# DWS: Killing the myth on book length "requirements"/Debating novel length (MERGED)



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Admittedly I haven't seen many topics here about this myth, but in case you or a writer you know still thinks that books have to be a certain length, here's a good discussion debunking the myth.

http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/killing-even-more-sacred-cows-of-publishing-1-novels-must-be-a-certain-length/


----------



## J_Wat (Feb 9, 2015)

I really enjoyed that post; it was nice to see the list of well-known novels that would be considered quite short by today's standards. Of Mice and Men? Animal Farm? Shawshank Redemption? Sounds like pretty good company to me!


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

I agree with DWS- write it the way it needs to be written, regardless of word count. If you pad your word count, savvy readers will know.

I've read S. King short stories and long novels and enjoyed all of them. It is the story that I love, not the word count.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

That's interesting. I struggle to write anything longer than about 70,000 words and I always thought 75-80k was the minimum for a book to be considered a 'proper' novel.


----------



## matt44west (Feb 4, 2015)

Excellent piece with some interesting thoughts. The list of novels is great... it didn't mention Steinbeck's _The Red Pony_-that's my favorite short novel.

I, personally, like the shorter length as both a writer and a reader. Recently read Stevenson's work (Jekyll & Hyde and New Arabian Nights). He had a knack for this as well and his novels are intriguing, in-depth character studies (also with good plots).


----------



## m.a. petterson (Sep 11, 2013)

The Indie landscape is becoming a true meritocracy.

Write what you want. Whenever you want. However long you want. Priced like you want. Sold where you want.

But the real key, as DWS wrote, is to have fun.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2015)

Actually, most of his examples are novellas, not novels.

The problem here is the same problem that we see with discussions about genre. People want to call their book a "novel" because for some reason that seems to be "more important" or they think it will sell better. Nobody wants to write "novellas" because novellas don't sell or because they don't consider novellas "real" books. But most of the books he lists as examples were properly classified as NOVELLAS, even by their authors. And their authors were perfectly happy with those classifications, because (unlike too many indie authors) those authors recognized the novella as a legitimate format. 

The real issue is NOT that writers "must" write a certain length for a book to be a novel. The issue is simply that if you write a novella, call it a novella instead of a novel. Don't "fixate" on OMG I MUST BE ABLE TO CALL MY BOOK A NOVEL OR SALES WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!! No, you can call your novella a novella and the sky will not collapse on your head. In fact, you may find you end up with happier readers because readers will get what they were expecting when they buy your book. 

Indies pick literary fights for all the wrong reasons. Nobody really cares how many words your work is. All they want to know is that it is classified properly. Don't submit a 10,000 word short story to a magazine that only wants flash fiction and then whine when the story is rejected. Don't submit a haiku to a publication that wants blank verse and then complain that they are being petulant. And don't call a 30,000 word book a novel when it is a novella. Don't be "ashamed" to call a book a novella if that is what it is. Believe it or not, there are people out there who ACTIVELY look for novellas because they like the shorter form.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, most of his examples are novellas, not novels.


I love to see the evidence that the authors considered these novellas at the time. DWS is harking back to an era where the talk was of novels and short novels. I would add a 1980s example: _Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy_ is 42,000 words and was never marketed to my knowledge then or since as a novella. I'm aware of _Animal Farm_ being marketed as a fairy tale, but not as a novella. _Stepford Wives_ is still marketed on Amazon as a novel. I would suspect that as the thoughts about length then were different (sort of the whole point of the article) that _Heart of Darkness_ and _The Time Machine_ were considered novels. _Breakfast at Tiffany's_ was subtitled "A Short Novel" and while Amazon may now call _Old Man and the Sea_ a novella it is also often referred to as a short novel.


----------



## SB James (May 21, 2014)

I think this is great for YA books. Now maybe we don't have to feel like we need to add about 15k words of extra angst in order to get the book to "novel" length. That being said, I still believe my Book 3 will be about 75K words, but that will be pushing the outer limits of how long a work I'm comfortable with working on, unless of course I start writing epic high fantasy


----------



## Kalen ODonnell (Nov 24, 2011)

Well I do find it very strange that he included The Emperor's Soul by Brandon Sanderson on that list.  Yes, The Emperor's Soul is approximately 40,000 words, but it was published as recently as 2012, and the author has never once classified it as anything other than a novella.  It won the 2013 Hugo for Best Novella.  Its the length he intended it to be, its acknowledged in the category he intended it to be categorized in, and trying to shoehorn it into a category it doesn't belong in for purposes of this argument isn't doing DWS any favors. 

(For all that I agree with him in spirit for the most part.  Novels DON'T have to be 80,000 words if the story doesn't support it.  There's room in today's indie market for short novels between 40-80K.  But I still wouldn't call anything under 40K a novel, because there's already a valid category for that length.  A novella.  And while publishers of the past may be to blame for readers no longer recognizing a novella length work as a novel, that doesn't change the fact that reader expectations of today still won't enable you to call a novella length work a novel without some serious pushback.)


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

I've done a lot of firsthand research on the retail price of paperbacks. Adjusted for inflation, mass market paperbacks actually cost slightly more before DWS started publishing than they do now. In the 28 years since his first contract in 1987, the cost of MMPBs, in 2015 dollars, has been completely flat. Prices haven't risen at all. In fact, they're slightly cheaper than they were 30 years ago.

So it's not very likely that novels got longer over that period because greedy publishers needed to justify higher prices.

In fact, if books got longer while prices stayed the same, my first thought is that publishers went for longer novels because they found that longer novels sell better.


----------



## J. M. Parker (Feb 15, 2015)

Really enjoyed this as I am normally a fan of shorter fast paced novels. It was interesting to see the list of novels under 40,000. I am pretty sure that both Fight Club and The Great Gatsby were under 50,000. 
Thanks for sharing, looking forward to checking out some of the books.


----------



## Amy Kuivalainen (Feb 13, 2015)

Thanks for this! An interesting thread about something that has been on my mind lately. My novel 'Cry of the Firebird' is 120k words long and thats been considered a big novel. I am also tweaking another novel that barely hits the 60k mark so I have been wondering if it even counts as a full novel. I guess now I know!  I think the important thing will always come down to the writing. I agree not to try and puff it up because all that will happen is that it will detract from the story. The beauty of self pubbing is that word counts don't have to be a stressful subject for writers anymore. Tell your story, tell it true and it will be what it will be.


----------



## Douglas Milewski (Jul 4, 2014)

When I began fantasy writing, I went for the commercial 80k length, but that always took work. I have this great respect for the greats, which are only about 60k long, so I switched to that length. Writing a novel that length is really it's own skill, and as I'm not long-winded, one I find myself suited to. 

BTW, TOR thinks that novellas are the next big thing.


----------



## srf89 (Aug 18, 2014)

I actually have found the opposite is being told to new writers who wanted a Trad Pub deal: if your book is too long then you have no shot at getting a contract.
Example: I saw this in an article from Writer's Digest about book length. They said authors who insisted on writing books outside the "conventional" length are "obstinate" if they think a longer book will get a trad pub deal BUT if you look at some recent bestsellers (Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games) they were all longer than the genre length. Granted these books are the exception to the rule, but I would think the story should be as long as it needs to be and not a word longer.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

There's nothing secret about what is the most popular length for each genre, and it changes all the time. One only need look at the page count of the top ten in your genre. No magic there. 

And still there are successful novels even today that are pushing 500K words (Game of Thrones, Outlander).  Oh, for those days of yore when a novel was a tome (meaning, a "cutting") of 540,000 words (the Count of Monte Cristo), or a Les-Miserables behemoth of 677,000 words! I remember taking that book on vacation with me and tearing it in half because I knew I'd never make it more than halfway through. Right-wingers seem to be able to wade through "Atlas Shrugged" without a backache. For me, it's a bit much. Pride and Prejudice at 138K words, or even Moby Dick, at 250K words, seem more "normal", but with Kipling's "Just So Stories" at 38K words I wouldn't consider it novel-length. 

I wonder if the system has changed so much that now you can't make it as self-published without writing short novels.  Times change.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, most of his examples are novellas, not novels.
> 
> The problem here is the same problem that we see with discussions about genre. People want to call their book a "novel" because for some reason that seems to be "more important" or they think it will sell better. Nobody wants to write "novellas" because novellas don't sell or because they don't consider novellas "real" books. But most of the books he lists as examples were properly classified as NOVELLAS, even by their authors. And their authors were perfectly happy with those classifications, because (unlike too many indie authors) those authors recognized the novella as a legitimate format.
> 
> ...


These are some really good points. I happily classify my 30K books as novellas. Seems not only indies but everyone from publishers to some readers gets far too hung up on book length requirements. Does it really matter if your book is 30K or 300K so long as that's the length needed to tell that story?



srf89 said:


> I actually have found the opposite is being told to new writers who wanted a Trad Pub deal: if your book is too long then you have no shot at getting a contract.
> Example: I saw this in an article from Writer's Digest about book length. They said authors who insisted on writing books outside the "conventional" length are "obstinate" if they think a longer book will get a trad pub deal BUT if you look at some recent bestsellers (Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games) they were all longer than the genre length. Granted these books are the exception to the rule, but I would think the story should be as long as it needs to be and not a word longer.


The key thing here is that you're talking about people writing books outside the conventional length. That means books that aren't only considered too long but also books that are considered too short. I never bothered submitting any of my novellas to agents or publishers, but I know people who have tried and they were told "we can't sell a novella" (ironically enough, one of the people who told me this heard it from someone at Tor).

If your book is too long _or_ too short, you have no shot (or a low shot) at getting a traditional contract.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

I generally like DWS and his posts, especially stuff he's done in the myth series, but this is bollocks. He's justly railing against publishers' push for longer and longer works, but ignoring the reality that word lengths are useful categories for general use, not simply as a means by the evil gatekeepers to control writers. 

Publishers other than the Big Five need to mark the line between flash fiction, short shorts, short stories, novelettes, novellas, and novels. As do many awards in various genres. He's taking a justified argument against publishers' contracts pushing for longer works and using it to bash against honestly useful--though utterly arbitrary--dividing lines based on word count.

Knowing the difference between flash fiction, short stories, novellas, and novels is a damned useful industry construction. Sure, if your novel is 39,999 words, chances are no one will notice, much less care, if you call it a novel instead of a novella. But DWS's piece also ignores the very real shift in the readers expectations over the years. The era he's calling back to, the pulps, effectively ended something like 70 years ago. That's a lot of time for the reading public the acclimate to longer and longer works.

To me, this is akin to someone shouting that the genre publishers call "police procedural" is a chain of oppression shackling and enslaving readers and writers alike. Down with oppression. Really? So what you'd call a police procedural yesterday, you'll call a billig tomorrow. But I'll call my police procedural will be labelled a [email protected]#$%@#S. Good luck getting readers who just want a police procedural. 

Bringing that back to novels and length, write the story as long as it needs to be, granted. If it's done at 40,000, just let it be done there. As indies we don't need to push longer, unless we want to. That's not the trouble.

The issue comes in when you write a 40k piece of prose and slap the label "novel" on it and try to sell it. Then those same writers come here to complain at all the one-star reviews and negative comments about the "novel" being so short. What you've written may technically be a novel, but the reader who picks it up will generally have a completely different expectation of what a novel means, re: length. To the vast majority of readers today the word "novel" means something longer than 40k. To many readers, it's a "novel" when it approaches the dreaded 80k or more level that DWS is railing against. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's what the reader expects. I for one don't look forward to having to "retrain" readers to accept a 40k word novel.

I'm not saying he's wrong for arguing against publishers pushing for longer and longer works. More power to him. But indie writers shifting en masse to shorter and shorter works while using the label more properly attributed to longer works is asking for trouble. DWS is right that indies can write to any length they want. More power to us. But he's wrong that calling shorter and shorter works "novels" is going to do anything other than cause a lot of indie writers a lot of very bad reviews.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, most of his examples are novellas, not novels.
> 
> The problem here is the same problem that we see with discussions about genre. People want to call their book a "novel" because for some reason that seems to be "more important" or they think it will sell better. Nobody wants to write "novellas" because novellas don't sell or because they don't consider novellas "real" books. But most of the books he lists as examples were properly classified as NOVELLAS, even by their authors. And their authors were perfectly happy with those classifications, because (unlike too many indie authors) those authors recognized the novella as a legitimate format.
> 
> ...


Or all of that, really.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Issues of required sizes aside, I think a good short story or novella is much harder to write than a novel. There's no room to hide in a shorter length (kind of like a mini-skirt or speedos, I suppose?), whereas a novel allows you to wander about and do whatever the heck you like (see: Robert Jordan, George Martin, etc).

I wonder how long it took Steinbeck to write the Red Pony?


