Worldcon rumblings about book length
Sep. 10th, 2004 12:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraBack to word-count or novel length again.
One of the interesting -- and heated -- things I heard frequently on and off the convention floor was in reference to a major genre publisher's decision to go for shorter books. Yes, I know I've beat this drum before, but there was an urgency to much of the discussion that causes me to bring it up again. This wasn't theoretical; this was writers being told to cut their books in half, or to cut them down from the length they were submitted at. Not because the story is padded; not because the length is wrong for the story itself -- but for other reasons.
Part of the reason this has become such a heated topic is this: published authors, people with longer books already in print, are now being asked to write them much shorter.
This carries some negatives. If an author is perceived to be somehow slumming -- and in the case of BFF writers, this is an almost gut instinct when the next novel is significantly shorter -- people will often get tired of the work they're doing. Which isn't fair, no. But perception is part of the publishing business, and it's a perception they'll be saddled with.
Shorter in this case means two things. The first and most obvious is the acquisition of shorter books -- in this case, the number floating around was a maximum of 120,000 words, or, in manuscript pages, about 480. For the record, my shortest submission was 510 pages, in the early Del Rey years (which, at 250 words a page was just over 125K. This would also include that category in which you receive something and ask the author to cut it down to that length.
The second: cut the book into two (or possibly more) parts. The reasoning given for this goes as follows: The author can still write a complicated and complex world with multiple viewpoints -- it just takes place over more books, the idea being that the author will have a mid-point someplace in that volume that they can use as an endpoint. In this fashion, it's reasoned, the publisher will still make money and the author will make money and the readers will have a long story -- just in more books.
Ummm, okay.
The real reason for this is bottom line. While the chains are being blamed -- they want price to remain at a certain level for mid-list books -- it's really beancounters saying, in effect, we need to raise our profit margins on these books. But in talking with one editor, one very interesting point was raised: It's not even so much that the books themselves are prohibitively costly up front, when the initial print run is done -- it's that they're very hard to keep in print because the print runs for midlist books, or perhaps I should say the re-print runs, are much smaller. The economics of scale apply here: It's cheaper to print a 900 page book when you're printing 20,000 of them than it is to print that same book, per unit, at 4,000, which is what small reprint runs often are.
Which means that while the publisher could in theory afford the first printing, it would be hard for them to support the subsequent books in a series, because it's much harder to justify the cost of the reprint on a per unit basis. Which just... sucks rocks. This is often why the first printing of a novel will be 6.99, and all subsequent printings, 7.99. (These are US dollars). I would personally rather see the books be reprinted at 8.99 (which is a bestseller price, rather than a genre price) than see the various books in a series go out of print, and I'm curious to know how people feel about this in general. It's part of the reason that trade paperbacks have become so much more prominent -- it's easier to justify the cost of the printing on small runs.
But in the case of many of these authors, that isn't an option that's being offered.
I won't do the death of fill-in-the-blank here. More books printed, fewer of each title sold yada yada yada. If the cost is low enough, it still makes more sense for the publisher to print more titles -- because cutting your line by one book can merely mean cutting your inflowing cash, as there's no guarantee the buyers will then buy more of your titles for the lack of your book.
On paper, this all looks good. And -- have I mentioned this lately? -- there are a lot of people who are very vocal and who want shorter books. But there's a reason that Martin or Jordan or Goodkind sell; a reason that Carey or Haydon sell. And sell in greater numbers than most of the shorter books -- less vocal readers buy them.
I will be the first to say that there are some books that simply don't lend themselves to 300K words. They are often books I enjoy greatly, so I'm not complaining -- I'm just pointing it out. But there are some books that do. And epic fantasy is a form that doesn't in any way lend itself to 120K words. Why? Because it often takes about that long to get everything in motion; to introduce the multiple viewpoints, to hint at the size of the conflict, to foreshadow, etc. Readers expect different things from books of different lengths. From a long book, they don't expect a huge rush out of the gate, or a single viewpoint, or Stephen Brust. They expect that there will be a slow introduction of world and character and complications, and they'll read the 300 pages of that build-up to get to the 300 pages of consequence that marks the beginning of a series.
