In another thread some posters agreed that a certain book looked a bit daunting in length. As I'm now writing my first fantasy novel and considering such issues as pacing and wordcount, I'm curious to know the thoughts of those of you who currently buy fantasy novels. Many will read a classic that's 1000 pages if they've been told it's excellent, but what of a potential buyer approaching a new author? Where's the sweet spot and what are the limits?
1. When you look at a new book, what are your thoughts about length?
2. How many pages is too many?
3. How many pages is too few?
4. Is font size a consideration? (Not that I can control such things if I'm not the publisher... but I want to know. Does font size sometimes trick you into thinking a book is longer or shorter than it really is? Or do you open a 250 page book, see a tiny crushed font size and realize that its going to be a ponderous read and eventually more difficult on the eyes?)
Publishers have their own parameters for what they're willing to put out from a first time novelist, but I can always fix it in the mix.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Rone, to answer your question on another thread:
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel is approximately 780 pages. It's huge. Too huge for some.
It's difficult, even with great material, to hold someone's interest that long. I personally think it would have been better to divide the book into 2 separate books of more palatable length.
But a book that size virtually guarantees that no one under the age of 15 will read the book, and adults with busy lives probably won't attempt it either.
Just some thoughts, others might disagree. Jonathan Strange was a great book, but its length meant it kept getting put down and interrupted as life got in the way. Thus, when the book was finally finished, the ending had lost some of its impact as some of the details weren't as fresh and visceral in my mind.
|
It depends.
I have no time to read now, but I will if I can.
I'd read 250 pages a day in novels when I was single, every day, for months. Now, if I can find a job with my kids like watching them in the tub where I can read, I can knock out some books.
Size never daunted me. As a kid, it spurned me on for bragging rights or something.
Now days, I like a Moorcock 150, but I was reading that publishers WANT a big long book anymore; can't remember where.
Also, it depends on the book. I read Lucifer's Hammer, a good 500 pager, in 2 days. 700 pages of drek and I'll stop reading the book period.
Eyebite, that's a really interesting factor. The continuity of the read. Keeping that forward motion going in order to deliver the most visceral impact. When I read The Stand as a kid, I dropped the book at page 400, but when I returned to it a few weeks later I felt I needed to reread about fifty pages back in order to ground myself. When I put it back down at page 600 for another couple of weeks I didn't want to have to go back to page 550. Why bother? I was no longer feeling the book.
Now put a 260 page book in front of me? Gobble gobble done. I'm living it in my head for a week afterwards.
I can chew through an average paperback in 8 to 10 hours, less if it rocks and I can't set it down. If your book takes over two days to read, it's a snorefest.
Speaking of the Stand, I've read both versions. The uncut version rocks the crap out of the condensed book.
Heath, I know what you mean about bragging rights. When I read a 1,200 page book at age 15 I considered it proof of my own brightness. Many of my friends were reading Penthouse Forum at the time, so I may have been, comparatively at least, correct.
The 180 page books sometimes ask to be read in a day. Don't know what it is about them. They are a challenge to speed and full immersion. Longer than that and I slow down and savor the read.
You were saying that publishers want big books? Or don't?
You were saying that publishers want big books? Or don't?
I would imagine publishers don't want large books from new people. Do a few short stories, maybe one light novel, then when you have them hooked do the big book.
I can chew through an average paperback in 8 to 10 hours, less if it rocks and I can't set it down. If your book takes over two days to read, it's a snorefest.
Speaking of the Stand, I've read both versions. The uncut version rocks the crap out of the condensed book.
Do you find that books that are say, 300 pages stay with you more than a 200 page read? Be it a sentimental attachment, daydreaming yourself into the story, or a lingering haunt?
Genre might affect my answer here as well.
For fantasy, I think I like it quick and fairly short (probably under 350 pages).
For classics or "serious" books, I seem to be willing to accept a much longer page length.
Very good to know.
You were saying that publishers want big books? Or don't?I would imagine publishers don't want large books from new people. Do a few short stories, maybe one light novel, then when you have them hooked do the big book.
That's the way my intuition swings, as well. However short stories are their own art form. If I show up to the publisher with a strong agent and killer book, my chances are probably unchanged by adding "And I sold over 100 short stories in my life but have no fans to show for it." Which I have. <G> Edit: nope. 83 short stories. The rest of my career was articles and essays.