----------



## Tyler Danann (Nov 1, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, most of his examples are novellas, not novels.
> 
> The problem here is the same problem that we see with discussions about genre. People want to call their book a "novel" because for some reason that seems to be "more important" or they think it will sell better. Nobody wants to write "novellas" because novellas don't sell or because they don't consider novellas "real" books. But most of the books he lists as examples were properly classified as NOVELLAS, even by their authors. And their authors were perfectly happy with those classifications, because (unlike too many indie authors) those authors recognized the novella as a legitimate format.
> 
> ...


I was that guy until very recently. I wrote a mega-sized 110,000 epic and I could have written about 5 novelletes or short stories in the time it took me to complete, edit and proof etc.

I'm a 60k to 90k writer now. You've got to get that stable of books made before you hit the big ones I think. At least that way you build up your fanbase. Right now doing it the other way around is the less-effective way of doing it.


----------



## David Dire (Feb 6, 2015)

Mercia McMahon said:


> I love to see the evidence that the authors considered these novellas at the time. DWS is harking back to an era where the talk was of novels and short novels. I would add a 1980s example: _Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy_ is 42,000 words and was never marketed to my knowledge then or since as a novella.


Part 2, 3 and 4 were also pretty much the same length. I still have that small first book on my shelf. Recently saw them in a bookshop where they've been put together as an omnibus, the length of which is pretty similar to some sci fi fiction classed as single novel length (not Dune though, I'm not sure anything is bigger than Dune.)


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm honestly not a fan of longer novels. Some genres do better with it, but one of my favorite fantasy writer's books clock in at probably 60K. He's got longer stuff, too--way longer--but one of the things I like about the Taltos series is that I don't have to commit oodles of time to it. For other genres--YA for example (if you're actually targeting young adults)--I think going too long is a bit of a kiss of death. Teenagers aren't known for their long attention spans  Category Romance also tends to be shorter--55K is the norm, depending on the imprint. 

But pretty much what others have said. Tell your story. People look for all lengths of books, and sometimes it varies situationally. I might want a long book while I'm taking a week off, but I might prefer something shorter if I only expect to have a couple of nights or plan on being stuck in the doctor's office for an hour.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

indie smendie.  It is not just indies that pad their books.    Now here is my two cents.  Are you an author?    If yes, then write the book to the best of your ability and the length it needs to be.  Do not pad and do not chop.
Readers just want a good story. 
If we are bored enough to be counting the words, the story failed somewhere.


----------



## Carol M (Dec 31, 2012)

Thank you. A great post, link, and discussion. Very helpful.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Thanks for merging this...but is there any simple way to find out that this was done? I spent ten minute looking for where my thread had gone. Something akin to the "this thread has moved" notice might be nice.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> These are some really good points. I happily classify my 30K books as novellas. Seems not only indies but everyone from publishers to some readers gets far too hung up on book length requirements. Does it really matter if your book is 30K or 300K so long as that's the length needed to tell that story?
> 
> The key thing here is that you're talking about people writing books outside the conventional length. That means books that aren't only considered too long but also books that are considered too short. I never bothered submitting any of my novellas to agents or publishers, but I know people who have tried and they were told "we can't sell a novella" (ironically enough, one of the people who told me this heard it from someone at Tor).
> 
> If your book is too long _or_ too short, you have no shot (or a low shot) at getting a traditional contract.


 My first tradpubbed book is 106k. My contract said 80-85k at first. I asked for 90-95k and got it. Came in over 100k and they said fine. Rom suspense. But my readers prefer my long books. I wrote a novella. It's good, not short (36k), good reviews. In my most popular series. Has sold maybe half the others. Probably a third. Readers differ.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

My novels run between 51K and 125K. In my anecdotal experience, only a couple out of hundreds of reviews mentioned length, one of which referred the a 72K book as a "novella." The variance doesn't seem to have hurt me much. I have author friends who swear by making sure everything exceeds 90K in length, but even they occasionally get complaints something is too short. What can you do? (rhetorical question).


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Perry Constantine said:


> Does it really matter if your book is 30K or 300K so long as that's the length needed to tell that story?


It matters to readers. I'm one of those who likes long novels. I skip right over anything described as a novella, and I'm not happy with anything that was labeled a novel that's only 40,000 words unless it's exceptional. I'll admit Craig Johnson's _The Spirit of Steamboat _is so good it softened my attitude toward novellas considerably. (But I also wonder if the fact it's part of the Longmire series, and I came to it knowing the characters well is a great part of why the short length didn't matter.)

I'm sure there are others who are exactly the opposite from me and want shorter works and are put off by something with +100,000 words.



Fishbowl Helmet said:


> I for one don't look forward to having to "retrain" readers to accept a 40k word novel.


I don't think that's necessary, but at a guess ebook readers will become increasingly conscious that they can't rely on labels like "novel," when it's being misapplied so often and they'll start paying more attention to word and page counts. I already am.


----------



## P.T. Phronk (Jun 6, 2014)

ellenoc said:


> I'm sure there are others who are exactly the opposite from me and want shorter works and are put off by something with +100,000 words.


That's me. I actively look for shorter novels and novellas. I'll pick up an epic 100,000 word+ novel if it comes highly recommended, but the bar becomes exponentially higher the more time I'm expected to put into it.

With more and more things competing for our attention, and more and more of those things coming in bite-sized chunks (e.g., Twitter), I think more and more people are like me, looking for shorter works. I wouldn't be surprised to see novellas take off in 2015 an beyond.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Steven Hardesty said:


> DWS is almost always right and always terrific fun in what he has to say. A novel's length at so-many-words is a requirement imposed by the villains of legacy. So their sales staffs know how to classify the "product." But Kindle readers impose their own size limit, preferring shorter novels they can wrap up quickly on the device. That's why I learned to reduce my natural 100-120K bent for a novel to 60K. F. Scott Fitzgerald said never write anything less than 50K, doubtless anticipating the Kindle audience.


The bestselling indie ebook authors in contemp romance--a genre where many people do write short--write LONG. It's especially noticeable on Audible. You can see that all their books are 10 hours plus--mainly 11, 12 hours. They're writing 100K books. In romance, for example, there have always been two kinds of books--so-called "category romance;" i.e., Harlequin Romance, short, simple books. No subplots, focus on two main characters, short time frame. 50K or whatever. And "single-title" romance--more like 90-100K. More complex, longer time frame, subplots, more backstory, more secondary characters. I've never had any interest in reading the short books. Many romance readers don't. And while those books are quick to write, they're also, by their nature, more interchangeable and forgettable. They're probably not going to be reread or recommended much. Look at Nora Roberts's books for an example. She writes the little short things, usually in threes. They're quite simple. And then she writes the bigger books. Category and single-title. The ones people talk about are the longer, complex ones.

So, yeah. Are there readers who want short books? Sure. Harlequin sold a ton of those little paperbacks, too. But they also had a shelf life of about 2 weeks. The only way to make money with them is to keep churning them out. And a quick look at the bestseller list on Audible (where you can see length more clearly) will give you a pretty good idea that, except for erotic romance, what's selling big isn't the 50K stuff.

Different strokes--for readers and writers. I'm not suited to the category romance-style books anyway, so I don't write them. Others write them, can pump them out quickly, and do great with them. But the big names? They're writing the long books, in my genre.

As with anything, I'd study your genre and see what's going on. Erotic romance, new adult, paranormal romance--all about the serials and novellas and short stuff, from what I see (but I'm not an expert, as those aren't what I write). Contemp romance (non-erotic ones) and romantic suspense? Not so much.The good-selling books tend to be longer.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Then there are some readers who like long, short and in between.  Just depends on our mood and how much time we have to read.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

ellenoc said:


> It matters to readers. I'm one of those who likes long novels. I skip right over anything described as a novella, and I'm not happy with anything that was labeled a novel that's only 40,000 words unless it's exceptional. I'll admit Craig Johnson's _The Spirit of Steamboat _is so good it softened my attitude toward novellas considerably. (But I also wonder if the fact it's part of the Longmire series, and I came to it knowing the characters well is a great part of why the short length didn't matter.)


So you'd prefer someone who wrote a story that only required 30K to tell the complete story to pad it out to over 40? Because that's what I was talking about. Not every story is suited to a long format. Nothing irritates me more than an author who is clearly padding a book to make it longer. It's dishonest, a waste of my time and money, and will likely turn me off from not ever reading anything else by that author in the future. That's why I'll never read another book by David Peace, because Tokyo Year Zero was filled with so much needless repetition that drove me nuts.


----------



## fantasy-writer (Dec 12, 2014)

Out of curiosity, do you all give info about length in the book product description (i.e. word count)? Or do you figure people will just glance at the page count number that Amazon, for instance, gives?


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

I can't speak for everyone, but as a reader with a limited budget I pay attention to story length. For one, I like to immerse myself in a setting I like and let the characters grow on me. If it's all over by the time I've truly grown attached to the setting, I'm left with a twinge of sadness. The other thing is that I won't pay, say, 1.5 dollars for 40 pages. If a series is split up into 40 page books, I'm going to avoid it no matter how much it interests me. I enjoy reading, but I'm poor, and I'd like to get as much entertainment for my money as possible.

Likewise, if a series starts with a 400 page book priced at 99 cents, and the second title is less than 200 pages for 3.99 - I'll avoid the series.

Having read hundreds of Amazon reviews for all kinds of books over the past weeks, I believe many other readers feel the same way.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> So you'd prefer someone who wrote a story that only required 30K to tell the complete story to pad it out to over 40? Because that's what I was talking about. Not every story is suited to a long format. Nothing irritates me more than an author who is clearly padding a book to make it longer. It's dishonest, a waste of my time and money, and will likely turn me off from not ever reading anything else by that author in the future. That's why I'll never read another book by David Peace, because Tokyo Year Zero was filled with so much needless repetition that drove me nuts.


Too bad, because I really loved Peace's _Red Riding Quartet_. But those books are shorter, as far as I recall (and highly recommended, if very gritty).

Anyway, I'm a firm believer in "The story should be as long as it needs to be, whether that's 1000 or 500000 words". There's room for and readers for every length. I also find that a lot of the books I enjoy are novella to short novel length or ye olde fix-up novel, i.e. a novel assembled from several shorter stories. I also enjoy longer works of course, but I find that I rarely buy massive doorstoppers unless it's an author I already love or an author who comes highly recommended.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Ella Summers said:


> Out of curiosity, do you all give info about length in the book product description (i.e. word count)? Or do you figure people will just glance at the page count number that Amazon, for instance, gives?


I don't. I mention word count to people in my office (at my day job) and get blank stares. I don't think most non-writers think in terms of word count.

I publish novellas and call them that, serial novels and call them that, short stories and call them that, and novels and call them that. My word count for novels is anywhere between 85K and 105K, novellas are coming in between 14K and 22K, short stories 10K or so, and the serialization is broken in to six episodes of 10K-15K apiece.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

40,000 words is a novel


----------



## wtvr (Jun 18, 2014)

I just finished my first novel length thing, 80K words, a 4-part serial. The difference in sales is amazing. The serial right before it that tops out at 86 pages hovers at 4000 ranking. This longer one has been in the 400-600 range for a month. Romance readers really like a big story!


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

all of my books are 30-40K words and I've encountered much snobbery among other indies on properly classifying them as "Novellas" I just call them books, everyone else can argue of the proper verbiage. I care more about if people read them or not.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

wtvr said:


> I just finished my first novel length thing, 80K words, a 4-part serial. The difference in sales is amazing. The serial right before it that tops out at 86 pages hovers at 4000 ranking. This longer one has been in the 400-600 range for a month. Romance readers really like a big story!


Exactly. I think readers in general want to know that the story will not end too soon. I don't think it's as much a rational calculation (length vs. price) but an emotional judgment one (will I end up satisfied if I take the time to start this book?).


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

David VanDyke said:


> Exactly. I think readers in general want to know that the story will not end too soon. I don't think it's as much a rational calculation (length vs. price) but an emotional judgment one (will I end up satisfied if I take the time to start this book?).


I think this is really true. I almost never reader shorter works because I want to spend more time with characters I like, in an enjoyable story. I like that feeling of satisfaction when I'm done with a good book, and I never get that with shorter stories.


----------



## deedawning (Aug 31, 2013)

I left a reply on a thread that tout how books he to be so long to make the NY Times BS list and I said Love Story, a no 1 bestseller (and movie) in the 70s was 131 pages long. End of discussion.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Rosalind James said:


> The bestselling indie ebook authors in contemp romance--a genre where many people do write short--write LONG. It's especially noticeable on Audible. You can see that all their books are 10 hours plus--mainly 11, 12 hours. They're writing 100K books. In romance, for example, there have always been two kinds of books--so-called "category romance;" i.e., Harlequin Romance, short, simple books. No subplots, focus on two main characters, short time frame. 50K or whatever. And "single-title" romance--more like 90-100K. More complex, longer time frame, subplots, more backstory, more secondary characters. I've never had any interest in reading the short books. Many romance readers don't. And while those books are quick to write, they're also, by their nature, more interchangeable and forgettable. They're probably not going to be reread or recommended much. Look at Nora Roberts's books for an example. She writes the little short things, usually in threes. They're quite simple. And then she writes the bigger books. Category and single-title. The ones people talk about are the longer, complex ones.
> 
> So, yeah. Are there readers who want short books? Sure. Harlequin sold a ton of those little paperbacks, too. But they also had a shelf life of about 2 weeks. The only way to make money with them is to keep churning them out. And a quick look at the bestseller list on Audible (where you can see length more clearly) will give you a pretty good idea that, except for erotic romance, what's selling big isn't the 50K stuff.
> 
> ...