To end the book just as things are getting started is, to my reader way of thinking, to almost guarantee that a reader will be frustrated by a short book of this type. Many readers will continue reading those hundreds of slower pages as things build toward an end -- but if the build kind of just stops mid-way, so will they.
I've taken my own informal polls at the store; I've asked people the relevant questions about what they're reading, about what they expect from books of varying length. Market research, which is anecdotal and not, therefore, statistically significant. Except in the sense that the books that sell in large numbers in fantasy are the BFFs (Big Fat Fantasy) in the larger chain/non-chain context.
It's easy to point at short books that -sell-. As I've said, most romances are that length. And for romances, that's fine. And it's also easy to argue that books in series with known track records -- i.e. those who have large numbers -- will, of course, continue to be published at a greater length than those without. But… I can almost guarantee that neither Jacqueline Carey nor Elizabeth Haydon would have sold the way they did if their first books had been forced into 120K words. That, in fact, launching an epic fantasy series by cutting the books into smaller chunks goes against reader expectation; that the readers who do want the longer reads will pass over the shorter books because of built-in assumptions about what that length means, and that the readers who pick up short books will also be disappointed by the pacing and the lack of resolution.
It doesn't mean shorter books don't sell. But, to repeat myself, what a reader expects from a short book and what they expect from a long one is not the same experience.
So… what does this mean?
One of two things. If you're writing now, think of shorter stories, or shorter arcs in which to tell them, if you can. If you can't? Look at what's being published, take note of who's publishing works that are longer, and submit your finished novels to those companies. Not every company is taking this definitive a stand, and it will be interesting to see what happens in the years to follow, when the harshness of this particular publishing dictate begins to bear fruit. Things change; they always do.
One of the interesting -- and heated -- things I heard frequently on and off the convention floor was in reference to a major genre publisher's decision to go for shorter books. Yes, I know I've beat this drum before, but there was an urgency to much of the discussion that causes me to bring it up again. This wasn't theoretical; this was writers being told to cut their books in half, or to cut them down from the length they were submitted at. Not because the story is padded; not because the length is wrong for the story itself -- but for other reasons.
Part of the reason this has become such a heated topic is this: published authors, people with longer books already in print, are now being asked to write them much shorter.
This carries some negatives. If an author is perceived to be somehow slumming -- and in the case of BFF writers, this is an almost gut instinct when the next novel is significantly shorter -- people will often get tired of the work they're doing. Which isn't fair, no. But perception is part of the publishing business, and it's a perception they'll be saddled with.
Shorter in this case means two things. The first and most obvious is the acquisition of shorter books -- in this case, the number floating around was a maximum of 120,000 words, or, in manuscript pages, about 480. For the record, my shortest submission was 510 pages, in the early Del Rey years (which, at 250 words a page was just over 125K. This would also include that category in which you receive something and ask the author to cut it down to that length.
The second: cut the book into two (or possibly more) parts. The reasoning given for this goes as follows: The author can still write a complicated and complex world with multiple viewpoints -- it just takes place over more books, the idea being that the author will have a mid-point someplace in that volume that they can use as an endpoint. In this fashion, it's reasoned, the publisher will still make money and the author will make money and the readers will have a long story -- just in more books.
Ummm, okay.
The real reason for this is bottom line. While the chains are being blamed -- they want price to remain at a certain level for mid-list books -- it's really beancounters saying, in effect, we need to raise our profit margins on these books. But in talking with one editor, one very interesting point was raised: It's not even so much that the books themselves are prohibitively costly up front, when the initial print run is done -- it's that they're very hard to keep in print because the print runs for midlist books, or perhaps I should say the re-print runs, are much smaller. The economics of scale apply here: It's cheaper to print a 900 page book when you're printing 20,000 of them than it is to print that same book, per unit, at 4,000, which is what small reprint runs often are.