Do you find that books that are say, 300 pages stay with you more than a 200 page read? Be it a sentimental attachment, daydreaming yourself into the story, or a lingering haunt?
Yeah, 200 is a little light for me, but then I'm an avid reader. A good paperback should fit perfectly between my thumb and middle finger with the index finger in the inner binding, with just enough weight behind it to leave a serious red mark on the forehead of anyone stupid enough to bother me while I'm reading.
|
|
You were saying that publishers want big books? Or don't?I would imagine publishers don't want large books from new people. Do a few short stories, maybe one light novel, then when you have them hooked do the big book.
I thought I read somewhere; they were talking about Moorcock-he used to pop out all these little 150 pagers, and that you can't do that in today's market because everybody wants a good 250-300 pages or more for their money. I could be wrong, but I remember thinking, "hell, a nice little Moorcock story you can read in an afternoon is real nice now and again."
Last book I really recall reading was Ananzi Boys; did that up in a plane ride and back from Texas to North Carolina a year ago, I think.
I'm looking for one of them Chabons at Half Price Books, can't remember which one it was, but Erik Mona was talking about it.
Do you find that books that are say, 300 pages stay with you more than a 200 page read? Be it a sentimental attachment, daydreaming yourself into the story, or a lingering haunt?Yeah, 200 is a little light for me, but then I'm an avid reader. A good paperback should fit perfectly between my thumb and middle finger with the index finger in the inner binding, with just enough weight behind it to leave a serious red mark on the forehead of anyone stupid enough to bother me while I'm reading.
Based on what everyone is saying thus far, I'm wondering if 300 a safe bet. Enough time to form an attachment, but not enough to lose the reader.
You were saying that publishers want big books? Or don't?I would imagine publishers don't want large books from new people. Do a few short stories, maybe one light novel, then when you have them hooked do the big book.I thought I read somewhere; they were talking about Moorcock-he used to pop out all these little 150 pagers, and that you can't do that in today's market because everybody wants a good 250-300 pages or more for their money. I could be wrong, but I remember thinking, "hell, a nice little Moorcock story you can read in an afternoon is real nice now and again."
Last book I really recall reading was Ananzi Boys; did that up in a plane ride and back from Texas to North Carolina a year ago, I think.
I'm looking for one of them Chabons at Half Price Books, can't remember which one it was, but Erik Mona was talking about it.
Maybe, Kavalier and Klay?
Do you find that single afternoon reads (180-200 pages) affect you as deeply as 300+ pages? I want a better chance to fully immerse the reader in my world and I think I'd prefer to push the upper limits of word count. I want the reader to feel like they really went somewhere.
I took the advice of a few people on the Paizo site and picked up On Writing by Stephen King recently; 320 pages. There were some slow spots, but most of it was both fascinating and full of good advice. Even taking care of my son, I stretched it out over two days, about 9 hours total. It was "a little" on the long side, but not "Deathgate Cycle" large, and included a lot of extra goodies. I'd say 500 pages should be your absolute max.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think 350ish pages is probably a safe bet. With tight prose, you can do alot in 300 to 350 pages.
Returning to Jonathan Strange, great book and all, but I think it could have used some heavy editing. Either that or it should have been broken up into more than one book.
Let me know when your book is published, I'll pick up a copy.
I think 350ish pages is probably a safe bet. With tight prose, you can do alot in 300 to 350 pages.
Returning to Jonathan Strange, great book and all, but I think it could have used some heavy editing. Either that or it should have been broken up into more than one book.
Let me know when your book is published, I'll pick up a copy.
Very kind of you. And thank you for your generous insight.
|
|
Single afternoon vs. longer read for immersion; I think it's more the writer's ability than the length of the book.
Heart of Darkness isn't more than 65 pages. That's one that affects the s!&! out of some people.
I tend to start a lot of books, then leave them some odd place and forget what I was doing, so from my standpoint, a shorter one might do better as far as immersion...
(edit) like that Eco guy,....he can ramble on, but he's so good at it that he can get away with it. Some people need to say their piece and get out. Give them the cane yank bit.