You are spot on as usual when it comes to romance. I am not good with word count as I only think of books in pages and also locations to some extent reading kindle books for 7 years. For me the harlequin category romances, contempo ones are the bare minimum of length for me. I don't read many of those either as they often feel shallow. There are a select few authors I can read in that short of length. But since I read more historicals, even the category historicals are a bit longer in harlequins than the contempo counterparts. Not being familiar with words I see that they start at 50,000 or so and are listed at 190 pages or so in the stores. So that gives me an idea. No wonder those I read felt abrupt. My sweet spot is 350+ pages. Just under 400 I think. That is a normal length book for me. Doorstoppers don't start until 800-1000 pages in my world. I don't read many of those, Outlander series is in that group.

I just read a book, its still in my signature bar. It was the 5th in a series of historical romances. Its a huge author in that genre, Lorraine Heath. I devoured the first 4 in that series. Proper romance series. Couple per book, HEA at end of each book. All through the series I was looking forward to a character to get his own book. He got it, kind of. The author and/or publisher decided to only give him a novella. It was listed as having 170 pages I believe. It felt shorter than that. I was so disappointed in that short change. I felt let down that this character did not get a full story. Short ones like that feel like abridged books.

Readers don't really talk about suddenly wanting everything short. I only see that among authors and pretty much only among indy authors. And I see it in browsing the store. Its one of the reasons I rarely pick up indy authors anymore in the romance genres. Unless its someone like Rosalind, Courtney Milan, Krista Ball, Tess St. John, Ellen O'Connor. Those are indy romance authors that spring to my mind right now that know the genre and write what readers read. There a a few others I am sure, my Emmentaler brain can't find them now though. 

Readers don't suddenly change what they like reading. Those that always liked shorts still read them, those that never did, points at me, still don't.

Its the authors that like to pump out a lot of short stuff to have a larger catalog that love to always talk about how short is going to take over the world and all that. Yet, I don't see any of that among the readers I hang out. We still pretty much talk about the same books in the same length we always have. For me, there is no such thing as a romance short for example. I am sure I'll get some pushback on that, I don't really care. Just doesn't work. How could it possibly. How can all that character building, settings, characters getting to know each other fit in a short. Romance has to have a HEA/HFN so no can do. I don't count serials as romance.

My husband on the other hand has always loved sci fi shorts. He used to get these magazines when he was younger he tells me with the stories in it. He is finally reading on a kindle once I gave him my old Paperwhite so he's shopping in the kindle store for the first time. He is a bit appalled that shorts in sci fi are sold as single pieces. Its not how he grew up reading those. He's having a bit of a hard time finding stuff so he's sticking with the older stuff that is packaged like it used to be in bundles or whatever those are called. But he always liked reading shorts. He is not a big reader, unlike me. He can go months not reading any. I can't go a day without reading. I can read a book a day, full book.

I am also once again so glad that apparently the genres I love reading don't seem to have this elusive padding I keep reading about everytime a thread like this comes up. Can't say I come across that. Wonder what that looks like. Or maybe I don't and continue to read my non padded full length books.  Its not a myth, its what many readers like to read and continue to like. Authors preferring shorts does not change what people like.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

deedawning said:


> I left a reply on a thread that tout how books he to be so long to make the NY Times BS list and I said Love Story, a no 1 bestseller (and movie) in the 70s was 131 pages long. End of discussion.


Yeah, _Love Story_ is only 24,854 words.

Here's a cool infographic about the word counts of popular books:

http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/how-long-does-it-take-to-read-popular-books-infographic/91254


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Atunah said:


> You are spot on as usual when it comes to romance. I am not good with word count as I only think of books in pages and also locations to some extent reading kindle books for 7 years. For me the harlequin category romances, contempo ones are the bare minimum of length for me. I don't read many of those either as they often feel shallow. There are a select few authors I can read in that short of length. But since I read more historicals, even the category historicals are a bit longer in harlequins than the contempo counterparts. Not being familiar with words I see that they start at 50,000 or so and are listed at 190 pages or so in the stores. So that gives me an idea. No wonder those I read felt abrupt. My sweet spot is 350+ pages. Just under 400 I think. That is a normal length book for me. Doorstoppers don't start until 800-1000 pages in my world. I don't read many of those, Outlander series is in that group.
> 
> I just read a book, its still in my signature bar. It was the 5th in a series of historical romances. Its a huge author in that genre, Lorraine Heath. I devoured the first 4 in that series. Proper romance series. Couple per book, HEA at end of each book. All through the series I was looking forward to a character to get his own book. He got it, kind of. The author and/or publisher decided to only give him a novella. It was listed as having 170 pages I believe. It felt shorter than that. I was so disappointed in that short change. I felt let down that this character did not get a full story. Short ones like that feel like abridged books.
> 
> ...


Atunah, you are such an invaluable resource. Thanks for posting. I hear from my readers, and from other authors, but neither of those really tells me what readers are thinking and talking about genre-wide. (Beyond Contemp Romance as well.)

Bottom line, I write what I enjoy reading. It's really the only barometer I have. If I have a good time writing it, generally readers seem to have a good time reading it. And, yeah, like that author you mentioned--I gave a couple a novella, and my readers were NOT happy. Lots of them won't even read it. They wanted that couple to have a novel. And I got paid back for it--I think a novel could have sold a ton. The novella, not so much. Lesson learned! Onward in my plus-100K world! (Which is about 350+ pages.) I just wrote a super-fun one, I think, that is 104K. All my beta readers said they read it within a day, and that it went super fast. So--I don't think it's padded. I think it just has some subplots and some interesting twists. We'll see what the reviewers say!


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

As a reader, I absolutely love to read a saga. The more pages in my hand, the happier I am. Shallow, but I remember as a kid when the bookmobile would come to our tiny community a few times a month, I chose my books based on length more than storyline or cover. I was only allowed a certain number, so I made it count. As an adult, I sometimes feel myself slipping back to that longing to engross myself in a huge saga, becoming familiar with the characters and hating to see them go. In bookstores, I'm always drawn to the books with the widest spines.

As an author, I write mostly longer lengths. 

The last book I finished and submitted to my publisher was the longest at 143k. They accepted it, calling it my best work yet and commenting favorably on the amount of detail. However, since the contract was signed I've worked with a developmental editor who marked where she thought I could shave sections down to allow for better pacing. It was tough but I ultimately cut about 20k from the final draft, but nothing I'd consider padding. 

I don't purposely write longer lengths, it just works out that way and I suppose that's because it's what I love to read.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> So you'd prefer someone who wrote a story that only required 30K to tell the complete story to pad it out to over 40? Because that's what I was talking about. Not every story is suited to a long format. Nothing irritates me more than an author who is clearly padding a book to make it longer. It's dishonest, a waste of my time and money, and will likely turn me off from not ever reading anything else by that author in the future. That's why I'll never read another book by David Peace, because Tokyo Year Zero was filled with so much needless repetition that drove me nuts.


I, for one, would prefer the story be written to whatever length the author desires, and when that's done, to then be honest enough to call it whatever's appropriate to that length. So despite the author's need to sell better by calling their work a novel no matter what, and despite their story only being 5000 words long, they should have intellectual honesty enough to not label that a novel. 'Coz it ain't. That drives me nuts.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I think that we as writers have to be sure we are labeling our works correctly. I prefer a novel be 50k words and up, but I can be flexible. What I'd like to see is a consistent use of terminology.

For example (with some general word counts:

short story up to 15K (you could further define flash fiction as 1K or less)
novella 15K to 30K
short novel 30 to 70K
novel 70 to 100K
epic novel 100K+

There's some fudge level there, because if your story is 30,001 words, should it be a short novel, or a novelette? I guess it would be up to the author. Me, I'd try to get rid of a couple of words. 

I don't care for "novelette" myself, and while it could be used, but I think it confuses readers.

SFWA has guidelines for what they consider qualifies for certain word lengths, as do other organizations. But the readers don't really know anything about this, and they depend on writers/publishers to have a standard and make it clear.


----------



## Morgan Jameson (Sep 16, 2014)

Kay Bratt said:


> As a reader, I absolutely love to read a saga. The more pages in my hand, the happier I am. Shallow, but I remember as a kid when the bookmobile would come to our tiny community a few times a month, I chose my books based on length more than storyline or cover. I was only allowed a certain number, so I made it count. As an adult, I sometimes feel myself slipping back to that longing to engross myself in a huge saga, becoming familiar with the characters and hating to see them go. In bookstores, I'm always drawn to the books with the widest spines.
> 
> As an author, I write mostly longer lengths.
> 
> ...


This is refreshing to hear. I self-published because my agent told me my book, at 143K would never be accepted by a trad publisher. Oddly, everyone who reads it comments that it's a 'fast read', and that they couldn't put it down. There was just no way I could cut 1/3 of it. It was actually much biger, but I cut an entire plotline and MC...which will soon be another book.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Atunah said:


> Its the authors that like to pump out a lot of short stuff to have a larger catalog that love to always talk about how short is going to take over the world and all that.


If you don't like authors speculating on what readers want, then please don't speculate on the motivations of authors. I don't write novellas and serials because I want to "pump out a lot of stuff to have a larger catalog," I do it because that's the format I enjoy writing in. I find when I write long, I'm more likely to run out of steam and less likely to want to return to that world and those characters. When I wrote my 90K SoulQuest novel, I had intended it on being part of a series. But by the time I finished it, I didn't want to go back to that world and those characters.

There are legitimate reasons for authors to write short stuff other than screwing readers.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Perry Constantine said:


> If you don't like authors speculating on what readers want, then please don't speculate on the motivations of authors. I don't write novellas and serials because I want to "pump out a lot of stuff to have a larger catalog," I do it because that's the format I enjoy writing in. I find when I write long, I'm more likely to run out of steam and less likely to want to return to that world and those characters. When I wrote my 90K SoulQuest novel, I had intended it on being part of a series. But by the time I finished it, I didn't want to go back to that world and those characters.
> 
> There are legitimate reasons for authors to write short stuff other than screwing readers.


Hey, I am just using the term that I have seen used right here by authors more than once in several of the many threads where the "pumping out" is part of a marketing plan. I am just reading up on that from right here.

Its quite eye opening sometimes for a just reader to read threads around here and on the amazon forums. 
Its not really speculation when its written right here. And I can see the results when browsing books in the store now.

If you enjoy writing such, good on you. Nothing wrong with that. Nobody is saying you can't.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> If you don't like authors speculating on what readers want, then please don't speculate on the motivations of authors. I don't write novellas and serials because I want to "pump out a lot of stuff to have a larger catalog," I do it because that's the format I enjoy writing in. I find when I write long, I'm more likely to run out of steam and less likely to want to return to that world and those characters. When I wrote my 90K SoulQuest novel, I had intended it on being part of a series. But by the time I finished it, I didn't want to go back to that world and those characters.
> 
> There are legitimate reasons for authors to write short stuff other than screwing readers.


Perry,
Atunah is talking about a specific group of authors. Since the shoe obviously does not fit you, please put the shoe back on the shelf. 
As always write to your audience. 
As far as length goes: Atunah and I disagree on how long erotica should be. I like short. She likes long. Doesn't mean one is right and the other is wrong. It just means we look for different books.
This can apply to any genre.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

she-la-ti-da said:


> I don't care for "novelette" myself, and while it could be used, but I think it confuses readers.


You might be right, but Fairies is too long to be a short story, and not really long enough to be a novella. It is the length it is.

(And incidentally, doesn't sell at all well, although that might be that it doesn't focus on lesbian romance or the same main characters as Pegasi, and isn't in the lesbian category. Ooh, well l, I had fun writing it.)


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Perry,
> Atunah is talking about a specific group of authors. Since the shoe obviously does not fit you, please put the shoe back on the shelf.
> As always write to your audience.
> As far as length goes: Atunah and I disagree on how long erotica should be. I like short. She likes long. Doesn't mean one is right and the other is wrong. It just means we look for different books.
> This can apply to any genre.


We short fiction and serial writers writers often find ourselves under attack by a vocal group of readers and/or authors who really, really hate short fiction. We are constantly told that readers of X genre (which is every genre) don't like short fiction, we are accused of cluttering Amazon with the substandard work we supposedly pump out, we are trying to exploit Amazon by putting our short work into KU, we are called scammers who chop up novels to extract more money from readers and we're called greedy for daring to charge for our work at all. We also get one starred, because something clearly labelled as a short story was - gasp - short. A lot of people would prefer for Amazon to either put our work in some kind of ghetto, where the short fiction haters don't have to see it, or ban us altogether. Oh yes, and why don't we write a "real book" for a change?

