My word count is giving me nightmares.

What genre are you writing?

In self-publishing, word count is not quite as important as it is to agents and publishers. Obviously, you want every word to count, but if it needs 120,000 to 150,000 words, it needs that many words.

It can also be good for you in one way. If you enroll in KDP Select, you'll get a higher page count for Kindle Unlimited. At 120,000 words, you'll get credit for roughly 600 pages for a full read, which can get you anything from $2.50 to $3.00 depending on the payment rate for a given months

Did you put it in a drawer for a few weeks or even months first? That can allow you to see with a clearer eye what needs fixing.

I have not yet finished my tale, but the word count is going to be way, way too long once I -- here's hoping -- finish it.

So far I have no experience in editing larger projects, but it does strike me you might be better served by tackling and fixing the big issues first. Issues like inconsistencies and dangling plot threads which never amount to anything. If there are any sections that have to be rewritten, then those smaller corrections may bite the dust in later revisions anyway.

+1 for putting it away for a couple of months while you work on something else. Coming back to it with fresh eyes will let you see if there are things like extraneous subplots that could be excised or side characters who could be combined, before having another go with the scalpel.

If it's genuinely a science fiction romance, rather than a romance with some token science fiction elements, I don't think you have much to worry about. Science fiction romance has some of the expectations of the romance genre, but it's also in the science fiction genre. 120K is not that long for science fiction and fantasy. You might find it gets smaller after you come back for edits, but you also might be in a situation where your time travel plot is twisty and takes more words. If you had a 400K brick, it'd be trickier, but 120K is not that unusual.

Isn't the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon a Time Travel Romance?

Those books are much longer than 150k.

Bust out that chain saw! Not because it's unpublishable as is, but because every story can benefit from a little healthy chain-saw surgery. Cut the fat! Be sadistic. You're gonna cut whole characters who you love, or reduce them to walk-ons. You have to ask yourself not, "Is this part of the book great?" You have to ask, "Is it necessary."

You can always recycle the cut parts for the sequel. If you have a plot for the sequel that's going to end up at 120k-150k, plus the parts cut from this one, you might end up with enough for two sequels.

Just keep a copy of the current light edit, and cut fearlessly. If you're not happy with the result, you can always go back.

My book is a romantic time-travel story as well. Yay for time travel!

I write novellas, so I can't comment on super-long books (mine is 38k words). I can say that I didn't give word count any consideration. I think stories should be as long as they need to be and I don't worry about what the genre expectations are. That's one of the joys of self-publishing for me.

The question is does your story really need to be THAT long? Only you know the answer to that. My guess is no, but I love shorter stories and have a very weak attention span, so I will almost always think a story could be shorter. There are also readers who prefer very long books, so I think long as the story flows and doesn't get slow, you're probably fine either way.

Polenth already covered my word count comment, so I'll just +1 it. But I do have some other advice to add.

This is your first book, and you wrote it for one ideal reader--you. Don't release it without getting some quality feedback first--a lot of it. My first novel, which originally clocked in at 200k, I managed to cut myself to 150. Not bad, right?

But not bad isn't good enough. My first novel, Hans and Greta, has had seven picky beta readers since, mostly friends I made while critting in SYW (major hint there). Swapping novels and learning how to edit on theirs taught me so much about what wouldn't work with my books, too.

Talented beta readers helped me cut my 150k draft down to 115. And the words are better. It's a more professional product now, and that really matters. You know the old adage about how you only get one chance to make a first impression? If I release substandard work, I could very well be losing potential later readers because they already tried my early stuff, and they don't have any desire for second helpings.

Just my thoughts. Hope something here helps.

Congrats on finishing a novel, even if it is ++word count

Since you are self publishing, my only question would be....have you hired an editor? There are different types of edits you can have done and your work may benefit from a thorough edit and it might help you to cut and fix any issues.

I don't think word count matters if the story is good and readers are hooked. I'm also thinking of going the self publishing route, if I do I will spend the money to have a professional do an edit on it.

Best of luck!

