As the title goes, I have a question about how long should a book be (I am sure there are loads of posts about this already, but I tried used the search facily with little joy, so I decided to submit my own post).

Do you think a book can be defined as a novel if it's less than 50.000 words long?

Are agents/publishers put off by really short (or, on the other extrime, really long) books?

I read somewhere (a while back) that today's audience is intimidated by really long thick books and would rather get a short(er) book, and I was surprised to read that because I have never really thought about that aspect, not even as a kid. As a matter of fact, I preferred longer books because I knew they'd last me for ages.

I was wondering because I am halfway through writing my story and I am about at 25000 words, which seems incredibly short to me (having said that, I re-read a few chapters and I will need to add quite a few bits and pieces -probably will have to re-write a lot too *sigh* so by the end it will probably not be that bad).

I know a story should only be as long as it needs to be (if you know what I mean) but realistically, should a writer try to cut back or add things to make up a word-count that the agents/publishers deem "acceptable"?

Kind regards,

Steph

It is highly unlikely an agent/publisher would accept an Adult Fiction manuscript as short as 50K from a debut novelist.
If it was Young Adult (ie. Teen) or Childrens fiction it would be ok, and I think there are some Romance series where ~60K is ok.
If it's Adult fiction then you should try to get it up to ~80K if at all possible.

A lot of first novels (first drafts) are short because there are info. dumps in 'tell' format in them, and descriptions of characters which would be better conveyed in 'show' format. So when you come to the editing stage look out for sections which you can expand into scenes or chapters in their own right.


- NaomiM

<Added>

As for upper word counts, Fantasy and Historical fiction, amongst other genres, are often a lot longer.

I was yapping about this with my agent the other day - although in the context of what puts him off books - and he said 'wrong' length was a definite no-no.
HB x

Yes I agree Naomi,

I would imagine anyone's first draft would be quite short compared to the finished work, unless you're one of those people who simply can't go on to the next chapter until they have their current one perfect (sadly I don't fall into this categoryle, I'll write on even if I know it's pure rubbish - the important thing to me is to get it all down first, and worry about making it a bit more acceptable later!)

Helen thanks for that, as a reader I'd be disappointed if I felt the length of a book was totally inadequate, so I should've guessed agents would be extra picky.

Having said that, once I am done with it the end-product shouldn't be too bad. I'm still learning

Cheers,

Steph

I think also he was saying that if a book doesn't fall within the industry standard for that genre he would question how emmersed a writer was in their genre.
And of course, he would find it very hard to sub and in a world where an agent gets hundreds of manuscropits each week why pick one you know is going to be difficult to sell.
HB x

In my experience writers are either cutters or adders: some get the bones down first, and then work out where to put the muscle and skin; others (and I think it's probably the majority) splurge out everything as a way of working out what the book needs, then strip out the fat, tone up the muscle, and tighten the skin.

Fundamentally, though, a book should be as long as it needs to be: if every word is necessary, and there are no words that aren't earning their keep, then people just read to find out what happens. Readers only think 'too long' when they have to wade through stuff which isn't driving the narrative, or 'too short' when characters and events are skimpy and motivations token and therefore unconvincing.

Having said that, there are broad limits : say 80-120,000 for commercial fiction, 70-130,000 for literary? It's quite true that it depends on the genre: historical, sf/f and the bonk-busting end of women's fiction can all be much fatter - up to 200,000 is not unknown. I don't think it's true that people prefer short books these days, or why is it so hard to sell short fiction and novellas? Especially at the commercial end of the market people look for something they feel they'll be able to really immerse in. I've heard editors say it can be a problem launching a debut author with a very slim volume, since it's easier to make a splash with something substantial-looking, but as with all these things, if the book's good enough it'll still sell despite breaking all these 'rules': Sapph's Mothernight is slimmish, and that hasn't done it any harm.

