[WR] Word Count - losing sight of the real issue?
Cozy
should be, particularly for first novels.
Mind you, I understand that a good solid edit is needed between
first and final drafts. I ended up cutting about 15% of the MS
for my first novel, and the results were all for the good. But I
think the whole approach of "I'm going to write a book between
80,000 and 105,128 words" is taking things a bit too far. If
you're that fixated on the word count, it seems you'd lose sight
of the real goal - telling the story.
I think the only time I'm really concerned about word count is
getting past the magical 60,000 mark, taking you out of the
twilight netherworld of Novella and into the more well-defined
terrain of Novel. Beyond that, the story should take as long as
it needs to.
And sure, while publishers/agents may want books of a certain
length, especially from first-timers, why restrict yourself?
Isn't the first duty to yourself as an artist, and to the story?
Just MHO.
--
- K. Cozy
"ACK! Not Oprah! There goes my street cred!" - J. Franzen
Gerald Clough
>
> I've seen a number of comments lately about what word count a MS
> should be, particularly for first novels.
>
> Mind you, I understand that a good solid edit is needed between
> first and final drafts. I ended up cutting about 15% of the MS
> for my first novel, and the results were all for the good. But I
> think the whole approach of "I'm going to write a book between
> 80,000 and 105,128 words" is taking things a bit too far. If
> you're that fixated on the word count, it seems you'd lose sight
> of the real goal - telling the story.
>
> I think the only time I'm really concerned about word count is
> getting past the magical 60,000 mark, taking you out of the
> twilight netherworld of Novella and into the more well-defined
> terrain of Novel. Beyond that, the story should take as long as
> it needs to.
>
> And sure, while publishers/agents may want books of a certain
> length, especially from first-timers, why restrict yourself?
> Isn't the first duty to yourself as an artist, and to the story?
>
> Just MHO.
Right-O! It's always been one of those things new writers worry over.
That and fonts and all the other mechanicals are, of course, things you
can control, when so many of the things that sound really critical
aren't controlable. It feels like you're *doing* something. Kind of like
pouring over the Writers Market when you're only 1,000 words into your
first novel, when you should be writing or studying writing.
The sort of converse to this is deliberately ignoring everything but
getting the "vision" down on paper, playing the artiste, as if the work
would explode onto the literary scene and bring recognition as a
rule-breaking genius. It's not really either way.
This is where writing is difference from the visual and perhaps the
audio arts. You can sculpt to suit only youself and enjoy the finished
piece for the rest of your life. You can love your own painting, and to
hell with everyone else. You might never sell anything, but the pieces
are there, tangible. Other people who visit might even really like them,
and they can take them in in a glance. It's hard to get that kind of
satisfaction from a book. A manuscript box sitting on the shelf isn't
much of a shrine to your art. Books live when people read them. People
read them when they buy them. They can buy them when they're published.
And they're unlike much visual art in that a number of people may view a
rather abstract piece of art, and each may get something very different
from it. You make an image for them to interpret.
In writing, you have the image in your head, and for the most part, you
interpret it for them. They can't see into you head, so it can't be any
other way. In that sense, it's far more than duty to self. There's
attention to pay to what will be picked up an published and what will
sell and be read. It's true, there's a wide latitude in things like word
length and style. But a lot of folks have a hand, at second of third
remove from the writer, in saying how the vision will be presented, if
it is to be seen by anyone but the writer's mental eye.
I think you're perfectly right about a beginner not saying, "I'm going
to write a piece of N words." Certainly, you begin with the notion that
it will be a novel or whatever, but you can hardly shoot at a narrow
target when you're just beginning to learn how to load the gun. With
experience in story, you *do* sort of say that, but it's only because
you then know you have a story that will run to about that length, or
you know it can run to that length, and you have the ability to craft it
to length. But in the beginning, everyone is learning how to bring story
and length together, which stories have the substance to make it. Some
of that can be learned by studious reading, but you still have to see
where *your* stories can go by writing them.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clo...@Texas.Net
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
-----------------------------------------------------------
ActiveVerb
you're editing your manuscript and preparing to send it out, you should be
knowledgeable about the market.