Steph Dubs said:

If I don't miss the scenes and characters that I've taken out, and if I don't think it effects the overall story, then that'll be that. I think my biggest challenge as a new-ish writer is getting over how deeply I fall in love with my characters and their stories.

Click to expand...

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.

That being said...if you do read back over and realise that in fact some characters and ideas are actually completely unnecessary, both to plot and to your less rose-tinted self, cull them and cull them good.

ConnorTheAuthor said:

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.

Click to expand...

Can I just say that as a reader, sometimes of self-published works, I'd really rather you do take the time to remove the unnecessary stuff? I mean, if you're planning to seriously court readers. If the self-pub is just for your own satisfaction, that's different.

lizmonster said:

Can I just say that as a reader, sometimes of self-published works, I'd really rather you do take the time to remove the unnecessary stuff?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I agree completely - I know of far too many authors who were allowed to go mad with content because of their sales volume, much to the detriment of their work. However, I am aware that with less published writers the editing is not always just of the good of the story as it is the profitability of less pages to print, so with e-publishing your own work a few creative liberties can be taken - provided you've good beta readers who agree of course .

ConnorTheAuthor said:

Oh yeah, I agree completely - I know of far too many authors who were allowed to go mad with content because of their sales volume, much to the detriment of their work. However, I am aware that with less published writers the editing is not always just of the good of the story as it is the profitability of less pages to print, so with e-publishing your own work a few creative liberties can be taken - provided you've good beta readers who agree of course .

Click to expand...

Not to derail, but do you have concrete examples of writers who had to pull content because of the costs of a print run? That wasn't my experience at all (but I've only worked with one publisher, so I can't generalize).

lizmonster said:

Not to derail, but do you have concrete examples of writers who had to pull content because of the costs of a print run?

Click to expand...

I'm quite embarrassed to say I can find none, and now I've no idea where I ever did read that. My point stands in that it does cost more to print a 400 page book than a 300 page book and they tend to sell at similar prices, but I can't find anything pointing to my thesis being correct - and I was sure I'd read it somewhere...

ConnorTheAuthor said:

I'm quite embarrassed to say I can find none, and now I've no idea where I ever did read that. My point stands in that it does cost more to print a 400 page book than a 300 page book and they tend to sell at similar prices, but I can't find anything pointing to my thesis being correct - and I was sure I'd read it somewhere...

Click to expand...

I can't of course say that it's never happened, and I have no doubt the story you read wasn't lying about that person's specific experince. But I asked, because it sounds a bit like one of those pervasive anti-trade-pub rumors that get circulated sometimes. I've certainly heard some unfortunate first-hand stories about trade pub, but I've never heard of someone being asked to remove content for cost reasons. If the book isn't as good as it can be regardless of length, nobody wins.

lizmonster said:

Not to derail, but do you have concrete examples of writers who had to pull content because of the costs of a print run? That wasn't my experience at all (but I've only worked with one publisher, so I can't generalize).

Click to expand...

If you self-publish POD print versions, there is a significant difference in profitability for say 75K words vs. 90K words. The way KDP Print structures their royalties, it's punitive for authors who sell close to market price fiction. I don't know about Createspace but I understand it's similar. I make less margin on a $9.99 paperback than I do on a $3.99 ebook, and for my genre and following ten bucks a pop is about as much as I can realistically sell a print book for. At a word count of 150K, I probably wouldn't bother to offer it in print.

KDP Print claims 60% royalty to the author, BUT they take printing costs out of the author's cut, driving the minimum price to eight something, and that's where the author gets nothing.

lizmonster said:

I can't of course say that it's never happened, and I have no doubt the story you read wasn't lying about that person's specific experince. But I asked, because it sounds a bit like one of those pervasive anti-trade-pub rumors that get circulated sometimes. I've certainly heard some unfortunate first-hand stories about trade pub, but I've never heard of someone being asked to remove content for cost reasons. If the book isn't as good as it can be regardless of length, nobody wins.

Click to expand...