Which means that while the publisher could in theory afford the first printing, it would be hard for them to support the subsequent books in a series, because it's much harder to justify the cost of the reprint on a per unit basis. Which just... sucks rocks. This is often why the first printing of a novel will be 6.99, and all subsequent printings, 7.99. (These are US dollars). I would personally rather see the books be reprinted at 8.99 (which is a bestseller price, rather than a genre price) than see the various books in a series go out of print, and I'm curious to know how people feel about this in general. It's part of the reason that trade paperbacks have become so much more prominent -- it's easier to justify the cost of the printing on small runs.
But in the case of many of these authors, that isn't an option that's being offered.
I won't do the death of fill-in-the-blank here. More books printed, fewer of each title sold yada yada yada. If the cost is low enough, it still makes more sense for the publisher to print more titles -- because cutting your line by one book can merely mean cutting your inflowing cash, as there's no guarantee the buyers will then buy more of your titles for the lack of your book.
On paper, this all looks good. And -- have I mentioned this lately? -- there are a lot of people who are very vocal and who want shorter books. But there's a reason that Martin or Jordan or Goodkind sell; a reason that Carey or Haydon sell. And sell in greater numbers than most of the shorter books -- less vocal readers buy them.
I will be the first to say that there are some books that simply don't lend themselves to 300K words. They are often books I enjoy greatly, so I'm not complaining -- I'm just pointing it out. But there are some books that do. And epic fantasy is a form that doesn't in any way lend itself to 120K words. Why? Because it often takes about that long to get everything in motion; to introduce the multiple viewpoints, to hint at the size of the conflict, to foreshadow, etc. Readers expect different things from books of different lengths. From a long book, they don't expect a huge rush out of the gate, or a single viewpoint, or Stephen Brust. They expect that there will be a slow introduction of world and character and complications, and they'll read the 300 pages of that build-up to get to the 300 pages of consequence that marks the beginning of a series.
To end the book just as things are getting started is, to my reader way of thinking, to almost guarantee that a reader will be frustrated by a short book of this type. Many readers will continue reading those hundreds of slower pages as things build toward an end -- but if the build kind of just stops mid-way, so will they.
I've taken my own informal polls at the store; I've asked people the relevant questions about what they're reading, about what they expect from books of varying length. Market research, which is anecdotal and not, therefore, statistically significant. Except in the sense that the books that sell in large numbers in fantasy are the BFFs (Big Fat Fantasy) in the larger chain/non-chain context.
It's easy to point at short books that -sell-. As I've said, most romances are that length. And for romances, that's fine. And it's also easy to argue that books in series with known track records -- i.e. those who have large numbers -- will, of course, continue to be published at a greater length than those without. But… I can almost guarantee that neither Jacqueline Carey nor Elizabeth Haydon would have sold the way they did if their first books had been forced into 120K words. That, in fact, launching an epic fantasy series by cutting the books into smaller chunks goes against reader expectation; that the readers who do want the longer reads will pass over the shorter books because of built-in assumptions about what that length means, and that the readers who pick up short books will also be disappointed by the pacing and the lack of resolution.
It doesn't mean shorter books don't sell. But, to repeat myself, what a reader expects from a short book and what they expect from a long one is not the same experience.
So… what does this mean?
One of two things. If you're writing now, think of shorter stories, or shorter arcs in which to tell them, if you can. If you can't? Look at what's being published, take note of who's publishing works that are longer, and submit your finished novels to those companies. Not every company is taking this definitive a stand, and it will be interesting to see what happens in the years to follow, when the harshness of this particular publishing dictate begins to bear fruit. Things change; they always do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 10:32 am (UTC)Now, according to what I'm reading here, 115,000 words is actually on the short side. So is the computer's word count wrong? Will my book look fat, thin, or in between when it actually comes out?
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 10:41 am (UTC)ObDisclaimer: It's been close to a decade since I worked in a publisher's production department.