Jade, it totally depends on the writing. I read The Regulators in one evening, and the unabridged Count of Monte Cristo in two. On the other hand, I ordered the (much smaller) Black God's Kiss right away, and still haven't made it halfway through.
For what it's worth, George R.R. Martin's "Song of Ice and Fire" books are like cube-shaped in paperback, and routinely make it to the NY Times bestseller list.
I read extensively and spend hundreds a year on fiction. While I notice page count when considering a book, its not the determining factor. I look for a story that intrigues, whether for originality of character or setting or plot line. I am less likely to look at a novel with an unappealing cover (which may be out of your hands). I am also less likely to purchase an extremely long book by a new author. In my experience, a first time author with a very long book has 'blown his wad' and won't offer me another read soon.
I also check the author bio at the back cover. So the author's description will influence me. If the book is book 1 of a series, I may wait for further books before beginning the first, but at least I know the publisher has some faith in the writer. I will look at cover blurbs that recommend the book- recognized authors are better than book reviews by newspapers or magazines.
My recommendation would be to write something that appeals to your story-telling side before aiming for a particular page count. Size will influence sales, but your publisher will advise you on that.
What sort of story are you considering?
Single afternoon vs. longer read for immersion; I think it's more the writer's ability than the length of the book.
Heart of Darkness isn't more than 65 pages. That's one that affects the s%!% out of some people.
I tend to start a lot of books, then leave them some odd place and forget what I was doing, so from my standpoint, a shorter one might do better as far as immersion...
(edit) like that Eco guy,....he can ramble on, but he's so good at it that he can get away with it. Some people need to say their piece and get out. Give them the cane yank bit.
A writer can immerse someone in a single page if done properly. My point was that immersing me during 120 page novella, in my own experience, does not equal the same writer immersing me during 200+ page work. The latter causes me to put down the book upon completion and say whew. Do you whew?
Sounds like shorter books immerse you deeper. If this is diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks I'd definitely like to see more people weigh in and examine the majority skew.
Jade, it totally depends on the writing. I read The Regulators in one evening, and the unabridged Count of Monte Cristo in two. On the other hand, I ordered Black God's Kiss right away, and still haven't made it halfway through.
I really get you guys on this point. But when the writing is good, and flows, and is from the same author... then is there any relation between the depth of your immersion and page count? Or is it really just an intanglibe that changes with each new story, owing little to word count?
As a reader I tend to prefer something no longer than 400 pages, but not shorter than 250. That's as a general rule long enough to add in detail, but not so long I can't finish it. 700 page books are a thing of the past since I had my son. Too many interruptions.
Hmmm, I'll have to check out that Stephen King writing book. I haven't had very good luck with writing theory books since most of them don't get at all how I relate to words, but King tends to be pretty visual in his writing so maybe it will be better. And I could use the help since I am stuck, stuck, stuck on my novel.
Good luck on your book, Jade. I know writing can be a frustrating and thankless process, but I promise to buy a copy when you do get published.
...is there any relation between the depth of your immersion and page count?
No. Absolutely not. The last thing I read that totally gripped me and stuck was this short story in a free .pdf, I wish I could find it now, I’ll try later after I wake up. It was written as if it was a NPR interview, with this girl whose youth and innocence had been ruined by an older man who had been placed into a youthful body. It was both heart wrenching and so freaking true, I mean, cmon, the first thing you would do with the knowledge you have now in a young body?
Found it! Mothers and Other Monsters by Mareen F. McHugh – the story was “Interview: On any Given Day.” - Small Beer Press.
I read extensively and spend hundreds a year on fiction. While I notice page count when considering a book, its not the determining factor. I look for a story that intrigues, whether for originality of character or setting or plot line. I am less likely to look at a novel with an unappealing cover (which may be out of your hands). I am also less likely to purchase an extremely long book by a new author. In my experience, a first time author with a very long book has 'blown his wad' and won't offer me another read soon.
I also check the author bio at the back cover. So the author's description will influence me. If the book is book 1 of a series, I may wait for further books before beginning the first, but at least I know the publisher has some faith in the writer. I will look at cover blurbs that recommend the book- recognized authors are better than book reviews by newspapers or magazines.