Liza
experience, however, new writers aren't nearly ruthless enough in
pruning their prose. My feeling is that it is better to leave
editors/readers wanting more than to have them feel bored and bogged
down. Also, trying to keep it short helps focus you on moving the plot
along by eliminating or condensing scenes that don't have enough push
(either moving the plot or developing character). It forces you to use
more precise words to get the images you want. My advice is to pare your
prose. Put it away for a while, then when you re-read it, if you find
something is truly missing, you can add it back.
Gerald Clough
>
> I think this is an excellent summation of the situation. In my
> experience, however, new writers aren't nearly ruthless enough in
> pruning their prose. My feeling is that it is better to leave
> editors/readers wanting more than to have them feel bored and bogged
> down. Also, trying to keep it short helps focus you on moving the plot
> along by eliminating or condensing scenes that don't have enough push
> (either moving the plot or developing character). It forces you to use
> more precise words to get the images you want. My advice is to pare your
> prose. Put it away for a while, then when you re-read it, if you find
> something is truly missing, you can add it back.
Yes. It's far more common to find that something is very good, although
a bit shorter than whatever "ideal" length is expected, than it is to
find something very good but still over long. Extra verbage spoils. If
it's good but too short, it likely needs more story, not more words.
Better to quit while it's good than word it into the mire. Most things
are like that.
I'm closing in on the end of a YA novel. It's about 15 manuscript pages
from the approximate lower end of the "normal" YA length. That's just
fine. That's about the space I'll need. If it runs a bit shorter or if
it trims to a bit shorter than that in rework, that's okay. It's tight.
It moves. It gets to all the places it needs to get to. It's looking
like it will reach its dramatic resolution and then slope rapidly out to
a satisfying ending somewhere between 10 and 15 more pages. Actually, it
may pick up a little length in rewrite. I know I'm going to notice some
routine things that haven't been addressed, little descriptive things
that will be missed if they're not there.
It's really been a nice run. The idea came to me all in one piece, when
I happened to pass through my library and glanced at one reference in
just the right frame of mind. Had it all. The essentials of character,
the mythic roots, beginning, middle, conflict, resolution, and ending.
Not that it was a breeze to actually tell it, but it was very nice
knowing the story from the start. The cover letter's going to be a job.
It's going to need to be an even better piece of work than the book.
I'm glad it's coming to and end, though. I'm real ready to begin
something else and let this one take its lumps on its own. I've kind of
quit sleeping much, now that it's this close to wrapping. Why doesn't it
really flow until ten at night? Maybe the next piece will be something
that can come out during daylight. Does Anne Rice have this problem?
I won't even feel too bad if it can't find a home. (Yeah - Like hell I
won't.<g>) It's been a terrific story to ride along with. I enjoyed
telling it to myself, if nothing else. Now, I just have to convey that
feeling in the cover letter.
Jerry Stratton
> and they can take them in in a glance. It's hard to get that kind of
> satisfaction from a book. A manuscript box sitting on the shelf isn't
> much of a shrine to your art. Books live when people read them. People
> read them when they buy them. They can buy them when they're published.
I know of at least one very good book that wasn't written for
publication; Charles Dodgson only published after friends convinced him
he ought to. He'd just written it as a gift for a friend. There's no
telling how many people have done such a thing and not had their friends
convince them to publish :*)
Just because it's a manuscript doesn't mean it has to be in a box, and
doesn't mean it has to sit on a shelf. I try to always keep a
3-ring-punched copy of my books on my coffeetable.
iPhoto users can already take a bunch of photos and turn them into a
nice coffee-table book in a few days. I can't see any reason why we
won't see this technology extended to novels in the near future. I know
*I* would use it.
My own books have a tendency to disappear when I leave laser print-outs
lying around my coffee table. (Of course, I have no idea what's actually
*happening* to them... I know they're awfully uncomfortable as bathroom
tissue.)
> In writing, you have the image in your head, and for the most part, you
> interpret it for them. They can't see into you head, so it can't be any
I think you need to discuss books with more people--people can and do,
often, get very different things out of novels. Even non-fiction books
can be interpreted in wildly different ways by different people. (I'm
reading Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex" on recommendation by a
friend, and I swear the person who recommended it to me could not
possibly have read the same book I'm reading.) You are probably
comparing abstract art with non-abstract writing, which is not really a
comparison at all. Compare people's reactions to, for example, Ulysses,
and you'll find probably just as wide a set of interpretations as for a
piece of abstract art.
Jerry