Are there writers who pump out short stories to inflate their catalogue and get money and borrows from KU? Of course, there are. Are there writers who chop up a novel for profit? Of course there are. But there also are many legitimate short fiction and serial authors who simply prefer the form and have no intention of tricking anybody into buying anything they don't want and are nonetheless tarred with the same brush as those alleged scammers who supposedly clutter up Amazon with their scamlets.

So I can completely understand Perry's reaction to Atunah's and Rosalind's posts, even if they were not aimed at him and his work. Because short fiction writers are attacked so often, including here on KBoards, that many of us are just very testy about yet another "real readers don't want short fiction" post. Meanwhile, I have never seen a "Real readers don't want novels" post from a short fiction writer.

Don't like short fiction? Simple. Don't buy it and don't read it! But don't attack those who write and enjoy it.

And BTW, it's totally possible to write a romance short story. I have a few romance shorts and novelettes, both contemporary and historical, and they are among my better selling works.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

To be clear, my point was, "Readers differ." And that short work is more appreciated in some genres than others. I find that people often want to pronounce on "what's happening in publishing,"'when in reality, it's so hard to generalize across genres--or even subgenres. At this point, my own best guide is my own readers. What somebody else is good at writing, what some other group of readers wants to read, whether that's a trend or a length or a style or whatever--really doesn't matter, as long as there's a reasonably sizable group that wants to read what I write.


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> I've done a lot of firsthand research on the retail price of paperbacks. Adjusted for inflation, mass market paperbacks actually cost slightly more before DWS started publishing than they do now. In the 28 years since his first contract in 1987, the cost of MMPBs, in 2015 dollars, has been completely flat. Prices haven't risen at all. In fact, they're slightly cheaper than they were 30 years ago.
> 
> So it's not very likely that novels got longer over that period because greedy publishers needed to justify higher prices.
> 
> In fact, if books got longer while prices stayed the same, my first thought is that publishers went for longer novels because they found that longer novels sell better.


That only works if you relate dollars then to dollars now (lopsided view of inflation). The value of anything increases when the value of the currency in question decreases, due to the fact that inflation must also factor in the average yearly incomes of the individuals representing the nation of the currency in question. Prices have risen asymmetrically to the increase in wages on the average. What this means is, though prices are relatively flat through one perspective of inflation, people have less to spend in relation to said inflation.

For example, if average consumer prices triple over a period of time, but wages only double during the same span, everything is then more expensive even if a currency only view of inflation demonstrates a flat line.

With inflation comes the necessary tightening of family spending. The first fiscal concepts to go by the wayside are always recreational in nature. The purchasing of fictional books are among these. The average Joe has a few more dollars to spend than ten years ago; he has a few dollars that buys a lot less product, therefore fewer books per person.

The only saving grace for us is that the average population has been growing as well, meaning that individuals can afford less books per person, but there are a lot more individuals to buy books now verses then. This equates to a slowing in market growth, which is exactly what we are seeing.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> We short fiction and serial writers writers often find ourselves under attack by a vocal group of readers and/or authors who really, really hate short fiction. We are constantly told that readers of X genre (which is every genre) don't like short fiction, we are accused of cluttering Amazon with the substandard work we supposedly pump out, we are trying to exploit Amazon by putting our short work into KU, we are called scammers who chop up novels to extract more money from readers and we're called greedy for daring to charge for our work at all. We also get one starred, because something clearly labelled as a short story was - gasp - short. A lot of people would prefer for Amazon to either put our work in some kind of ghetto, where the short fiction haters don't have to see it, or ban us altogether. Oh yes, and why don't we write a "real book" for a change?
> 
> Are there writers who pump out short stories to inflate their catalogue and get money and borrows from KU? Of course, there are. Are there writers who chop up a novel for profit? Of course there are. But there also are many legitimate short fiction and serial authors who simply prefer the form and have no intention of tricking anybody into buying anything they don't want and are nonetheless tarred with the same brush as those alleged scammers who supposedly clutter up Amazon with their scamlets.
> 
> ...


The lack of a like button on this forum becomes extremely apparent yet again. Perfectly stated, Cora.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2015)

Actually, we are writing "long" novels.
We are doing under the name "series" and bundling them together after 3 or 4 are completed.
This is so we can sell them individually at a low price, and then get a bigger price for the bundle.
We're harking back to Dickens who published his "series" in the newspaper and then pulled them together later as "novels"


----------



## deedawning (Aug 31, 2013)

Okey Dokey said:


> Actually, we are writing "long" novels.
> We are doing under the name "series" and bundling them together after 3 or 4 are completed.
> This is so we can sell them individually at a low price, and then get a bigger price for the bundle.
> We're harking back to Dickens who published his "series" in the newspaper and then pulled them together later as "novels"


Yes, But not me so much. I started writing when you could write and sell what you want and while there's nothing wrong with series (ask Janet Evanovich) I chose to write a variety of stories, granted in the erotic/erotic romance vein. But let's be serious. We are selling our time and the buyers have become parsimonious. Why? Why not? if the big ebook vendors and their stupid authors want to give a hundred books away to sell one at probably 99 cents, why should they buy the ridiculously low $2.99 for a full length novel when the author tries to raise the price to a still low but more reasonable price. Why should they indeed when they are still thousands of books added a day to the free and 99 cent ranks. We are shooting ourselves in the...you knou, foot. Ten years ago I made 50 to 100 dollars an hour designing homes. Three years ago, I made seven times what I made last year right here selling books where I'm selling them now, sans Google Play. And that's with a double the inventory. I empathize with the under paid and under appreciated Walmart worker because I make less than he/she does per hour and 90% of that time is spent promoting. But at least I get to pay double the amount he/she does toward soc sec & medicare because I'm self employed.

Why pirate sites still exist when there are so many thousand of free books floating around I have no idea, but that's another place where the writer--you and I--are getting screwed. The estimate is for every two books we sell, pirates steal another, not counting the ones we give away. Why the moneyed vendors do nothing about pirates, I have no idea. Pirates are stealing from them too, billions. Yes some of us have mastered the intricacies of today's crazy ebook market or just had the perfect timing and are reaping the rewards, but most of us haven't. Not that we haven't tried, but if you keep getting turned down by BookBub and the more effective marketing sites or can't afford them you're stuck with what you can get.

We have spoiled millions of readers to the point where some tell friends not to buy our books, just wait until they are free. And of course dozens of sites have cropped up where they tell cheapskate readers exactly that, your book is free. And stupid us, we pay them to do it. Yes, it might work for authors right now in the short term, but it can't be good. I was making a lot more money before Amazon came out with select, when 99 cents was the floor and there was no free.

My point is many writers are reacting to the market. If buyers won't buy a 100K word book for $5-6.99 (a fair price pre-select), trick them by writing and perma-freeing vol one then pricing subsequent books at $3.99 for a total of $8. The gauge of a good writer isn't how long a book is. Anyone can add fluff and filler to a book, but why spend any more time on a book than you need to? Especially, since it's not going to be any more appealing to today's bargain hunting consumers. I was taught concise is good, adverbs are bad and when I edit I apply that. I shorten or take out information dumps. For every person who likes to get lost in a long novel there is another who wants the author to get to the point. So in this buyers market, I will write shorter material and get what I can for it. It's a matter of economics. And if some supercilious author has a problem with that, I have a four letter word for him/her that I use in my erotic stories.

I was going to get into the idea of unionizing, but I'll save that for another post. Right now I need to get to work.

Ciao


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> Actually, we are writing "long" novels.
> We are doing under the name "series" and bundling them together after 3 or 4 are completed.
> This is so we can sell them individually at a low price, and then get a bigger price for the bundle.
> We're harking back to Dickens who published his "series" in the newspaper and then pulled them together later as "novels"


No kidding. It's a matter of format and perspective. In another world, GRR Martin could publish his Game of Throne books as as loooong series of short stories and novellas rather than the doorstops he's releasing, and there would be fans eating them up and fans complaining. A writer who writes a long series consisting of novellas in the same setting with the same characters is doing the same thing, just packaging the end result differently.

Ultimately, I agree with Cora in that every type of writer gets attacked by readers and other writers. Literary writer? You suck and you're pretentious. Short story writer? You suck because your stuff is short and you can writer more faster. Novella writer? You such because reasons. It's all pretty ridiculous. I say eff them all and write and publish what you want.


----------



## Fishbowl Helmet (Jan 12, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> We short fiction and serial writers writers often find ourselves under attack by a vocal group of readers and/or authors who really, really hate short fiction. We are constantly told that readers of X genre (which is every genre) don't like short fiction, we are accused of cluttering Amazon with the substandard work we supposedly pump out, we are trying to exploit Amazon by putting our short work into KU, we are called scammers who chop up novels to extract more money from readers and we're called greedy for daring to charge for our work at all. We also get one starred, because something clearly labelled as a short story was - gasp - short. A lot of people would prefer for Amazon to either put our work in some kind of ghetto, where the short fiction haters don't have to see it, or ban us altogether. Oh yes, and why don't we write a "real book" for a change?
> 
> Are there writers who pump out short stories to inflate their catalogue and get money and borrows from KU? Of course, there are. Are there writers who chop up a novel for profit? Of course there are. But there also are many legitimate short fiction and serial authors who simply prefer the form and have no intention of tricking anybody into buying anything they don't want and are nonetheless tarred with the same brush as those alleged scammers who supposedly clutter up Amazon with their scamlets.
> 
> ...


Quite well said.

I really love me some shorter fiction. Eat the stuff up.

That said, it's still got to reach a certain length before it justifies the label 'novel'. By labeling too-short works as novels there is a bit of dishonesty there. Not saying specifically that you do this, or other specific short fiction or serial writers here do this, but some writers clearly are. I don't see it as any different than trying to sneak a work into the wrong category because it's got fewer titles and is therefore easier to get ranking. It's dishonest, pure and simple. Just like calling something that's too-short a novel is dishonest.


----------



## Ebook Itch (Mar 3, 2015)

We were talking about this around the Ebook Itch water cooler. The point that stood out the most was a quote by Stephen King. We can't remember the source, but it was along the lines of he liked to write novellas. Unfortunately, they were too long for magazines and too short for hardcover books. Well, enter ebooks. All that said, here's what we consider the different lengths

Short Story: < 10,000 words

Novella: 10k to 30k words

Novel: > 30k words

As DWS pointed out, a lot of great literature is on the shorter side when compared to some of the epic tomes published these days. Anyway, these are the kinds of conversations we love having. We're just book nerds, I guess!


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> That said, it's still got to reach a certain length before it justifies the label 'novel'. By labeling too-short works as novels there is a bit of dishonesty there. Not saying specifically that you do this, or other specific short fiction or serial writers here do this, but some writers clearly are. I don't see it as any different than trying to sneak a work into the wrong category because it's got fewer titles and is therefore easier to get ranking. It's dishonest, pure and simple. Just like calling something that's too-short a novel is dishonest.


But here's the problem with your accusation of dishonesty--there's no consistent definition. Ebook Itch just used the above definitions. SFWA says a short story is under 7,500 words, a novelette is 7,500-17,500, a novella is 17,500-40,000, and a novel is anything over 40,000. Nero Wolfe Society says a novella is between 15,000-20,000. RWA says between 20,000-40,000.

If I use Ebook Itch's definition of a novel for my 35K book, but you use SFWA's, then am I being dishonest by calling my book a novel or am I simply using a different barometer?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Fishbowl Helmet said:


> Quite well said.
> 
> I really love me some shorter fiction. Eat the stuff up.
> 
> That said, it's still got to reach a certain length before it justifies the label 'novel'. By labeling too-short works as novels there is a bit of dishonesty there. Not saying specifically that you do this, or other specific short fiction or serial writers here do this, but some writers clearly are. I don't see it as any different than trying to sneak a work into the wrong category because it's got fewer titles and is therefore easier to get ranking. It's dishonest, pure and simple. Just like calling something that's too-short a novel is dishonest.


I'm very much in favour of clear labelling and always include "This is a short story/novelette/novella/collection of XXX words or approximately XX print pages" in my blurbs.