It's all about formulas for costs versus projected profitability. I remember a new author who the acquiring editors were very keen on and his MSS ran to 150k words. A condition of the contract was that the novel be reduced to 75k as that ensured the costs fitted the 'formula' the bean counters had projected to. The risk of two books didn't fit so the request was the whole story in 75k words.

Knowing they were keen he refused and the next thing he received was a 'thanks but no thanks' letter.

The bottom line is that new and unproven authors are a risk and any increase in costs makes the risk more significant. In business the risk become disproportionate and it's better to move on to another less risky proposition.

ETA: Caffrey, I see you're in the UK. My apologies if things work differently there; my knowledge is mostly based on the US publishing industry.

Caffrey said:

It's all about formulas for costs versus projected profitability.

Click to expand...

It is. But there's a lot of slush in there. Good publishers know how to make money without destroying the product they're selling.

Caffrey said:

I remember a new author who the acquiring editors were very keen on and his MSS ran to 150k words. A condition of the contract was that the novel be reduced to 75k as that ensured the costs fitted the 'formula' the bean counters had projected to. The risk of two books didn't fit so the request was the whole story in 75k words.

Click to expand...

I'd have to see the actual contract before I was willing to believe the reasoning attributed to the publisher. Assuming most books the novel's genre were closer to 75,000 words, I can think of a lot of reasons besides print cost why a publisher would want a 150,000-word MS revised down.

Caffrey said:

The bottom line is that new and unproven authors are a risk and any increase in costs makes the risk more significant. In business the risk become disproportionate and it's better to move on to another less risky proposition.

Click to expand...

It's not nearly this cut-and-dried. Publishers actually love debut authors; they're a unique marketing opportunity. And the cost of a print run is only one expense, and I'd be willing to bet it's nothing near the largest.

Even if I'm to take your example at his word, I'll give you a counterexample: all three of my books gained 10-20K words during revisions with my editor (and all three were at the high end for the genre to begin with). I'll certainly believe isolated situations where print run cost was the only reason a writer was asked to cut, but I'm still unconvinced it's a major consideration for the industry in aggregate.

And I'm sorry, all, for derailing the thread. All I really wanted to do was support the idea that a story needs to be as long as it needs to be.

Lizmonster, I hope this reply isn't derailing the thread but as it's about word count I don't see that it is. Apologies if I'm wrong.

I maybe should have been a little clearer, but this all happens out of earshot of any writer. My experience is UK-based but with a multi-national and I have no reason to believe it differs based on geography. Publishers have specific sweet spots for genre-biased word counts for a reason. It's not due to reader preferences. It comes down to accepted price points. There is some 'leash' (that's the backroom term for how much flexibility any given writer gets, based on how far you need to let them off the leash) for the cash cows, series writers, etc.. Newer writers get considerably less than an incumbent with a back catalogue.

Before contract, a sales projection would be created and that would deliver a revenue projection: the potential income from that book over a period of time (newer writers got 12 months). The projection would be accompanied by a point level (a percentage of profit that had to be hit). Unless a writer was considered solid gold the decision as to whether to take the risk or not often centred on whether that point could be hit.

Costs that had to be accounted for included marketing, production and editorial services. Word count was a consideration for the latter two parts. Production had to cost in paper, ink, binding, transportation, storage, pulping (returned books are never restocked; it's cheaper to pulp them) and even how many books will fit in a display stand! Editorial services is a labour cost.

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. Most writers tuck to preferred word counts so it wasn't an issue, but an overly lengthy novel meant more print costs, more handling costs, more storage costs, more pulping costs and less display opportunities per unit. If that took it over the point level, it was rejected. Nothing to do with quality; we as publishers made products that had to fit a price structure.

I know of two writers who lost deals because of simple errors. In once case a misplaced decimal point meant that handling costs were estimated at around $1,000,000. You'd think that anyone with any sense would see that figure and spot it's a mistake, but it went to an accountant he just slashed it. In another my friend specified a print job as '96 up work and tumble' which made it hideously expensive. If you know any old blokes whom used to do print, mention that to them and they'll laugh. It's like specifying a server farm that has such high capacity it doesn't exist to hold a text file. Two dreams dashed and they didn't know why. They just got a rejection.