---L.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 10:47 am (UTC)When I did word counts for Courier New 12pt on standard letter size margins, I _never_ got 250 words a page. Maybe that's because I tend to have a lot of dialogue in those books, and it might be different now. 220 was the highest I'd ever go.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 11:21 am (UTC)Have you seen the "un-cut" version of The Stand? It came out in the mid-to-late 80's, and has an introduction in which King specifically cites a handful of scenes that were cut from the original publication. He's not asked to cut anything now, but he has been asked to make cuts.
The scenes he mentions are also (IMHO) all things that should have been cut, and stayed cut.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 11:26 am (UTC)I have had several folks tell me they no longer expect a monospaced font. (Don't mind it, but don't require it.) I get the impression this varies wildly from place to place these days--I've had respected people tell me Courier was unprofessional, and equally respected people tell me that proportional fonts were too difficult to read and edit.
I almost think it's a house by house, editor by editor, these days.
I never minded Courier the way some folks have, but I stopped using it about 2 years ago, as I realized that it no longer seemed as widely expected. Have yet to have a complaint about it, which actually startled me a little.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 11:31 am (UTC)There's a difference between "trade paperback" and "large-size paperback." "Trade" technically means "non-strippable," namely, a bookstore returning a trade paperback has to ship the entire book back, rather than just ripping off the cover and shipping that back. These are usually but not always the larger size paperbacks-- I think it was White Wolf who used to print books in the "mass-market" size that weren't strippable.
Anyway, I think this difference is probably at the heart of the size issue, at least on the seller's end: the extra cost and hassle of having to ship the whole large-size paperback back to the publisher make them less attractive, whatever the benefits to the reader may be.
But then, all I know about this issue comes from seeing Patrick Nielsen Hayden explain the trade/ mass-market thing about a dozen times on Usenet, back in the day...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 12:00 pm (UTC)This brushes on one of my pet peeves regarding best selling authors. Once the first several books from an author do well, the quality of the work tends to take a dive. It seems to me, as a reader, that the works stop being edited, and books are marketed on the author's reputation. Jordan being a prime example of this.
Requiring shorter works of new authors, but not established ones, sounds like the industry shooting itself in the foot. New authors won't have the word space to set up their worlds, while some others wander aimlessly in the 800 pages/book they are expected to produce. Who knows? Maybe this will lead to the shorter works having a better reputation.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 01:42 pm (UTC)Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 03:06 pm (UTC)I use it for everything submitted, but I submit to few enough venues. I know that one publisher I submit to used to accept any font -- but then they'd have to send it out to get it counted, which I thought was excessive.
But you're -- of course <g> -- right: It's the editor or the publishing house that you submit to who has to be satisfied with the submission.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 03:08 pm (UTC)Yes, it makes sense for them not to care -- but it doesn't make sense for them to proclaim that no one else does either, because that's still not true.
When I did word counts for Courier New 12pt on standard letter size margins, I _never_ got 250 words a page. Maybe that's because I tend to have a lot of dialogue in those books, and it might be different now. 220 was the highest I'd ever go.
My actual word-count is on average about 225 per page as well, in the same format. But short dialogue lines take up a line, and end of chapters take up a page and a bit regardless, so I think the general printer count is probably more reliable for printing/typesetting than Word word counts.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:12 pm (UTC)I'm sorry -- this is proof that one should never post while on a break at work -- I meant "isn't ever asked to cut anything, ever" not "wasn't". In the early days of his career, he was treated like most up and coming writers who have some momentum; he was edited and he rewrote much.
At the peak of his career, he was considered his own category, and he wasn't edited. He's a fabulous line-editor, imho. Structure is different.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:19 pm (UTC)I should say this: There are many writers I've known who would be happy to be edited who simply aren't as they sell wildly well. From a business standpoint, this makes sense -- editorial revisions cost time, which is money, and the writer is clearly not in need of the type of editing that will cause their books to be successful, because they demonstrably already are. It's not always -- and perhaps it would be fair to say not usually -- the writers deciding this (there are always one or two).
Requiring shorter works of new authors, but not established ones, sounds like the industry shooting itself in the foot. New authors won't have the word space to set up their worlds, while some others wander aimlessly in the 800 pages/book they are expected to produce. Who knows? Maybe this will lead to the shorter works having a better reputation.