My recommendation would be to write something that appeals to your story-telling side before aiming for a particular page count. Size will influence sales, but your publisher will advise you on that.
What sort of story are you considering?
Velly intelesting. Thanks Niel.
I was once told by a publisher, "If you plan on writing sequels, don't tell anyone."
I'm a metered writer. I outline everything fully, ahead of time, and then solve many of the little here and theres as I go. This style of composition allows me to rank the reins of word count or kick the ribs and kee-yaw. So long as I hit my plot points, I can usually (knocking on wood) adjust the conversations and descriptions to drop me in a certain word count zone without affecting the overall story that much.
I never thought I would write a fantasy novel (despite reading a good deal of them during my youth). My short stories were mostly dark fantasy, contemporary examples of what happens when a single, strange element affects every day life. However there is a story in my head that demands to be written. It's a fantasy/horror/humor/coming-of-age/romance that takes place in a realm I think is rather majestic and yet off the beaten path. I know that seems gonzo but it's quite flowing and natural. I'm just trying to find a way to dissect its elements and label them in small boxes.
Lynora, fantastic. Seems like the number 300 isn't rubbing anyone the wrong way. Heath likes quick reads but then he's a quick reader.
I have a book by King called Danse Macabre. Would that be the one you're referring to?
And thank you for the offer to pick up a copy! Now I guess I just have to finish the beast.
I mean, cmon, the first thing you would do with the knowledge you have now in a young body?
Um... what is, use it till I bruise it? <:)
But when the writing is good, and flows, and is from the same author... then is there any relation between the depth of your immersion and page count?
With a few books, it takes me a while to get into them: Clive Barker's Imagica, for example; one of the all-time best fantasy novels, but it's SLOW going until the story actually starts about 300 pages into it. With others, I'm fully immersed within the first paragraph, and can't possibly put it down thereafter until I'm done (everything by Andrew Vachss, for example).
I've written a number of (fairly lousy) short stories and essays, and one (bad) novella -- none published. It struck me that I had to be careful not to read anything concurrently with writing (like, within the last few days) or I'd start unconsciously falling into the other author's cadences and speech patterns. Dunno if you have that problem, but I've had to really watch out for it.
But when the writing is good, and flows, and is from the same author... then is there any relation between the depth of your immersion and page count?With a few books, it takes me a while to get into them: Clive Barker's Imagica, for example; one of the all-time best fantasy novels, but it's SLOW going until the story actually starts about 300 pages into it. With others, I'm fully immersed within the first paragraph, and can't possibly put it down thereafter until I'm done (everything by Andrew Vachss, for example).
So, hearing what you and mwbeeler are saying, it seems immersion owes to the particular story and its telling, more than word count. I'm really glad I asked these questions.
I have a book by King called Danse Macabre. Would that be the one you're referring to?
Someone mentioned "On Writing" earlier in the thread. That's wht I was referring to.
And your story description sounds like something that's right up my alley, so now I'm really looking forward to reading it whenever you get it done.
So, hearing what you and mwbeeler are saying, it seems immersion owes to the particular story and its telling, more than word count. I'm really glad I asked these questions.
Exactly. If the telling is good, but not the story, I tend to get immersed real quickly, but then lose interest and not finish. If the story is good, but not the telling of it, I may never get far enough into the book to find out.
I have a book by King called Danse Macabre. Would that be the one you're referring to?
Someone mentioned "On Writing" earlier in the thread. That's wht I was referring to.
And your story description sounds like something that's right up my alley, so now I'm really looking forward to reading it whenever you get it done.
Most excellent! And if we of like tastes, then you must keep me appraised of your own writing. I've got a charge card and there's just no slowing it down.
I'll have to check out that King book. Thanks.
|
1. When you look at a new book, what are your thoughts about length?
2. How many pages is too many?
I have no problem with the length of a book as long as it's a subject that interests me. If I saw some huge volume on physics or the presidency of Millard Filmore or the mating habits of the platypus, I'd just keep going.
I thought Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrel was a bit long and could have used some editing, the pacing really bogged down and it became a chore to read. Thankfully it picked up towards the end but I bet a few people didn't finish it out of sheer frustration. Around the same time, I read and loved Massie's Dreadnought book (almost 1100 pages)and couldn't put it down.3. How many pages is too few?