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.

Appreciate the inside view, Caffrey.

Here's my inside view, from the other side.

Caffrey said:

Newer writers get considerably less than an incumbent with a back catalogue.

Click to expand...

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?

Caffrey said:

Each writer had a BSI (bullshit interface; that's what we called them) who dealt with them, kept them sweet, talked about creativity.

Click to expand...

Wow.

My "BSI" was the acquiring editor.

I'm well aware that publishing is a business. And I'm well aware that a lot of the people who make relevant decisions have never read the work involved. Fundamentally, the writer isn't all that important to any of it. But it's...disheartening to hear that all of those people have such contempt for writers, especially since I've met many of them, and they seemed like such decent folk. Most of them I rather liked; I suppose you'll tell me they're all good liars. ("BSI"? "kept them sweet"? Seriously?? I'm likely the most cynical-about-publishing writer out there, and this is actually offensive to read.)

Back to the original point: genre-expected word count is, I think, a different issue than the "right" word count for a particular book. And yes, it's my opinion that you should never eviscerate your narrative to fit into an expected word count, no matter what your publishing situation.

The truth, of course, is most books that are longer than expected are longer than expected because there's too much story there, or the prose is too wordy, or a thousand other reasons. But that's where the writer's craft comes into it: you have to learn how to judge your own work critically, and know yourself whether the MS needs cutting, or you've just got a long book.

lizmonster said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, not at all. Debut authors are a risk but could be the next cash cow. What I'm saying is that if the profitability ratio works at 75k words for a given genre, a publisher will be more lenient to a Rowling hitting 150k than an unknown doing so. Publishers prefer debutants to adhere to prescribed word counts because they have been set on grounds of profitability. If a publisher decrees that 75k is preferred word count for your genre and you come in way above that, it skews the risk factor. If your book is brilliant or you're a Rowling, it matters less. If you're Harry Ballbag, it matters more. This is about word count, not the desirability of signing fresh meat.

lizmonster said:

My "BSI" was the acquiring editor.

Click to expand...

Acquiring editors are the front line for acquisitions and are very good BSIs. In many publishers they push forwards the MSSs of note, but if those aren't going to be profitable the final decision can be taken out of their hands.

lizmonster said:

I'm well aware that publishing is a business. And I'm well aware that a lot of the people who make relevant decisions have never read the work involved. Fundamentally, the writer isn't all that important to any of it. But it's...disheartening to hear that all of those people have such contempt for writers...

Click to expand...

Contempt is a strong word and one you've chosen to use. I am a writer, and many of the people I worked with in publishing are writers too. However, just as a writer who waits tables doesn't want to deal with a wannabe food critic, so people who work in the non-writer facing part of publishing don't want to deal with most writers. It has nothing to do with contempt; I don't go their place of work and berate them and I don't get paid enough to let them come to mine and berate me.

To the point of the thread, publishers set word count rules for a reason, and writers who don't adhere to them are making the decision whether to acquire them or not a lot harder for the publisher. There will be exceptions, but the point is stick to what they prescribe and you won't have an issue. Go beyond that and you might gut struck off by someone who hasn't even read the book, no matter how much the BSI pushes it.

Caffrey said:

Contempt is a strong word and one you've chosen to use.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could explain to me how "BSI" and "keep them sweet" are not contemptuous. This may be a cultural difference, although we're always told here in the US that we're the rude ones.

Caffrey said:

It has nothing to do with contempt; I don't go their place of work and berate them and I don't get paid enough to let them come to mine and berate me.

Click to expand...

Where did "berate" come from? (And how is that not also contemptuous?)

Also, in your restaurant scenario writers aren't food critics. The better analogy is farmers.

All of this is off-topic, but I'm entirely horrified by the attitude you're describing. Thanks for the wake-up call, I guess.