I think shorter works already have a much better reputation, fwiw. Where sales and reputation are not the same, and can't be treated as if they are. If you mean they'll become much more popular? That's harder to say.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:22 pm (UTC)You would be the ideal target market in some ways for the shorter books with smaller arcs in bigger universe theory.
In the readers differ category, I adored Otherland. I adored the first book, and think it's possibly the best of the four, and what he accomplished in characterization and texture -- for me -- in that first book he couldn't have done in less space. It's easily my favourite of his works.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:27 pm (UTC)Airports are almost a different category in terms of what they stock and what they sell -- but this would probably be the only place of which something this interesting could be said.
One of our regular customers is a security guard, and he often works 12 hour shifts; for his reading purposes, anything that lasts a whole shift is ideal -- but very few books do. As with most voracious readers, he reads very quickly <wry g>.
How will readers find us? We can write, or we can promote--but it's not easy to do both well....
I know :/. I think more and more people find things via on-line review sites, etc., but I wouldn't suggest spending time and money in self-promotion that wasn't very targeted, for a variety of reasons.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:30 pm (UTC)I would say it definitely varies between YA and adult readers, or at least YA and adult -marketing-; the body type in the Rowling's very thick book is quite large, and I would guess that it's a much shorter book, in printer page count or word for word, than any of the George Martin novels.
One of my favourite books in the year it was published was CRYPTONOMICON, by Stephenson, which was an 1100+ book-page (!) mass market when it was finally published in that format.
The doorstop fatigue in that case -- because there wasn't reader fatigue for my part -- was simply what can be bound into a single mass market volume. That's close, without doing drastic things with paper quality, to upper limit for mass market.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:34 pm (UTC)I just want to jump in on this particular one: the hardcover for that novel was huge. It was massive. I believe -- although I don't have it on hand -- it was something on the order of 1100 densely typed pages. I took one look at it and my first thought was: They will never be able to print this in one mass market volume.
There's only so much you can do with the binding. The books they did print are not, in fact, small books. They could have bumped a papergrade or two (which has the effect of making the book limp, and some readers don't like it because the paper to them is more transparent and the other words can be more easily seen), but I'm not sure it would have netted them enough spine/glue space at a printable price to print that book in a single mass market volume.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 03:42 pm (UTC)issue, at least on the seller's end: the extra cost and hassle of having to ship the whole large-size paperback back to the publisher make them less attractive, whatever the benefits to the reader may be.
It's not attractive to rackjobbers and people who put the books into a set rack-size distribute a majority of the mass markets (they're also responsible for a disproportionate percentage of those mass market returns, fwiw).
I think it's safe to say that in colloquial usage, trade paperback=large format paperback for the purposes of the discussion. While there are a few publishers who print mass-market size novels but sell them as non-strippable, they're a small minority. White Wolf was a gaming company, and my guess would be the possibility of returns was a headache of its own, given the prior experience it had with its other merchandise.
But then, all I know about this issue comes from seeing Patrick Nielsen Hayden explain the trade/ mass-market thing about a dozen times on Usenet, back in the day...
I'm sure that he would have also said that trade paperbacks were consider bookstore paperbacks (I think this would be the 'trade' in question, as opposed to mass market, which were distributed more as "disposable books" or "magazines" in their early days, rather than books, which is why stripping their covers started).
So you published those for bookstores, who will order them; you assume that you're not going to get those books out through IDs into grocery stores, etc., and you go ahead with the larger format. Someone like Jordan or Goodkind, though, will sell into grocery stores, etc., so even if they're long, you want them in the mass market format.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 03:47 pm (UTC)midlist authors over this length" thing. Is it other booksellers, too? I
haven't seen anything official, just rumors so far...
This is almost rubbish, as far as I can tell. Or B&N are telling only select people in the industry this, and not others. What they -are- saying, though, is that they don't want books above a certain price point for mid-list authors. It's the price-point that they've set, not the length, and the publishers have that much maneuver room and no more built in. The shorter the book, the more cost effective it is to publish it -- if it sells in the same numbers as the longer books.