But as Perry also pointed out, there are competing definitions for what precisely is a short story, novelette (a term many people hate for unfathomable reasons), novella, novel, etc... Personally, I use the SFWA classification, because that's what I'm most familiar with and wouldn't call a 40000 word book a novel either, but a short novel.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

I started putting the word count at the bottom of my descriptions.  I figure, why not?  If it'll turn off readers who hate short books, excite readers like short books, and otherwise do nothing for people who don't understand / don't care what it means, it seems like a good idea to me.  Unlike a print book, people can't just look at the spine to see a story's length, so might as well tell them straight out and let them see if that's a good or bad thing for their tastes.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> We short fiction and serial writers writers often find ourselves under attack by a vocal group of readers and/or authors who really, really hate short fiction. We are constantly told that readers of X genre (which is every genre) don't like short fiction, we are accused of cluttering Amazon with the substandard work we supposedly pump out, we are trying to exploit Amazon by putting our short work into KU, we are called scammers who chop up novels to extract more money from readers and we're called greedy for daring to charge for our work at all. We also get one starred, because something clearly labelled as a short story was - gasp - short. A lot of people would prefer for Amazon to either put our work in some kind of ghetto, where the short fiction haters don't have to see it, or ban us altogether. Oh yes, and why don't we write a "real book" for a change?
> 
> Are there writers who pump out short stories to inflate their catalogue and get money and borrows from KU? Of course, there are. Are there writers who chop up a novel for profit? Of course there are. But there also are many legitimate short fiction and serial authors who simply prefer the form and have no intention of tricking anybody into buying anything they don't want and are nonetheless tarred with the same brush as those alleged scammers who supposedly clutter up Amazon with their scamlets.
> 
> ...


*Like* I've noticed attitudes like that a lot. Its like diehard Star Trek and Star Wars fans who say you can be in only one camp when you can be in both (or neither if your prefer).

I admit I used to be in the camp of longer novels and series as a fantasy reader in my youth, but as I got older I noticed just how bloated and padded they are. So I gave up on them. Then I found a lot of the older short fiction writers from the days of pulp and fell in love with them. Short, sweet, to the point, with no unnecessary 20 page descriptions of dresses and people entering rooms. it changed my style of writing as well as reading.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Longer doesn't mean bloated. I don't describe clothes nearly as much as many authors of novellas. Scenery descriptions bore me. It's more about secondary characters and the duration of the storyline, I find. But I write quite zippily. Lots of dialogue.

Pride and Prejudice would be a good example of a long book that is a quick read. My favorite kind of book: humor, dialogue, interesting characters and story line beyond the romance. Yet it's much longer and more complex than even a long current romance. It just doesn't "read long." But you can happily dive in there and stay a while.

Which isn't to say that the only good books are long. Just that long doesn't necessarily mean bloated.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> We short fiction and serial writers writers often find ourselves under attack by a vocal group of readers and/or authors who really, really hate short fiction. We are constantly told that readers of X genre (which is every genre) don't like short fiction, we are accused of cluttering Amazon with the substandard work we supposedly pump out, we are trying to exploit Amazon by putting our short work into KU, we are called scammers who chop up novels to extract more money from readers and we're called greedy for daring to charge for our work at all. We also get one starred, because something clearly labelled as a short story was - gasp - short. A lot of people would prefer for Amazon to either put our work in some kind of ghetto, where the short fiction haters don't have to see it, or ban us altogether. Oh yes, and why don't we write a "real book" for a change?
> 
> Are there writers who pump out short stories to inflate their catalogue and get money and borrows from KU? Of course, there are. Are there writers who chop up a novel for profit? Of course there are. But there also are many legitimate short fiction and serial authors who simply prefer the form and have no intention of tricking anybody into buying anything they don't want and are nonetheless tarred with the same brush as those alleged scammers who supposedly clutter up Amazon with their scamlets.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Cora. You said what I was going to, but much, much better.

Man, short story writers can't catch a break. Maybe we should admit we're the root of all that is evil in Book World. We could share the honors with the erotica writers, and the romance writers. None of us write "real" books, anyway.



Perry Constantine said:


> But here's the problem with your accusation of dishonesty--there's no consistent definition. Ebook Itch just used the above definitions. SFWA says a short story is under 7,500 words, a novelette is 7,500-17,500, a novella is 17,500-40,000, and a novel is anything over 40,000. Nero Wolfe Society says a novella is between 15,000-20,000. RWA says between 20,000-40,000.
> 
> If I use Ebook Itch's definition of a novel for my 35K book, but you use SFWA's, then am I being dishonest by calling my book a novel or am I simply using a different barometer?


Oh, Perry, you know we're just trying to get something over on the poor readers!

Just kidding. 

Personally, I prefer SFWA's guidelines, except I call novels at 50K. I think that's a good length, it's enough words to justify a higher price, and you can tell a good story without having to drop all side plots and secondary characters.


----------



## deedawning (Aug 31, 2013)

Ebook Itch said:


> We were talking about this around the Ebook Itch water cooler. The point that stood out the most was a quote by Stephen King. We can't remember the source, but it was along the lines of he liked to write novellas. Unfortunately, they were too long for magazines and too short for hardcover books. Well, enter ebooks. All that said, here's what we consider the different lengths
> 
> Short Story: < 10,000 words
> 
> ...


I agree with this but I'd stick a couple more types in there. It might be worth noting that BookSends uses 50k as a min and Bookbub uses 150 pages which doesn't mean much because with font size & type and margins you can stretch a 25k or reduce a 60k book to 150 pages with no problem.

Short Story: < 10,000 words

Novella: 10k to 30k words

Novel: > 30k words

SHORT < 10k

NOVELETTE 10k to 20k

NOVELLA 20k to 40k

SHORT NOVEL 40k to 60k

NOVEL 60k>


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

WHO is saying anything bad about short stories? I'm confused. I was merely saying that, despite articles like the above, in contemp romance at least, long books still rule the bestseller charts. Yes, with KU etc people are doing well with novellas, because they can write them fast and there is an audience for them. But based on the bestseller lists, the "big books" in terms of sales are novels, because most readers would still appear to prefer them. I know mine do. 

That is not to denigrate novellas or short novels or short stories. I don't write them because I don't prefer them, and neither do my readers. I don't understand why my saying that, or Atunah saying it, is so upsetting. It's just taste. I also don't write billionaires, even though they DO dominate (so to speak) the bestseller lists. Because I'm not interested. If we had a thread about that, I might post and say that not all readers want that and there's still room for other kinds of books. Just as novella and short novel writers can say here that not all readers want long novels. It's true. It's all just taste.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> WHO is saying anything bad about short stories?


Not you necessarily, but plenty of people do hate on short stories. And quite a few - not you again, because you're always civil - are also quite rude about it.

Most short fiction and serial writers have heard accusations before that we're ripping off and gouging readers, that we're flooding Amazon with crap and just trying to exploit KU (I'm not even in Select), that we shouldn't even publish our works, let alone charge for them, because real readers don't want them, and that short fiction should be filtered out of the general Kindle store, so the short fiction hater doesn't have to see it. I've personally been called a scammer here at KBoards (by someone who no longer posts here, so no need for the mods to get involved) for supposedly ripping off readers by selling a chopped up novel at extortionate prices (The "chopped up novel" is really a series of self-contained novelettes featuring the same characters). I'm pretty sure every other short fiction writer here has had similar experiences.

It's probably not as notable to you, because you don't write short fiction, just as the persistent prejudice against romance is not as notable to those who neither read nor write romance. But to those of us who write short fiction, it's very notable and so we tend to get testy, when yet another "We don't want no dirty short fiction on our 'Zon" thread rears its ugly head.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Rosalind James said:


> WHO is saying anything bad about short stories? I'm confused. I was merely saying that, despite articles like the above, in contemp romance at least, long books still rule the bestseller charts. Yes, with KU etc people are doing well with novellas, because they can write them fast and there is an audience for them. But based on the bestseller lists, the "big books" in terms of sales are novels, because most readers would still appear to prefer them. I know mine do.
> 
> That is not to denigrate novellas or short novels or short stories. I don't write them because I don't prefer them, and neither do my readers. I don't understand why my saying that, or Atunah saying it, is so upsetting. It's just taste. I also don't write billionaires, even though they DO dominate (so to speak) the bestseller lists. Because I'm not interested. If we had a thread about that, I might post and say that not all readers want that and there's still room for other kinds of books. Just as novella and short novel writers can say here that not all readers want long novels. It's true. It's all just taste.


Thank you. You always put it in the right words. Honestly I am a bit baffled with some of the comments. This "hater" stuff, where is that coming from. Its about likes and what is common in certain genres.



CoraBuhlert said:


> Not you necessarily, but plenty of people do hate on short stories. And quite a few - not you again, because you're always civil - are also quite rude about it.
> 
> Most short fiction and serial writers have heard accusations before that we're ripping off and gouging readers, that we're flooding Amazon with crap and just trying to exploit KU (I'm not even in Select), that we shouldn't even publish our works, let alone charge for them, because real readers don't want them, and that short fiction should be filtered out of the general Kindle store, so the short fiction hater doesn't have to see it. I've personally been called a scammer here at KBoards (by someone who no longer posts here, so no need for the mods to get involved) for supposedly ripping off readers by selling a chopped up novel at extortionate prices (The "chopped up novel" is really a series of self-contained novelettes featuring the same characters). I'm pretty sure every other short fiction writer here has had similar experiences.
> 
> It's probably not as notable to you, because you don't write short fiction, just as the persistent prejudice against romance is not as notable to those who neither read nor write romance. But to those of us who write short fiction, it's very notable and so we tend to get testy, when yet another "We don't want no dirty short fiction on our 'Zon" thread rears its ugly head.


You cannot really deny though that there are some, many I would say, that do exactly that. Pump out the shorts to put them in KU. They admit to it, they talk about it, right here on this board. So yes, its happening. Nobody ever says everyone does that and that all shorts are like that. But it is happening, those are just facts. Look at KU now and sort by genres and publication.
Yet, like Rosalind says, overall its still about the full length novel. This is what this thread is about, the idea that for some reason book length is a myth. It isn't. Readers still gravitate overall to full length novels. Doesn't mean there aren't those searching out shorts.

And what is wrong with a filter. I have been writing to Amazon about getting a filter to sort out by book length for a while now. I don't read shorts, for me there is no such thing as a short for romance. I don't like serials, if there is no HEA/HFN in the book I read its not a romance. So wouldn't it be great if I could go to category romance and click on a filter on the left --above 150 pages. Or above 100 pages. What is bad about that. I don't have to look at a bunch of stuff in the store I am not interested it, I could actually browse again and those that look for shorts can easily find them by sorting up to whatever pages they want. 
Nobody is getting banned or segregated. Its just another filter tool like sub genres.

And as much as there seems to be this curious insult taken by short writers, how many times in these types of threads including this one are full length novels called padded and full of fillers. Every time. One could say that might be a bit insulting to writers of full length novels, and readers of course. Now since I don't ever see this mystical padding in the books I read, it doesn't really involve me. Must be genres I don't read, but those comments could be taken a different way too.

Its always about what readers want. Nobody can ever force me to like shorts. And for someone that prefers short works, like my husband, nobody can probably get him to like something like Outlander or the GG Martin series for the length. We all like different things. But overall in full length books are still king. And there really is no myth about length. A book is a book, a short is a short. Its pretty much how most readers think about it. Average readers don't have a clue what a novelette is or what word count means. Heck, I still don't know and I been hanging here for years. 
I know I read a novella once that was pretty good, if a bit abrupt and it was listed at 100 pages and 33,000 words. So I guess for me that would be the absolute minimum for a novella. Everything I would just call a short. Just easier.

People are going to like what they like.


----------



## Ebook Itch (Mar 3, 2015)

deedawning said:


> I agree with this but I'd stick a couple more types in there. It might be worth noting that BookSends uses 50k as a min and Bookbub uses 150 pages which doesn't mean much because with font size & type and margins you can stretch a 25k or reduce a 60k book to 150 pages with no problem.
> 
> Short Story: < 10,000 words
> 
> ...


We're not too fond of the word novelette. And even with adding short before novel, it's still a novel.

But this gets to the whole point maybe - that everyone labels fiction a little differently.

At the end of the day, it's about making the readers happy if you want to survive as a writer in the modern landscape. The idea of including word counts is a good one. That way people can stick whatever label they want on the text.

Semi-related - Anyone know what website uses "This article will take 7 minutes to read..." type of tags on their posts? What do writers think about Amazon adding similar estimations to the metadata of a book. Maybe show it where the page count is displayed? An algo to figure it out can't be that hard to code. They do it (kinda) with Kindle Short Reads, but that appears to just use page counts (which can vary depending on font, spacing, etc.)

Another question - do you think readers would prefer going into a piece of fiction knowing how long it might take them to read the text? Are short stories going to become more popular in the months and years ahead? We think so - especially when you add KU into the equation.


----------



## Ebook Itch (Mar 3, 2015)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Not you necessarily, but plenty of people do hate on short stories. And quite a few - not you again, because you're always civil - are also quite rude about it.
> 
> Most short fiction and serial writers have heard accusations before that we're ripping off and gouging readers, that we're flooding Amazon with crap and just trying to exploit KU (I'm not even in Select), that we shouldn't even publish our works, let alone charge for them, because real readers don't want them, and that short fiction should be filtered out of the general Kindle store, so the short fiction hater doesn't have to see it. I've personally been called a scammer here at KBoards (by someone who no longer posts here, so no need for the mods to get involved) for supposedly ripping off readers by selling a chopped up novel at extortionate prices (The "chopped up novel" is really a series of self-contained novelettes featuring the same characters). I'm pretty sure every other short fiction writer here has had similar experiences.
> 
> It's probably not as notable to you, because you don't write short fiction, just as the persistent prejudice against romance is not as notable to those who neither read nor write romance. But to those of us who write short fiction, it's very notable and so we tend to get testy, when yet another "We don't want no dirty short fiction on our 'Zon" thread rears its ugly head.