300 pages is a comfortable estimate, 250 tops.
4. Is font size a consideration? (Not that I can control such things if I'm not the publisher... but I want to know. Does font size sometimes trick you into thinking a book is longer or shorter than it really is? Or do you open a 250 page book, see a tiny crushed font size and realize that its going to be a ponderous read and eventually more difficult on the eyes?)
No, I'm still young enough where the size of fonts either way is not difficult for me to read so it doesn't matter.
You know the other thing that strikes me is the reader's mood at the time they pick the book up. There are times when my wife or I have watched a movie and hated it. Eventually we'll catch it again on TV or something and end up wondering why we felt that way initially and it turns out we were stressed out or just in a bad mood and it didn't matter how good the movie was. The same idea could be applied to a book.
Thank you for your thoughtful input, Callous Jack. It still looks as if the 300-350 page range is acceptable by everyone's standards thus far. I'm postive I can tell the first part of the story in less that 350 pages. The trick will be to tell it well.
I only hope people are in a good enough mood when they pick up my book, but if they buy it they can use it as a cat scat flattener for all I care. ;) Of course I jest. I think finding out that something I gave a year of my life to disappointed a reader might actually origami my heart. Ah, but you can't please everyone.
AS far as I'm concerned, it's the content, not the page length or font. I am a voracious reader but I've gained enough wisdom over the years to realize that I can't read everything that catches my eye. If a book hasn't grabbed me in the first fifty pages, it's gone. On to the next one in my pile...
All the discussion of page length and reading time reminds me of one of my favorite trivia pieces about Edgar Allen Poe: it's said that Poe despised novels. His theory was that if you couldn't finish a story in a single sitting it was too long. Walking away and coming back to a story totally disrupted the flow and feeling a reader should've gotten from the work...
As far as I'm concerned, it's the content, not the page length or font. I am a voracious reader but I've gained enough wisdom over the years to realize that I can't read everything that catches my eye. If a book hasn't grabbed me in the first fifty pages, it's gone. On to the next one in my pile...
All the discussion of page length and reading time reminds me of one of my favorite trivia pieces about Edgar Allen Poe: it's said that Poe despised novels. His theory was that if you couldn't finish a story in a single sitting it was too long. Walking away and coming back to a story totally disrupted the flow and feeling a reader should've gotten from the work...
I'm an opening paragraph reader. I usually know what I need to know after the first page. When you send a book in to a publisher, the first sentence must grab the reader. The opening paragraph needs to support that sentence marvelously... then the next ten pages need to not louse it up. ;)
If I'm tricked by a good beginning only to hit a badly paced middle, I'm out. Life is too short.
"It's gets better!" shouts the peanut gallery.
"So does my life, by not suffering any more of this book," sez me.
"It hits its stride 150 pages in!" shouts the peanut gallery.
"Well then the author should have started it on page 150," sez me.
For me, the size of a book is only a consideration insomuch as my literary threshold might change from day to day. Sometimes I want a 180 page snack and sometimes I want to sign on for a 1,200 page deployment. However, I was curious what the commonly accepted averages were regarding the too long/too short question. 300-350 is still looking pretty good.
|
Contributor
|
I generally prefer books 300-500 pages in length, but on the whole I'll fall back on the old saw "It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it." At the same time, more of a good thing can only be better right?
My test for a book is very similar to yours. I read the first couple of pages, and if I can put it down then, I'm probably not interested in putting it down. If I suddenly realize it's three hours later and I forgot to pick up my kids and make dinner, it's a book I want to read. Pretty simple really.
Like you, I've been burned before by books that flag in the middle, and I've got too much going on to waste time on that.
One other thing, I can get thrown by sudden course changes. I love the first third of "A Canticle for Liebowitz." I've read it three times. Everyone tells me that the rest of the book is great and it goes in cycles and that I'm cheating myself by not reading the rest, but I've never been able to get more than a few pages into the second section.
Good luck dude. You've written more than a book just in posts on messageboards, all made of gold, so I'm sure you'll knock it out of the park.
I generally prefer books 300-500 pages in length, but on the whole I'll fall back on the old saw "It's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it." At the same time, more of a good thing can only be better right?
