive and dismissive; suggesting that writers need such BSIs is also offensive.

We have one rule at AW: respect your fellow writer. I'm going to extend that requirement for respect to all publishing professionals. You might have got away with this level of "humour" where you worked, but it's not going to swing here.

The reality is that print publishing (which I love because it's paid me a good wage for nearly 40 years) has very tight limits to ensure profitability, and while there will always be exceptions to the rule, so many rejections happen because word counts are off. They won't pass that on to writer; it all happens back of house.

I've never rejected a book because its word-count was off, and I've never known any of my colleagues do so either.

When books have been way out and I've not been able to make the P&L work with the extent unchanged I've discussed the issue with the agent or author, and have usually reached a compromise.

Book packagers, and very specific genre publishers (we're back to HM&B again, for example) do have very strict requirements for word count. But on the whole it's relatively flexible because what's most important, for most publishers, is the quality of the books they publish.

If this were not so, Grief is the Thing With Feathers would not have been published, and would not have done as well as it did.

Edited to add: so yeah, I'm agreeing with the point that non-standard sized books come at different, quite possibly non-profitable price points, but what I'm saying is there are tons of ways that publishers make books fit those price points. Only if there's some kind of egregious error (as described) or if the work is irrevocably out of price point does it make sense to reject a marketable property.

Yep.
 

Caffrey

Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
22
Reaction score
8
Location
England
That's not true for most publishers. I've dealt with restocking, I've dealt with rebinding bruised or damaged books, I've dealt with checking for damage. Returned books are restocked wherever possible, and it's possible a lot of the time. The only exception is when you're talking about POD books, which don't stand up to shelf wear nearly as well as offset books.

Your experience is different to mine. I spent time with the UK's leading publisher (now the worlds due to merger) and the only interaction anyone had with returns was a bloke who used to stamp 'Pulp copy, not for resale' inside the front cover of every single one! They could afford him but not someone to restock them in the warehouse. It was company policy that staff could not take them but they knew we all did, hence the stamp. Maybe a publisher with specialist high value hard back books might rebind, but rebinding a perfect bound book isn't cost-effective.

Caffrey, I've worked in publishing in both the UK and the US, and have only ever encountered one person (a production manager who was not very skilled, and who was swiftly let go) who treated writers and editors with the level of contempt you describe here. Calling editors "bullshit interfaces" is offensive and dismissive; suggesting that writers need such BSIs is also offensive.

We have one rule at AW: respect your fellow writer. I'm going to extend that requirement for respect to all publishing professionals. You might have got away with this level of "humour" where you worked, but it's not going to swing here.

I am merely talking about how the process used to work in my experience. I neither condone it nor consider it humour, and I've not said as much so your comment is a little unnecessary. However, what I do find very useful is having seen the way the machine works - both good and bad - has been incredibly valuable when setting my expectations for what I can expect when dealing with publishers as a writer. It has helped me no end and I thought it might help others, but I shall not refer to anything similar again. I thought it might help some who'd like to better understand some issues.

I've never rejected a book because its word-count was off, and I've never known any of my colleagues do so either. When books have been way out and I've not been able to make the P&L work with the extent unchanged I've discussed the issue with the agent or author, and have usually reached a compromise.

Book packagers, and very specific genre publishers (we're back to HM&B again, for example) do have very strict requirements for word count. But on the whole it's relatively flexible because what's most important, for most publishers, is the quality of the books they publish. If this were not so, Grief is the Thing With Feathers would not have been published, and would not have done as well as it did.

Totally, and the important thing is that if a publisher sets a preferred word count and you overshoot (or undershoot), so long as they're interested you will be asked to revise. I never suggested that wouldn't happen. However, while most writers will revise there are many who will resist (as per the example I gave) and cite numerous books that are over length as examples and justification as to why they will not revise. That's a risky approach. That's the point I was trying to make. There are always exceptions in everything in life, but in general one thing I stand by is that if a publisher specifies a word count it's for a wide range of reasons, not usually what readers of that genre 'prefer', and fighting against suggested cuts needs to be done with an understanding of what's at stake.

I was trying to point out that issue with word count aren't always as simple as adding a few pages or using smaller type, but as I seem to have upset you I'll say no more on the matter or of others associated with publishing.

Apologies.
 

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman
Super Moderator
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
22,454
Reaction score
4,956
Location
In chaos
Your experience is different to mine.

I'm glad of that. I would hate to have worked with people who were as disrespectful, rude and obnoxious as those you describe.

I spent time with the UK's leading publisher (now the worlds due to merger) and the only interaction anyone had with returns was a bloke who used to stamp 'Pulp copy, not for resale' inside the front cover of every single one! They could afford him but not someone to restock them in the warehouse. It was company policy that staff could not take them but they knew we all did, hence the stamp. Maybe a publisher with specialist high value hard back books might rebind, but rebinding a perfect bound book isn't cost-effective.

Years ago I visited one of Penguin Random House's sales and distribution centres and I saw returns being processed there: they weren't stamped as you describe; they were sorted through, and the clean copies were returned to the stock on the shelves. And if you read this PDF issued by PRH you'll find this (my bold):

It was already underpressure. Random House’scustomers were returningmore excess titles than in thepast. All those returns had tobe processed and returnedto inventory, which furtherslowed down processes.