Hmm. Does anyone think people would subscribe to an email list containing ONLY short stories ... or maybe shorts and novellas. We may run this experiment soon over at Ebook Itch to see if there's an interest.

We're a brand new site, but with writers and readers both on the team, we want to help tame the slush pile and get great books into the hands of the right readers.

If we do start-up a SHORT FICTION only mail list, we'll be sure to let Kboarders know.


----------



## deedawning (Aug 31, 2013)

Ebook Itch said:


> We're not too fond of the word novelette. And even with adding short before novel, it's still a novel.
> 
> But this gets to the whole point maybe - that everyone labels fiction a little differently.
> 
> ...


Call it a long short or a midrange then but IMO you certainly can't classify a 10001 k book as a novella or even a 19999k story. Writer's digest and Fiction factor both state that a novella is 20 to 50 k Here's Fiction Factors breakdown.
1,000 - 7,500 words

The 'regular' short story, usually found in periodicals or anthology collections. Most 'genre' zines will features works at this length.

Novellette

7,500 - 20,000 words

Often a novellette-length work is difficult to sell to a publisher. It is considered too long for most publishers to insert comfortably into a magazine, yet too short for a novel. Generally, authors will piece together three or four novellette-length works into a compilation novel.

Novella

20,000 - 50,000 words

Although most print publishers will balk at printing a novel this short, this is almost perfect for the electronic publishing market length. The online audience doesn't always have the time or the patience to sit through a 100,000 word novel. Alternatively, this is an acceptable length for a short work of non-fiction.

Novel

50,000 -110,000

Most print publishers prefer a minimum word count of around 70,000 words for a first novel, and some even hesitate for any work shorter than 80,000. Yet any piece of fiction climbing over the 110,000 word mark also tends to give editors some pause. They need to be sure they can produce a product that won't over-extend their budget, but still be enticing enough to readers to be saleable. Imagine paying good money for a book less than a quarter-inch thick?

Epics and Sequels

Over 110,000 words

If your story extends too far over the 110,000 mark, perhaps consider where you could either condense the story to only include relevant details, or lengthen it to span out into a sequel, or perhaps even a trilogy. (Unless, of course, you're Stephen King - then it doesn't matter what length your manuscript is - a publisher is a little more lenient with an established author who has a well-established readership)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

David VanDyke said:


> Thanks for merging this...but is there any simple way to find out that this was done? I spent ten minute looking for where my thread had gone. Something akin to the "this thread has moved" notice might be nice.


Sorry, I missed this--there's no automatic system for this...which is why we put MERGED in the thread topic. If it's an active topic, and your thread was on the same topic, you can check it. Also, you can look at your past posts to find your post and then click on it to go to its current location. I also think that if you bookmarked the thread, the bookmark is preserved when we do a merge, though I'm not entirely certain of this; I haven't tested it.

Sorry for any inconvenience!

Betsy


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Ebook Itch said:


> We're not too fond of the word novelette. And even with adding short before novel, it's still a novel.
> 
> But this gets to the whole point maybe - that everyone labels fiction a little differently.
> 
> ...


On some kindle ereaders, you have your choice of percent of book, location, or time left in the chapter (or book if no chapters). The last one is based on individual reading speed. 
Note everyone reads at a different speed. My average is about 300 words per minute. I have met slower and faster readers.


----------



## Hasbeen (Aug 13, 2013)

This discussion has been a huge help to me. It could not have come at a better time.

I in the middle of the second book of my series. I've been struggling with how long it should be, but after this discussion I am very comfortable with letting the story tell me how long it should be and not worry about word count.


----------



## Ebook Itch (Mar 3, 2015)

cinisajoy said:


> Note everyone reads at a different speed. My average is about 300 words per minute. I have met slower and faster readers.


Yeah, that would be one concern. You'd need an average, I bet. On a person's Kindle, they could "learn" reading speed over time, I imagine. It's been inside the Kindle for a while, but I wonder why they don't use it more on the Amazon website - i.e. book detail pages.


----------



## ML-Larson (Feb 18, 2015)

Ebook Itch said:


> Yeah, that would be one concern. You'd need an average, I bet. On a person's Kindle, they could "learn" reading speed over time, I imagine. It's been inside the Kindle for a while, but I wonder why they don't use it more on the Amazon website - i.e. book detail pages.


That's always my big irk with how they categorise the short reads. Two hours? That's going to take me all day.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Atunah said:


> You cannot really deny though that there are some, many I would say, that do exactly that. Pump out the shorts to put them in KU. They admit to it, they talk about it, right here on this board. So yes, its happening. Nobody ever says everyone does that and that all shorts are like that. But it is happening, those are just facts. Look at KU now and sort by genres and publication.


No one's denying that it happens. In fact, many of us who write short fiction or serials--such as Cora, Vaal, myself, and many others--have criticized people who do this as unscrupulous and for ruining the reputation of shorts.

But "nobody ever says everyone does that"? It's happened numerous times. You're telling us to look at the facts that support your case, when you're ignoring the ones on the other side. Cora _just_ related a story where she was personally insulted by someone who said her series of stand-alone shorts with a recurring character were a chopped up novel.



> Yet, like Rosalind says, overall its still about the full length novel. This is what this thread is about, the idea that for some reason book length is a myth. It isn't. Readers still gravitate overall to full length novels. Doesn't mean there aren't those searching out shorts.


But it's not set in stone, that's the point that DWS and others have been making.



> And as much as there seems to be this curious insult taken by short writers, how many times in these types of threads including this one are full length novels called padded and full of fillers. Every time. One could say that might be a bit insulting to writers of full length novels, and readers of course. Now since I don't ever see this mystical padding in the books I read, it doesn't really involve me. Must be genres I don't read, but those comments could be taken a different way too.


Those of us who were talking about padding were talking about our personal experience with long novels that reeked of padding. I'll mention the most-recent one I read right now--Haruki Murakami's 1Q84. In Japan, novels are sold as multiple volumes and 1Q84 could have told a complete story in two, but the publisher wanted three books. And the final third of 1Q84 is loaded with padding--such as repetition from the third character who suddenly gets a chapter devoted to himself. Another example I mentioned earlier--David Peace's Tokyo Year Zero. His repetition in that book is so horrendous, you'd think he was getting paid by the word. I've also been told by other self-published authors that I should "stretch out" my 30K novellas into 60K novels.

So padding _does_ exist, there are three examples right there. You want us to acknowledge that there are problems with the short fiction market (even though many of us have been acknowledging and speaking out about those problems long before you told us about them) when you turn around and dismiss our arguments.



> Its always about what readers want. Nobody can ever force me to like shorts. And for someone that prefers short works, like my husband, nobody can probably get him to like something like Outlander or the GG Martin series for the length. We all like different things. But overall in full length books are still king. And there really is no myth about length. A book is a book, a short is a short. Its pretty much how most readers think about it. Average readers don't have a clue what a novelette is or what word count means. Heck, I still don't know and I been hanging here for years.
> I know I read a novella once that was pretty good, if a bit abrupt and it was listed at 100 pages and 33,000 words. So I guess for me that would be the absolute minimum for a novella. Everything I would just call a short. Just easier.


"A book is a book, a short is a short." So what are these lengths then? If it's so obvious that a book is a book and a short is a short, then surely there must be some concrete definition out there. And yet no one can point to it. Dickens' work was originally presented in serial format. Are his books serial compilations or are they novels? Same goes for The Count of Monte Cristo--is that a serial or a novel? Animal Farm is under 30K, thus being shorter than your 33,000 word definition, so is Animal Farm a short story?


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

I am still puzzling over what is wrong with novelette. If I've written 12,000 words, and don't want to murder it to make a short or pad it into a novella, what the hell would I call it?


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

eleanorberesford said:


> I am still puzzling over what is wrong with novelette. If I've written 12,000 words, and don't want to murder it to make a short or pad it into a novella, what the hell would I call it?


I don't really get the hate on the word novelette, either. Seems like a perfectly acceptable term to me.


----------



## ML-Larson (Feb 18, 2015)

The Hound of the Baskervilles and the Valley of Fear were both serialised at their original publication.  The other two Sherlock Holmes novels (the Sign of Four and a Study in Scarlet) weren't. If a reader didn't already know that, there's no way to tell. Meanwhile, the rest of the Holmes canon are all short stories. 

The Holmes canon is a perfect example of stories being the length they need to be.  The novels probably could have been shortened, maybe, but the cases are complex enough to have warranted novels. The shorts maybe could have been stretched out to be novels, but to what purpose?  You can really only get so many words out of a story about a dead goose.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

Atunah said:


> And as much as there seems to be this curious insult taken by short writers, how many times in these types of threads including this one are full length novels called padded and full of fillers. Every time. One could say that might be a bit insulting to writers of full length novels, and readers of course. Now since I don't ever see this mystical padding in the books I read, it doesn't really involve me. Must be genres I don't read, but those comments could be taken a different way too.


I don't think I've ever come across a short story reader/writer who will flat out say they will ever read a novel on account of length. There may be some, but they are a rarity, especially compared to the reverse. Plenty of threads on kboards relating to short fiction have someone saying they won't read short fiction because of their length, and the attitude is even more prevalent outside of kboards. Which seems odd given the rich history short fiction has and the fact that many classics of literature by famous authors are short fiction.

As to padding, no one is saying that all novels have it, just that it does happen due to the artificial word count totals imposed to be considered a proper novel. I'm a reader of fantasy so I see it a lot - fantasy is a genre that is particularly susceptible to it given how massive books are becoming in it. When the trend seems to be 250,000+ words per book multi-book series then you end up with lots of padding. Entire chapters of a precession of people entering a room with their clothes described down to the detail of the stitches padding.


----------



## ML-Larson (Feb 18, 2015)

A. S. Warwick said:


> Entire chapters of a precession of people entering a room with their clothes described down to the detail of the stitches padding.


The amount of F*s I give about clothing in fantasy books number in the negatives, and yet so many authors seem to think it's not fantasy enough if the exact cut and colour of the gown isn't described in exact detail. Just get to the evil, world-dominating wizard and his army of dragons already.


----------



## LeeD (Jan 16, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> The bestselling indie ebook authors in contemp romance--a genre where many people do write short--write LONG. It's especially noticeable on Audible. You can see that all their books are 10 hours plus--mainly 11, 12 hours. They're writing 100K books.





cinisajoy said:


> On some kindle ereaders, you have your choice of percent of book, location, or time left in the chapter (or book if no chapters). The last one is based on individual reading speed.
> Note everyone reads at a different speed. My average is about 300 words per minute. I have met slower and faster readers.


^This.^ We could go on forever trying to define words with numbers, debating whether "novella" is better than "novelette" is the same as "novel."

What matters is what the reader is looking for. We writers can use a couple of words in our blurb (novel, novella, long, short). And the Big Dog, which can tell me I bought a book last week (I know, thanks, this one is for a friend) and recommend similar books I'll like, can easily enough prominently include Word Count and calculate personal time-to-read, to "improve customer experience." [grin]


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

I kind of love clothes descriptions. But then, I an the kind of Skyrim player who neglects the main plot while trying to fill every bookcase in every one of my houses.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> No one's denying that it happens. In fact, many of us who write short fiction or serials--such as Cora, Vaal, myself, and many others--have criticized people who do this as unscrupulous and for ruining the reputation of shorts.
> 
> But "nobody ever says everyone does that"? It's happened numerous times. You're telling us to look at the facts that support your case, when you're ignoring the ones on the other side.


This. The problem of some authors flooding KU with shorts and serials is due to a design flaw in KU, namely that for a 99 cent book a borrow is worth a lot more than a sale. Until Amazon remedies this fact, it will continue to encourage authors to put a lot of short fiction into KU. However, that's not the fault of myself, Vaal, Perry, she-la-ti-da and others. Vaal and I aren't even in KU and Perry isn't either, as far as I know.

Besides, I have noticed that those who use subscription services tend to gobble up entire series of shorts and novelettes. I regularly see it in my Scribd reports that people are borrowing an entire series. So it seems subscription services are ideal for readers and writers of short fiction.



> Those of us who were talking about padding were talking about our personal experience with long novels that reeked of padding. I'll mention the most-recent one I read right now--Haruki Murakami's 1Q84. In Japan, novels are sold as multiple volumes and 1Q84 could have told a complete story in two, but the publisher wanted three books. And the final third of 1Q84 is loaded with padding--such as repetition from the third character who suddenly gets a chapter devoted to himself. Another example I mentioned earlier--David Peace's Tokyo Year Zero. His repetition in that book is so horrendous, you'd think he was getting paid by the word. I've also been told by other self-published authors that I should "stretch out" my 30K novellas into 60K novels.
> 
> So padding _does_ exist, there are three examples right there. You want us to acknowledge that there are problems with the short fiction market (even though many of us have been acknowledging and speaking out about those problems long before you told us about them) when you turn around and dismiss our arguments.