Absolutely. Why does everyone seem to think that those with... 'big books' don't know how to... 'write'? I think it's the 'riddle writers' who need to tell themselves that to... wait, what are we talking about again?
My test for a book is very similar to yours. I read the first couple of pages, and if I can put it down then, I'm probably not interested. If I suddenly realize it's three hours later and I forgot to pick up my kids and make dinner, it's a book I want to read. Pretty simple really.Like you, I've been burned before by books that flag in the middle, and I've got too much going on to waste time on that.
One other thing, I can get thrown by sudden course changes. I love the first third of "A Canticle for Liebowitz." I've read it three times. Everyone tells me that the rest of the book is great and it goes in cycles and that I'm cheating myself by not reading the rest, but I've never been able to get more than a few pages into the second section.
I don't feel cheated by not reading through an 80 page slow part to get to the good part. I also don't lap away harmlessly at Charms Blow Pops. I don't care if there's a candy center... I don't want the lollipop shell. If I want a candy center I'll go get a big bag o' candy centers. There's too much writing out there that just works, start to finish, for me to endure a work that demands apologists herald its eventual value. I know they're recalling certain places where magic happened on the page, and sometimes a moment might have such pefect evocation and grace as to seem one in a million and well worth the journey. I'm just not a reader who cares enough to put in the time. I wish I was the kind of guy who could sit outside with a telescope waiting for the Leonid meteor shower to arrive, but those ships will likely keep on sailing without me. Sadly, when the sky arrays in strings of light or a missing moon I usually pop my head out for a minute or two, say neat, and then return inside to watch a clearer picture of the event on TV.
Good luck dude. You've written more than a book just in posts on messageboards, all made of gold, so I'm sure you'll knock it out of the park.
Thanks, Scribe. Very kind of you to say. :)
Well, Raymond E. Feist's first book was over 800 pages, and he can write. Different genre, but Tom Clancy's first book (Hunt For Red October) was around 450 pages.
Most short fantasy books, I've thought "meh", especially game-world related ones published by TSR. (No, I've not read any WotC ones.)
"R", aim for about 400-500 pages. And good luck!
Thanks, J!
When I was 14-15 I tore through the Thomas Covenant books by Stephen R. Donaldson (the sixth installment of the series had yet to published). Each book came in around 400 pages and I was deeply engrossed. Although my setting and story aren't anywhere near as Tolkienesque, I would like the chance to take readers on a similarly long, thrilling ride, so I'm interested in approaching the upper limit of what I can get away with.
I figure I'll aim for 300 pages and likely accidentally overshoot the mark by fifty or more pages. Once I get going it's hard to shut me up.
(lol)
I was thinking about the whole
"it's not the size of the waves, it's the motion of the ocean"
metaphor when I was saying my piece...
Lots of ways to sink a boat I guess is a fair enough statement. ;)
I've read a 600+ page book (like The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami; not fantasy, but still...) and been unable to put it down. I've also slogged through the majority of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, finally realizing at the end of the seventh book that I no longer cared about the fate of the world or anyone in it. Every person in that world is given a chapter at some point, I swear. If the elephant tamer at the circus' opinion was so important, why wasn't he introduced in the first book?
So, I think it all comes down to economy. Use only as many pages as necessary to accomplish your goals. Leaving the reader wanting more is better than throwing every idea in your brain at them until they can't possibly keep track of everything.
The Wheel of Time brings up a point. Are you writing hoping to do a trilogy or series, or stand-alone? If you're doing a stand-alone, then you know everything has to wrap up in one book. If you want that series, then you need pacing. This, I'm sure, you already know.
As for me, I read anything from 150 pages to 1000+. The story pulls me in, and I read it. I average 100 pages per hour when a book is a good one (down from 120 in my high-school days). I read Mirror of Her Dreams and A Man Rides Through by Stephen R. Donaldson in the old days, each 700+ pages, in one night each (after homework, so those were two VERY long nights). Why? They pulled me in. Page count is something I look at and say 'Huh. He used this many pages. Never would of thought that, the way story was going.' It's really irrelevant when I'm reading. As for buying, though, I favor something that starts at 350 pages and goes up from there. Fewer pages usually means less story to me, though as I age I read more 'light reading', which means shorter works. If done well, you can still tell a great story in a few pages. Or, when I'm reading succubus romance novels, I can just relax and not worry about story. Not everything is The Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings, or George Martin's work.