(Sorry: the clickable link isn't working: here's the PDF: http://www.mmh.com/images/site/MMH1110_SysRpt_RandomHouse.pdf)

This is true of all the publishers I've worked for, and worked with. I've walked around those warehouses and watched the books get put back on the shelves.

Damaged copies aren't stamped as you describe: they're stripped of their jackets (the front and back covers are physically torn off) so that it's clear they're not to be restocked, and then they're binned ready for shredding. If they were stamped inside the front cover, as you describe, there would be too much room for the copies to get back into the supply chain because that stamp wouldn't be easily seen. Why wouldn't they stamp on the outside of the book?

I am merely talking about how the process used to work in my experience. I neither condone it nor consider it humour, and I've not said as much so your comment is a little unnecessary.

The next time a moderator asks you to remember AW's one rule, Caffrey, I strongly suggest you pay attention and do not describe that advice as "a little unnecessary".

I was trying to point out that issue with word count aren't always as simple as adding a few pages or using smaller type, but as I seem to have upset you I'll say no more on the matter or of others associated with publishing.

Apologies.

I'm not upset. Not at all. But I guess you find it easier to say that than take responsibility for the things you said.

By all means talk about publishing if you want to: but do not be rude, dismissive, or disrespectful when you do so. And don't try to deflect blame either: it won't work here.

Let's move on.
 

Dave.C.Robinson

... with the High Command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
2,130
Reaction score
186
Location
At the computer
Website
www.daverobinsonwrites.com
Word count can be an issue especially with POD. My Doc Vandal books average about 55,000 words and I can comfortably price the paperbacks at $9.99. Amadar, on the other hand is 101,000 words and I had to price it at $13.99 for the paperback in the same trim size.

At the same time, the word count doesn't matter in the slightest for the ebook releases. Write it to the length it sings at.
 

Erato

Registered
Joined
Apr 4, 2018
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
Usually agents and publishers have a minimum word count, but only occasionally do I see a max (usually about 100,000 if there is an upper limit.) If the publisher thinks it's too long it's easy enough for them to do the cutting; but if the book is too short that's more difficult to correct.

I usually have the opposite trouble; I have a preference for writing novellas which a lot of publishers won't even look at (minimum word count is usually between 60,000 and 80,000). That's why my book Cut of the Clothes was self-published even though I daresay it's the best thing I've yet written -- it was too short for publishers to consider!
 

CatherineDunn

Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
46
Reaction score
13
Location
Leicestershire, UK
As a self-publishing author you can write a million words of absolute crap and publish it and no-one can stop you if that's what you want to do.

But you don't want to do that!

Sounds like this particular work could do with going through another few rounds of self-editing to get it knocked into shape a little - with the help of a few beta readers, too. Go for it!

A developmental edit is a good idea. It will probably be expensive (relative to most regular people's budgets) but it's worth it. I'm not just saying that because I'm an editor - I don't do developmental editing! It kind of pains me to say it because it leaves less of a budget for copy-editing (my bread and butter), so if I was pressed I'd always tell people to get the copy-edit if they can only get one (beta readers and other external critics are pretty good at spotting major overall flaws like plot holes and characters that just don't work and irritating tics and ... you get the picture, even if they can't always tell you how to fix them), but definitely do both if you can afford it!

Editing will help trim your word count but I echo what others have said - if it needs to be long, it needs to be long. What matters is whether it's any good or not. A good book can never be too long, IMO. Maybe you could split it in half if the structure allows.
 

Woollybear

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
9,705
Location
USA
My background is in science which is dry as hell (my personal hurdle to overcome) but also every word counts, so editing for length becomes second nature. I am trying to write SFF and romance is outside my wheelhouse entirely. this is $0.02.

I'm going to edit your post, for fun. and see what we can do. My actual answer to your question is at the bottom.

I'm in need of guidance. I'm editing a first draft which I intend to self-publish on Amazon.

Here is my challenge. I'm an over-writer. My first draft is 150k words. WOW. I'm going line by line, and cutting every superfluous word. Even so my word count is now only down to 120,000.

Word counts are important because, a larger book is more costly to produce. But I'm not looking to get my book in print. In the world of digital, self-publishing, is there more wiggle room? Or am I way over the limit of what most readers would tolerate in terms of length? Should I just bite the bullet and get out the chainsaw? Any advice or thoughts from other writers, especially those who have self-published, would be much appreciated!

That edit took your post from 350 to 130 words - - - with final paragraph largely intact. I don't know if anything I cut was something you felt was necessary, but I'd agree you are very good at getting your thoughts on paper. All of them. :)

In other words, You can probably gut another 10 - 20 K of your book by going through again. You probably have more than you need, on the page.

My actual answer: Break your book into scenes. Pick the model you like. I've been using the scene-sequel model. In this model, everything is either a scene (goal-conflict-disaster) or a sequel (reaction-dilemma-decision.) I color my scenes blue and my sequels green. I look at each and ask if it follows the formula.

The down side is this does not feel organic. The upside is who cares? I've found a few scenes through this exercise that serve zero purpose. None. Nada. They're gone now. Everyone's happier. The book is shorter.

You can use a different model - anything that describes what a scene should accomplish - and then dissect your story. That's my answer. Gut the sucker. At least we have word processors and can always go back to the older drafts.