Padding exists, even in the romance genre. It's less pronounced there than e.g. in the fantasy and SF genres, where it's often endemic, but I have seen plenty of it in every genre. A good example that many here will be familiar with is Diana Gabaldon's _Outlander_. The first book has a lot of repititive padding along the lines of "Scotland is beautiful and sex with Jamie was hot." Now I absolutely agree that Scotland is beautiful and that sex with Jamie is very likely hot. Doesn't mean that I didn't get the point the first time it was made. And since _Outlander_ already is a long book where a lot of things happen, some of that repetitive "Scotland is beautiful and sex with Jamie was hot." stuff could have been cut without impacting the plot at all. And it only gets worse with subsequent books which are full of details about - well, everything.

Besides, one person's unnecessary padding is another's scene setting detail. For example, M.L. Larson hates clothing descriptions, while Eleanor enjoys them. Personally, I don't mind clothing descriptions, unless they become really extensive or are just plain wrong for the period, but I get very impatient at endless tech specs (I work as a tech translator for a living. I don't want that sort of stuff in my leisure time reading), repetitive sex scenes and meandering subplots that go nowhere.



> "A book is a book, a short is a short." So what are these lengths then? If it's so obvious that a book is a book and a short is a short, then surely there must be some concrete definition out there. And yet no one can point to it. Dickens' work was originally presented in serial format. Are his books serial compilations or are they novels? Same goes for The Count of Monte Cristo--is that a serial or a novel? Animal Farm is under 30K, thus being shorter than your 33,000 word definition, so is Animal Farm a short story?





ML-Larson said:


> The Hound of the Baskervilles and the Valley of Fear were both serialised at their original publication. The other two Sherlock Holmes novels (the Sign of Four and a Study in Scarlet) weren't. If a reader didn't already know that, there's no way to tell. Meanwhile, the rest of the Holmes canon are all short stories.
> 
> The Holmes canon is a perfect example of stories being the length they need to be. The novels probably could have been shortened, maybe, but the cases are complex enough to have warranted novels. The shorts maybe could have been stretched out to be novels, but to what purpose? You can really only get so many words out of a story about a dead goose.


This. A lot of what we now know as novels wasn't originally published that way. Dickens or Dumas the Elder may be doorstoppers today, but they were serials back during their original publication. The big Sherlock Holmes collections many of us have on our Kindles or at home were originally serials, novels and short stories published over the course of several decades. Many famous works of German popular fiction from _Winnetou_ to _Suchkind 321_ were originally serials published in installments (Kolportageromane) or magazine serials (Suchkind 321). In the science fiction and fantasy genres, the so-called fix-up novel, where several more or less interconnected short stories and novelettes were combined into a single novel or several, is still common. In fact, some of the big classics of the genre are either fix-up novels (_Foundation, Dune_) or novelettes/novellas padded to novel length (_Flowers for Algernon, Ender's Game_). _Wool_ is a newer example. Sometimes, fix-up novels explicitly labelled that way, sometimes they aren't, though the experienced reader usually can tell.

The big novel-length books is the result of publishing economics in the second half of the 20th century. Those economics are breaking down and so older forms are making a comeback.



A. S. Warwick said:


> I don't think I've ever come across a short story reader/writer who will flat out say they will ever read a novel on account of length. There may be some, but they are a rarity, especially compared to the reverse. Plenty of threads on kboards relating to short fiction have someone saying they won't read short fiction because of their length, and the attitude is even more prevalent outside of kboards. Which seems odd given the rich history short fiction has and the fact that many classics of literature by famous authors are short fiction.


Again this. Most of those who like reading short fiction also like reading novels. Some of us may balk at massive doorstoppers or entire series of them (e.g. _Wheel of Time_), but few of us hate novels and none of us question their right to exist.

On the other hand, there are novel readers who hate short fiction with a passion and don't view it as a legitimate form.

I'm not opposed to Amazon adding a length filter like Smashwords. But that's not what many short fiction haters want. They want short fiction ghettoized, so they don't have to see it. As for Amazon's existing short fiction categories, many of us don't put our works there, because we only get two categories and the short fiction categories are badly targetted, e.g. Romance --> short stories jams all subgenres together, as does science fiction --> short stories. Amazon short reads is better, since it's an additional category to the regular two.



P.J. Post said:


> What I find cool is that over the last year or so authors have been increasingly experimenting with story presentation and accessibility, and ignoring traditional expectations. Serials have returned, both as shorts and novel length installments, and like short stories, they have a market too. Authors seem to care less and less about what "they are supposed to be doing". I see authors actively fighting against genre dogma, and that's pretty cool too. (And yes, I understand market segmentation and satisfying consumer expectations and how proper categorization allows readers to find one's books, blah, blah, blah; it's all very orderly and business like, I get it and I'm not disputing the metrics - but I also understand myopia.)
> 
> There's been a lot of follow the leader over the last couple of years, mimicking the "best" promos, writing to the market, and even copying each other, because that's what readers want - right, consistent formulaic stories? And yeah, sometimes we do - but I also think readers want to be amazed, shocked, surprised and maybe even enthralled - entertained in ways they never could have anticipated. I've always found it interesting that the huge break-out phenomenons are most often genre defining, unique and unapologetic in their rejection of convention.
> 
> ...


Again, this. Older forms of writing and delivering fiction are making a comeback and that's a good thing.

And while a lot of indies are very market focussed and copy popular trends to the letter (nothing wrong with that, if that's your thing), there's also a lot of experimentation going on in the margins. And sometimes, some of those more experimental pieces hit it big, e.g. the many popular new adult series which wouldn't have been possible in the days of trad publishing.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Thank you again, Cora. Excellent posts.

Like it or not, the face of publishing is changing. I welcome it, because it's a tremendous boon for readers of all types, and for writers it's a veritable paradise where we can write not only what we love, but what readers are showing us they love. And it's not just novels over 80K.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

There are a number of problems with that approach, though.

1. It assumes that readers' length preferences will remain consistent from now until the end of time. History shows this isn't true. 

2. It assumes that readers only care about length and no other factors are influencing their decision--covers, reviews, marketing, blurbs, etc.

3. It doesn't take into account that readers have been conditioned by publishers for decades to believe that books must be above a certain length. If you give people more options, then there is the possibility that their tastes will change.

4. Readers don't always know what they want. No one expected Harry Potter to become a worldwide phenomenon. Ditto for Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey. Listening to readers is all well and good, but if you base your business on what readers tell you to do, then you'll constantly be running around trying to please thousands of different opinions. And those opinions can change.

The most important thing about book length isn't what length is common in that genre or what length do readers buy more of, because these things can easily change in a heartbeat. The most important thing is making sure the length of the book is just enough to tell a complete story, period.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

That was an interesting read, just at the right time for me!

I have a short story, less than 3,000 words, but it is a complete story and anything else would just be padding really. I was in two minds whether to publish something so short, which isn't erotica. But maybe I should and let the readers decide whether or not they'd like to read/buy it  

As a reader, I read in different genres and different lengths, from flash fiction stories to door-stop fantasy books. I should just go for it and see. I may get complaints that it's too short, but then I get that complaint on my novels too, LOL!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

kward said:


> On the contrary, it shows what readers are buying today. Anyone interested in sales today would be wise to follow the current trend. And of course the current trend adjusts as readers' preferences adjust. All it requires is staying on top of what's selling - if readers eschew longer works for shorter ones, then you adjust at that time.


You assume that readers are a monolith, whereas there is a whole lot of different readers out there. And even a small niche can still be big enough to get you a decent sales. I don't care about readers as a monolith, I care about the people who read my books.

I also agree with Perry that while it's okay to follow the market and chase trends, if that's what floats your boat, carving out your own niche is just as legitimate a path and probably more viable in the long run.


----------



## Eltanin Publishing (Mar 24, 2011)

Hey, this is totally unrelated to the topic, but when I was browsing KBoards and saw "DWS", I thought, "What does that stand for?" And I'm ashamed (and baffled) to admit that the first thing that popped into my head was "Dancing with the Stars". I never watch that show so I have no idea why that came up. OK, now I have to go look up what it means.  Happy Friday!


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

DWS is Dean Wesley Smith, writer, husband of Kristine Kathryn Rusch and blogger about publishing issues. His posts, methods and theories are somewhat controversial here, because much of what he advocates goes against conventional KBoards wisdom.

His blog is here, if you want to take a look: http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

CoraBuhlert said:


> You assume that readers are a monolith, whereas there is a whole lot of different readers out there. And even a small niche can still be big enough to get you a decent sales. I don't care about readers as a monolith, I care about the people who read my books.
> 
> I also agree with Perry that while it's okay to follow the market and chase trends, if that's what floats your boat, carving out your own niche is just as legitimate a path and probably more viable in the long run.


Yes, this. And more to the point, I don't want to be someone who is constantly jumping from thing to thing, trying to chase the current hot trend. Chasing trends in my mind is not a smart way to operate as an author, because by the time you finish that novel capitalizing on the flavor of the month, that flavor will change.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> Yes, this. And more to the point, I don't want to be someone who is constantly jumping from thing to thing, trying to chase the current hot trend. Chasing trends in my mind is not a smart way to operate as an author, because by the time you finish that novel capitalizing on the flavor of the month, that flavor will change.


Yup

Kris had a good article about that a few weeks ago.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> Yes, this. And more to the point, I don't want to be someone who is constantly jumping from thing to thing, trying to chase the current hot trend. Chasing trends in my mind is not a smart way to operate as an author, because by the time you finish that novel capitalizing on the flavor of the month, that flavor will change.


I'd be the last to disagree with this, Perry, because it's totally how I operate as well.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> Yes, this. And more to the point, I don't want to be someone who is constantly jumping from thing to thing, trying to chase the current hot trend. Chasing trends in my mind is not a smart way to operate as an author, because by the time you finish that novel capitalizing on the flavor of the month, that flavor will change.


If you're a fast writer and good at spotting trends as they're developing, you can theoretically manage to bring a trend-chasing book to market, while the trend is still hot. But it's still a gamble.

I also don't say that I would never write to market. If there is a trend that I enjoy and on which I could put my own spin, I would give it a try. But I'd always continue telling the stories I want to tell as well.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't think that writing to market is trend-chasing as much as it is knowing reader expectations. If you read romance novels, or I guess any sort of novels, there are tropes that readers expect. There are patterns, even. I remember reading that an experienced author who wrote something other than romance - I think it might have been thrillers - decided to write a romance novel, just to see if she could hit the bestseller charts with her brand-new pen name. What she did was read the top sellers and analyzed them - and I mean, she analyzed them. She outlined them thoroughly, found the patterns in them, wrote her own spin on the patterns and tropes and voila! She did manage to write a bestseller. With a brand-new pen name and no promotions.

Dana G, who is a poster here, is open about how she made over $300,000 last year - she says that she reads the top sellers, and writes something similar. She doesn't reinvent the wheel. 

Now, to be a breakout - a true breakout like Stephenie Meyer or EL James or JK Rowling - you probably should write something that isn't a current trend. But those breakouts are so rare...

Just my .02. I'm still feeling burned by my NA novel series that wasn't written to market in the least and has generally sunk like a stone. But it still sells a few copies a day, so I guess there's that. But if I just would have written the books with the NA specific tropes and patterns in mind, I think I would have done much, much, much better with the series.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Longer doesn't mean bloated. I don't describe clothes nearly as much as many authors of novellas. Scenery descriptions bore me. It's more about secondary characters and the duration of the storyline, I find. But I write quite zippily. Lots of dialogue.
> 
> Pride and Prejudice would be a good example of a long book that is a quick read. My favorite kind of book: humor, dialogue, interesting characters and story line beyond the romance. Yet it's much longer and more complex than even a long current romance. It just doesn't "read long." But you can happily dive in there and stay a while.
> 
> Which isn't to say that the only good books are long. Just that long doesn't necessarily mean bloated.


THIS. I was actually *shocked* to discover that Pride & Prejudice is as long as it is, because it has always felt like a quick read to me. I'd never call it "short" but it certainly didn't read long because of the pacing, dialogue and characters. At 122,000-ish words, that's WAY longer than the average book I read (I generally top out at about 100,000 words when I read and love the 70-85K range). Those 500,000-word doorstoppers aren't even on my radar. I will NEVER read one.

