none of them have been as good as the original with the voice over.

Which poses the question, is the creator of a work always the best judge of it?

Emma

A caption I saw on a cartoon in a bookshop once. A typical scene, a copy editor and a young author:

Well, which is it, Mr Dickens? It was either the best of times or the worst of times. It can hardly have been both.

is the creator of a work always the best judge of it?

I don't see how it is possible that they could be. It doesn't happen that way in any other field. Top athletes have coaches, top politicians have advisors, top managers have advisors, top coders have reference books. The best software companies engage in extensive bench-marking...

Why should writers be any different?

Which poses the question, is the creator of a work always the best judge of it?

I think sometimes those who create things try too hard to make the audience see it through their eyes - it's not necessarily better from that perspective, since the viewer cannot hope to tap into the creator's own personal experiences that colour his/her view of the world and their creation.



- NaomiM

Top athletes have coaches, top politicians have advisors, top managers have advisors, top coders have reference books.

Yes, but the athlete may be a better or certainly a different performer than the coach, and why is the manager a manager and the advisor isn't? Not to say one's necessarily better than the other, but that they're different roles. An editor doesn't write your book for you - at least, not officially.

Of course, it depends really what you mean by 'judge', doesn't it? Who's a 'better' judge than who else, you could ask: the super-experienced critic, perhaps jaded and over-picky, or the person who's never read a book like that before, and might be astounded, or might miss the cues and not 'get' it at all.

Emma

The Lord of the Rings was and is too long.

That is merely a matter of personal opinion. And without the footnotes, I'd hazard that Jonathan Strange would still weigh in at over 200,000 words.

My point is, within genre, the acceptable length of word count does indeed change. In Fantasy, it was, is, and probably always will be rather high as many Fantasy novels work along the lines of Epic, and Epic, as we all know, means BIG. Fans of the genre want Epic. Most would probably argue that LOTR was not long enough.

In the end, I don't think there is any hard and fast rule when one considers writing a great book. A great book of 300,000 words will fly by in a way that a shit 50,000 page novella never could.

Write what you want and worry about the length later.

JB

A great book of 300,000 words will fly by in a way that a shit 50,000 page novella never could.

And equally, there can be some fantastic short ones... "They shoot horses don't they" springs to mind.

Try reading "Moby Dick" and spotting the story that they made the film from... it's hidden in all the ridiculous detail. IMHO, the same is true of LOTR which (judging by some freaks I heard of who wrote '0'-level essays in Elvish) has more detail than is required to get the point.

I find it hard to conceive of a _story_ that can genuinely fill 300,000 words.

why is the manager a manager and the advisor isn't?

Yes, it takes different talents. I have yet to meet a good manager who is also a good specialist.

The job of a coach or advisor is not to be better or more knowledgeable, but to give the unbiased opinion that is simply unavailable to the specialist because their POV is incompatible with a POV that would _allow_ them to see.

As an example, when I ride a horse, I know more about what my horse is doing than the instructor / coach who is watching me. What I can't see is what I am doing, how balanced I am etc. and last night, my wife had problems with her horse going side-ways because she was (unknowingly) twisted in the saddle. There was no way to see that without being told and no way for me to know what position my legs are in without being told. I can now feel when it is right more often, but I can only get to know that by a third-party telling me.

For writing, the vision is mine, and I know more about what I am trying to achieve than any of my readers / advisors. But although I am getting better at recognising good writing, the only way I can tell if it is coming across is to get a third-party to describe what they got out of it.

G

Try reading "Moby Dick" and spotting the story that they made the film from... it's hidden in all the ridiculous detail.

My copy of 'Moby Dick' lies open at the half way point, face down on my sofa, and has done for the last few months.

I loved the beginning, in the seaport, sharing a room with Queequeg and all that, proper story.

But then it gets so bogged down in detail about the whaling industry, the 'play within a play' (deeply irritating), and umpteen descriptions of how Ahab hates that whale, that I gave up on it. Also, the way the characters were introduced, one after the other with an info-dump about them. Couldn't remember who was who.

I keep meaning to pick it up and finish it, but life's too short.

I can read a book of any length, so long as the story keeps me engaged.

I can read a book of any length, so long as the story keeps me engaged.

I think that about sums it up for me too. I'm not a Tolkien apologist, nor a student of Elvish - to my taste, a lot of his descriptions do seem a tad long-winded, but that is only a reflection of how deeply Tolkien was immersed in his world and well, how much he loved it I guess. That love shows on the page and in my opinion, it's what makes a classic a classic. It has nothing to do with length. Maybe scope plays a big part.

I suppose what I recoil from is this idea of word count being so important that it rules a story, when story should always come first. Watching word count is important - these days, commercial concerns dictate that they must be - but as someone who has recently written a 225,000 novel and does not hear his agent reaching for the axe as a result, I can only suggest that each specific case is different, and only the coldest of publishers - especially in genre - would forgo the chance to publish a whopping great epic were it fantastic than a safe, by-the-numbers yarn at 80,000 words. Otherwise, these big fat books would not still come out and contrary to the article I posted, most Fantasy novels stand well over 100,000 words, when considered in terms of series or trilogies. They still sell like hot cakes.

JB






<Added>

If you want boring and uneccessary word count, you should always start with Harry Potter. The Order of the Phoenix - a children's book at 257,045 words! - a good third of which, in my opinion, was utterly indulgent, tedious and gratingly pointless - so I do see other members' points about novel length! Again, personal taste.

Interesting isn't it? Seems so subjective.

It is not unlike the Emperor of Austria, who upon first hearing The Marriage of Figaro, allegedly said to Motzart ' It has too many notes.'

In speaking to a consultancy recently, I was told after 30 seconds of conversation, when I said my novel had 140,000 words, that it was too long for a first novel and that it needed to be only about 100,000 words to have a chance of being published. That was without them seeing it, reading it or asking about the plot etc.

It was a reputable agency as well.

Funny ol' business.

Oh, I do wish agencies and editors wouldn't be so theoretical. I'm sure it's true that 80% of books on the shelves are in the 'usual' range, but that doesn't mean they all are, so why are they so doctrinaire? As I said above, my first novel was 141,000, and a lot of industry people had seen it one way and another before it was taken on, and no one even commented, let alone said it couldn't be.

Emma

when I said my novel had 140,000 words, that it was too long for a first novel and that it needed to be only about 100,000 words to have a chance of being published.

Yes, that is a daft thing to say when they haven't even read it. You should have said 'well tell me which 40K words should I cut'.


- NaomiM