FWIW, no one has ever noticed or commented that TMOL is 141,000, but when one section of ASA really wasn't working, and I'd added more to try to sort it out, my editor did say 'It's very long already,' and was surprised when I said it was shorter than TMOL... In the end I rewrote that section of ASA from scratch. It turned out virtually the same wordcount as the previous version, but there's much more drive to the plot and now the length just isn't an issue.

Emma

<Added>

"and now the length just isn't an issue."

Though that's a provisional statement: reviews are looming...

Thank you all for your replies.

why pick one you know is going to be difficult to sell

That's a very good point Helen, publishers/agents after all are there to make money.

I think also he was saying that if a book doesn't fall within the industry standard for that genre he would question how emmersed a writer was in their genre.

That also makes sense. At the end of the day, why would anyone want to invest on someone else's work if you thought they were out of their depth?

I don't think it's true that people prefer short books these days

Yes I think so too, I thought it was quite an odd thing to say when I read it. It would be disappointing just starting to get into a story and then that's it. THE END.

I never quite realised though how much weight is put on book-length. I mean, I knew it was important, but never really realised it was quite that important.

Thank you all for your comments, this is very helpful.

Cheers,

Steph

BTW best of luck Emma

I read somewhere (a while back) that today's audience is intimidated by really long thick books and would rather get a short(er) book

I suspect it's chapter length, rather than book length, that intimidates a lot of today's readers - ie, those who are more used to reading short emails, newspaper articles and blog posts.


- NaomiM

I would add that the problem with very long books is not so much the reader but instead the publisher. Since many of the pre-production processes (editing etc) are based on word length then long books can quickly become financially un-feasible. In addition, very long books are very expensive to translate. This means agents (and publishes) will find them very difficult to sell aboard and since much of a writer’s income (and therefore agent’s income) can come from foreign rights, this is a major issue.

One of the pieces of writerly knowledge it's worth trying to develop is knowing what the 'natural' length of an idea is likely to be. Not that you can look an idea in the eye and say, 'That'll be 76,500 and not a word more,', but whether a story is a tiny, piercing moment or something longer which has more than one stage and character and point to it. And with novels, is this a great, fat beast full of holes and corners and riches, or a taut, spare tale with a single thrust?

Emma

Susannah Clarke's debut novel Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell was certainy a bit fat blousy affair and my copy fell apart half way through, but it suited her prose style and I can't say I begrudged a single word, and am looking forward to the sequal (assuming she finishes it in my lifetime).


- NaomiM

Groan. This is my mantra these days:

The Lord of the Rings is over 300,000 words in length. So is a Game of Thrones.

Robert Jordan's The Shadow Rising: 393,000

Peter F. Hamilton's The Reality Dysfunction: 320,000.

Susannah Clarke wrote a debut novel of well over 200,000 words.

China Mieville's second novel ditto.

This is an interesting article:

http://theswivet.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-word-counts-and-novel-length.html

And I'll do anything to make myself feel better!

JB

Argh, after reading that article and all the posts I am very confused :P lol

Thanks for all the replies though, they've helped me a lot!

The Lord of the Rings is over 300,000 words in length. So is a Game of Thrones.

The Lord of the Rings was and is too long. And in any case, times have changed.

Susannah Clarke wrote a debut novel of well over 200,000 words.

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell included inumerable four-page footnotes that are decoration rather than story. If you discount those, you'd end up with a novel that is much shorter. It only worked for her because of the intensity of detail and concentration on minutiae. I imagine she would go slightly insane if she wrote a second book to that level of detail.

Not read the others but I would draw the parallel with the "director's cut" (who cut it first time?) in movies. Longer doesn't mean better. Leaving in the little asides doesn't always equate to more enjoyable. I have not heard of a director's cut outselling the original in any format. (Please correct me if I'm wrong...)

With regards to the directors cut, I recenty watched the director's 'final cut' of Blade runner, along with the othe versions, and none of them have been as good as the original with the voice over.


- NaomiM