A 250 page 24.95 hardcover is going to be cheaper to produce than a 24.95 800 page hardcover. And 24.95 is the number I've heard floated around. Otoh, I've heard no like number for mass market paperbacks, fwiw.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 05:00 pm (UTC)---L.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 05:06 pm (UTC)But I'd heard over and over again that B&N was saying the books had to be short if they were mid-list, and this made no sense to me, so I badgered few editors and reps from different companies, and that was as close to an answer as I got; none of the editors said that it was B&N, or that they'd been told this, fwiw. One seemed very surprised that I'd asked.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 05:17 pm (UTC)True, but it's also important to remember that "trade paperback" is a term of art as well, that has important implications for the distribution process.
So you published those for bookstores, who will order them; you assume that you're not going to get those books out through IDs into grocery stores, etc., and you go ahead with the larger format. Someone like Jordan or Goodkind, though, will sell into grocery stores, etc., so even if they're long, you want them in the mass market format.
Sure. Of course, the immediate context of the original remarks was that of the dealer's room at a con, which I think is somewhere in between a book store and a grocery store. On the one hand, they're selling to an audience who will buy better-quality books, but on the other hand, they have to haul all their stock with them. The extra hassle of dealing with large-format trade paperbacks probably isn't worth it (even with the higher sale price (which is partly due to the distribution issues...)).
I ended up buying a half-dozen large-format paperbacks at Worldcon, but they were all books that exist only in that format (mostly from small presses that don't do anything else). Outside of those, the stock for sale was almost exclusively hardcovers and small mass-market paperbacks, which offer better return for their mass.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 05:27 pm (UTC)Have I mentioned lately how much I hate the way LJ comment threads work?
When the store I work at goes to a convention, we take mostly new books. It doesn't matter whether they're trades or mass markets or HCs; we'll take what's new (exception would be books by the people attending the convention, which in the case of a worldcon is half the known writing world <g>). We expect to -sell- more of the mass markets, but this is because people will often buy two of them in preference to a trade, or 3 in preference to a hardcover.
There are still fewer trade paperbacks than mass markets (or hardcovers) on a month to month basis, and many companies still go from HC to MM, bypassing the trade edition until the MMs have slowed down sufficiently to warrant a change in the format.
So I think the absence of trade paperbacks at worldcon would be more due to the absence of, well, new trade paperbacks in general; the ratios are probably the shelf ratios you'd see in a store in the genre section. (There are a lot more literary novels that are in that format, and it seems like almost all non-fiction comes out that way, etc -- but at a Worldcon, it's a bit more specific).
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 05:44 pm (UTC)<mumble mumble>.
But it's going really well <wry g>.
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 05:53 pm (UTC)Oh, indeed. I didn't mean to insinuate that it was right for them to say they don't matter anymore, because that's simply not the case. If they were to say that they didn't matter for online publications, that would be one thing, but to say that for the whole industry is another matter entirely.
My actual word-count is on average about 225 per page as well, in the same format. But short dialogue lines take up a line, and end of chapters take up a page and a bit regardless, so I think the general printer count is probably more reliable for printing/typesetting than Word word counts.
*nods* And not totally bad, at least for me, since I have a tendency to run a bit short on my wordcounts ... I intended Stronger to be 100k with Word's wordcount, and it came to 92k. :P
Re: Hmm.
Date: 2004-09-10 06:03 pm (UTC)Ah! Okay. Over at Speculations' Rumor Mill, they'd been discussing this, and someone posted that it was B&N in specific saying they wanted shorter books.
That makes a lot of sense about the price point. As a reader, I'm not likely to pick up a longer book from a midlist author, unless I've heard good things about said author or personally know hir, because it's just not worth the risk. With MMP's nearly $10, I can't afford it, especially since the majority of BFF's I've read could have benefited from serious trimming.
If it's about the price involved, it makes a lot more sense than it being, "We just want more shelf space," which is how some people put it across.