I've read a 600+ page book (like The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami; not fantasy, but still...) and been unable to put it down. I've also slogged through the majority of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time, finally realizing at the end of the seventh book that I no longer cared about the fate of the world or anyone in it. Every person in that world is given a chapter at some point, I swear. If the elephant tamer at the circus' opinion was so important, why wasn't he introduced in the first book?
I've never read the Wheel of Time but one of my friends is an avid fan. A series of books that shelf-stuffing, dancing around between different characters' POVs while the overall story slowly churns forward at the speed of bread through an old man's colon is just more committment than I can offer these days. Each book looks like a major city phonebook. How many total pages were written in the series?
So, I think it all comes down to economy. Use only as many pages as necessary to accomplish your goals. Leaving the reader wanting more is better than throwing every idea in your brain at them until they can't possibly keep track of everything.
Great advice, James. One needs to serve the story, not just vomit every idea they could think up on the reader's unexpecting face. When I devise ideas for a something I tend to write 80+ pages of notes beforehand. Then comes triage and figuring what should live and what should be shoved into the 'unused' section (It's like an animal shelter for trivialities). So long as I don't throw the ideas out, I don't suffer unduly over not using them.
The Wheel of Time brings up a point. Are you writing hoping to do a trilogy or series, or stand-alone? If you're doing a stand-alone, then you know everything has to wrap up in one book. If you want that series, then you need pacing. This, I'm sure, you already know.
Good point.
Market willing, the story will take about three books to tell. Thus, pacing is absolutely a concern and why I'm speaking in terms of measurements.
Talking about pages is neither here nor there. There's too much scope for variation depending on book format, font, layout etc. Better to talk words. You need to hit about 75-80,000 words to be publishable and for a first fantasy novel I'd say higher - maybe 90,000. Don't go much over 120,000 for a first novel or you'll find it a hard sell unless you have a fan base already from other work, either short stories or RPG stuff.
If you must think of it in pages then 75,000 will be about 300.
D.
Thinking in terms of word count instead of page count is of course solid gold. I am sincerely honored that your first post on these boards was the offering of such sound advice to my question, dcharold. Much to consider now...
|
|
Page / word count is a non-issue for me. Sure, I absolutely hated "Battlefield Earth,"* but who didn't? And "Wizard's First Rule" made my eyes bleed, but I still finished it, didn't I?
I don't read King, not because I'm scared of 800-page books, but because I just don't like his style.
I've motored through 600-page Lovecraft anthologies in a couple of days, and I read "Perdido Street Station" (the king of onionskin-thin pages) in one.
* A visual representation of "Battlefield Earth" (with airplane metaphor).
|
Contributor
|
I liked Battlefield Earth, although it either should have been three books or ended at one of the earlier 'endings' of the book. The movie was an absolute travesty, but that's neither here nor there.
Hell, I read the entire Mission Earth Decology, and they were much worse, especially the final 2 and a half books (which I suspect were not actually written by Hubbard, despite the publicity about him barely managing to finish writing them before he died.
Perdido Street Station was an easy read. It was too fun to put down.
Page / word count is a non-issue for me. Sure, I absolutely hated "Battlefield Earth,"* but who didn't? And "Wizard's First Rule" made my eyes bleed, but I still finished it, didn't I?
I don't read King, not because I'm scared of 800-page books, but because I just don't like his style.
I've motored through 600-page Lovecraft anthologies in a couple of days, and I read "Perdido Street Station" (the king of onionskin-thin pages) in one.
* A visual representation of "Battlefield Earth" (with airplane metaphor).
Love the link.
King's writing was a big thing when I was younger. Made me happy. In the 90's I read Gerald's Game and I was off him for good. In my mind, he's never been good at ending a story. The Stand was a long way to go for
Never read Battlefiend Earth but hey, saw Travolta play the BBEG in the movie and that's worth a purple heart. I jest. It was as watchable as any other sci-fi B movie.