Anyway, what I love about ebooks is that if readers aren't actually picking up a physical, tangible printed copy, length is no longer an absolute. I've read plenty of novellas that are much more satisfying reads than full-length novels, whereas in a print world I would likely never even consider buying a novella. What matters is whether a story FEELS big, satisfying, and complete.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

My main rule for pacing is: Don't dwell on stuff. Don't overexplain. Don't have somebody show how they feel by their actions, and then have them have to think their feelings as well, just. to. make. sure. the. reader. gets. it. Readers aren't dumb. I want to know somebody's a good man because of the touch of his hand and the tone of his voice and the fact that he brought the heroine an electric heater for her unheated bedroom and set it up for her, not because I hammered the reader over the head with his thoughts. Or, worse, the heroine's obsessive, narcissistic musings! Gah. Personal pet peeve!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> I don't think that writing to market is trend-chasing as much as it is knowing reader expectations. If you read romance novels, or I guess any sort of novels, there are tropes that readers expect. There are patterns, even. I remember reading that an experienced author who wrote something other than romance - I think it might have been thrillers - decided to write a romance novel, just to see if she could hit the bestseller charts with her brand-new pen name. What she did was read the top sellers and analyzed them - and I mean, she analyzed them. She outlined them thoroughly, found the patterns in them, wrote her own spin on the patterns and tropes and voila! She did manage to write a bestseller. With a brand-new pen name and no promotions.
> 
> Dana G, who is a poster here, is open about how she made over $300,000 last year - she says that she reads the top sellers, and writes something similar. She doesn't reinvent the wheel.
> 
> ...


I hear you, and I know that's a method. But, man, it'd stifle the voice right out of me. Since I started writing romance, I've completely stopped reading any romance, except the occasional classic historical romance. I don't want somebody else's voice in my head, or to be copying what somebody else did. And as I hate a lot of the current tropes, too...I'd be pretty much screwed! (Can I say "screwed"? Hope so.) But I think the classic things, the major things, don't really go out of style. Harry Potter didn't work because it was about witches and wizards. It worked because it was about a boy who was abused and neglected and belittled, and who discovered that he had awesome gifts he'd never dreamed of, and got to enter a whole new fantastical world with people who cared about him, and make friends. That's what really worked about the book, IMHO--that she did that so well.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

anniejocoby said:


> I don't think that writing to market is trend-chasing as much as it is knowing reader expectations. If you read romance novels, or I guess any sort of novels, there are tropes that readers expect. There are patterns, even. I remember reading that an experienced author who wrote something other than romance - I think it might have been thrillers - decided to write a romance novel, just to see if she could hit the bestseller charts with her brand-new pen name. What she did was read the top sellers and analyzed them - and I mean, she analyzed them. She outlined them thoroughly, found the patterns in them, wrote her own spin on the patterns and tropes and voila! She did manage to write a bestseller. With a brand-new pen name and no promotions.
> 
> Dana G, who is a poster here, is open about how she made over $300,000 last year - she says that she reads the top sellers, and writes something similar. She doesn't reinvent the wheel.
> 
> ...


If analyzing the elements of current bestsellers and then writing something similar is what you want to do, then more power to you. And if you're making money at it, wonderful. I'm happy for you.

However, that's not what I'm interested in. In many cases, I don't even like the bestselling tropes, so I really don't want to write them. For example, I have a space opera series. The big trend currently in indie space opera is manly space marines doing manly things in space. However, I have zero interest in writing about that. So when I decided to write a space opera series, I took a look at which space operas I enjoyed and which elements I liked about them and then wrote something that incorporated those elements. And so I wrote a series about a ragtag band of rebels taking on the manly space marines doing manly things in space - at least on occasion. Much of the time, the rebel missions don't involve space marines at all, because frankly I find space marines kind of boring and not all that plausible either, because the idea that an army of the far future is patterned after today's US Marine Corps (and Heinlein's Starship Troopers) is about as likely as a modern army patterning themselves after Roman legions or the mercenary armies of the 30 Years War.

Plus, as I've said before, readers aren't a monolith and niche markets can be profitable, particularly if there is a group of readers whose needs are not being fulfilled by current trends. For example, as far as I recall, the NA series of yours that didn't sell very well involved a wealthy heroine and a nice guy beta hero. Now I'm explicitly not an NA reader. However, I'm an occasional romance reader and writer and two common romance tropes I've never cared for are the Cinderella fantasy (I'll read it, but it's not a personal fantasy) and the domineering alpha hero (I mostly want the heroine to kick him in the nuts). Which means I should probably pick up your low selling series. 

So yes, there are always readers who don't care about dominant tropes and want something different. They may even want what you (general you, not Annie in particular) have to offer. The problem just is how to find them.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> If analyzing the elements of current bestsellers and then writing something similar is what you want to do, then more power to you. And if you're making money at it, wonderful. I'm happy for you.
> 
> However, that's not what I'm interested in. In many cases, I don't even like the bestselling tropes, so I really don't want to write them. For example, I have a space opera series. The big trend currently in indie space opera is manly space marines doing manly things in space. However, I have zero interest in writing about that. So when I decided to write a space opera series, I took a look at which space operas I enjoyed and which elements I liked about them and then wrote something that incorporated those elements. And so I wrote a series about a ragtag band of rebels taking on the manly space marines doing manly things in space - at least on occasion. Much of the time, the rebel missions don't involve space marines at all, because frankly I find space marines kind of boring and not all that plausible either, because the idea that an army of the far future is patterned after today's US Marine Corps (and Heinlein's Starship Troopers) is about as likely as a modern army patterning themselves after Roman legions or the mercenary armies of the 30 Years War.
> 
> ...


Aw, thanks, Cora.  The series hasn't gotten much love, but I'm trying to find the readership. It just doesn't sell itself like other NA novels do. You have to really work to find the readers for the off-brands. I guess that's really what the problem is - I just want to write. I don't want to work to find readers.

Now, if I can only find the NA readers who, like Cora, wants something left of center....


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I think at least part of the problem is that NA romance is currently such a trend-driven subgenre that those who don't particularly care for tropes like tattooed millionaire bad boy alpha heroes and the poor virginal college students who love them often don't even look at that subgenre and so miss books they might enjoy.

However, I have no idea how to resolve that dilemma.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I think at least part of the problem is that NA romance is currently such a trend-driven subgenre that those who don't particularly care for tropes like tattooed millionaire bad boy alpha heroes and the poor virginal college students who love them often don't even look at that subgenre and so miss books they might enjoy.
> 
> However, I have no idea how to resolve that dilemma.


And werewolves. Can't forget that.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

I had to snicker at his blog post. The guy is obviously as good a marketeer as he is a writer. Just that fact that this post on here has had over 4,000 views, all with his blog link in he OP shows his skill. This wont be the only site where his opinions will have a link back to his site and ergo, his books for sale.

It's a fallacy that there is a myth as to book length expected by trad publishers today and therefore readers (in general terms) -- it is a fact. 

He then goes on to write the history of publishing to back his claims of what was, against as is.

He does this by listing books that are in the 40,000 range that have been successful in their day. What is the purpose? To champion the short story writer. Don't be fooled. 

He then goes on to say he's written 17 books in the last 17 months at between 40,000 and 55,000 words. Ah, now we're getting to the point. 

The post is not about creating debate as to the shorter story form, it's about justifying the length of books he has for sale, so those who are in the market to buy, they just might buy his books when they visit his site, After all, Ernest Hemingway's books were that length and he has the example to prove it lol. It's all about justification for his marketing plan for the length of books he writes and pricing policy.

Sorry to be skeptical about his blog posts, but I write short stories, I write novelettes and I write full length works. There has always been a market for short stories of all lengths. Readers Digest used to  and may still publish compilations by the volume through specialized marketing direct to homes. I used to have at least 50 of them on my shelves, all hardback. Magazines cater for the shorter form. In Brazil the market for short stories is massive. Publishers, publish individual 5000 words short stories in handy pocket sizes  and sell them on rotating racks in supermarkets. So really he doesn't have to defend the short story form, it is alive and kicking.  Indy publishing has revived the art form, even if it doesn't make the author a living. The market isn't there for them in bookstores in the UK and the US in the volume that there is for full length works. Amazon and other distributors are no different (Hugh Howey and a few others aside)

I don't  have to defend that I write short stories. It is a legitimate literary art form, so write what you want. With that I will agree with him. Some readers like shorter stories , some don't That's not my problem except it is my problem if they don't sell in numbers and I have to keep pouring my money into them if I want to continue writing them.

Go over to his Amazon page and tell me if you can find the over a hundred, 5,000 word stories he said he'd published as eBooks and paper books over 12 months ago, selling the eBooks at $2.99. I doubt you'll find them because I couldn't find them last month. (I'll stand corrected if you do find them) It looks as though he's bundled them together to increase the word counts. Unless I'm mistaken, my guess is that his project didn't work to convince buyers that they were value for money, even though he has been a NYT bestselling author.

It remains to be seen if he can convince them this time for his longer short works. I wish him luck.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Decon: how many of his pen names did you check?

I have to say that, whether I agree with him or not, I give DWS credit for always being sincere in trying to help other writers.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Decon said:


> I had to snicker at his blog post. The guy is obviously as good a marketeer as he is a writer. Just that fact that this post on here has had over 4,000 views, all with his blog link in he OP shows his skill. This wont be the only site where his opinions will have a link back to his site and ergo, his books for sale.
> 
> It's a fallacy that there is a myth as to book length expected by trad publishers today and therefore readers (in general terms) -- it is a fact.
> 
> ...


I'm confused on what the accusation is here or what there is for you to be "skeptical" about. DWS writes books and sells them off his site. He uses his blog to help drive traffic to his site. How is that any different from any other author with a blog? You seem to be suggesting that he's doing something underhanded or scammy here. Just the other day, I wrote a post on my blog about Tomb Raider and I also write a series of books that are in the same genre. Do I hope some Tomb Raider fans will read that blog post and possibly check out my Myth Hunter series? Sure. But I also wrote that post because I liked the most-recent game and had something to say about it. Is there anything underhanded about this?

DWS writes short stuff so it's understandable why he'd want to justify it. What's so wrong about that? Is it wrong for a writer of short fiction to champion the short format? Is it wrong for a writer of a certain genre to champion that genre? Is it wrong for a self-published writer to champion self-publishing?

Short fiction has been maligned for a very long time. Just look at this very thread. That's why it's good that someone like DWS is speaking up about it. I don't know why you're "skeptical" about his motivations for championing a format you yourself have admitted you write in.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Not suggesting anything scammy at all. I'm just wary of indie gurus, of which he could be considered to be one for short stories, in the same  as Konrath for his style and opinions against trad publishers.  It's great to hear what those who have had a successful career are doing and suggesting, but it doesn't follow that if you mimic what they are doing that you will have the same success. To mimic them, you'd have to start with a trad pub career on your CV that gets you to where they are at. (Hm, Irony in there somewhere)

Just pointing out his self-interest for the tone of his blog post and that following what he says might not suit everyone.  It could In fact destroy what you are trying to build if you follow his lead to alter the length of story you are happy with writing.

I doubt traditional publishers set guidelines for book lengths based solely on justifying the price and the thickness of the spine in the bookstore. They will obviously research what it is the majority of book buyers want and which will alter over time. In any event, they can easy make a fifty thousand word book the same spine thickness as an eighty thousand word book in the way they format the margins and font. I have good examples of that on my bookshelf here at home. He is simply making assumptions as to trad-publishers motives on word count and that is what made me tut-tut.

By all means write an intelligent blog post to point out other bestsellers who have written in the same style/genre/word count as you, for some of it to hopefully rub off in sales. But somehow blaming trad-publishers for word counts being what they are is in my opinion ridiculous. It is also demeaning to those who write longer works in inferring they are all fluffed out. I guess that's my point really.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

You can turn Atlas Shrugged into a 1000 page paperback with the right font.  Though you need reading glasses and a magnifying glass to read it. I

OR you can turn Betty White's book from  100 pages to 260 pages with fonts and page breaks and blank pages between chapters.

Or Jeff Foxworthy put his short cookbook on cardboard pages to make it look bigger than it was.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> You can turn Atlas Shrugged into a 1000 page paperback with the right font. Though you need reading glasses and a magnifying glass to read it. I
> 
> OR you can turn Betty White's book from 100 pages to 260 pages with fonts and page breaks and blank pages between chapters.
> 
> Or Jeff Foxworthy put his short cookbook on cardboard pages to make it look bigger than it was.


Exactly my point.
These are all thrillers

You're Next, buy Gregg Hurwitz IS 437 pages

The Killing place by Tess Gerritson is 443

There is probably a difference of 15,000 words between the two in the way the margins are formatted and the the size of font used. My guess is that Gregg's is around 105,000 words and no fluff at all.

Missing by Karen Alvtegen is 345 pages but to achieve that the point size is a tad over 12 point and the margin is at least 1 inch with around 2 inches at the bottom and averaging 217 words per page. 74865 words.

My own Deadly Journey is 113,000 words @327 pages (18 pages less than Karen's) @ 11 point with a half inch margin and printed as a 9x6. That's a whopping 38,000 word difference.

So really word count is a pointless comparison for page count and spine thickness.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Decon said:


> Not suggesting anything scammy at all. I'm just wary of indie gurus, of which he could be considered to be one for short stories, in the same as Konrath for his style and opinions against trad publishers. It's great to hear what those who have had a successful career are doing and suggesting, but it doesn't follow that if you mimic what they are doing that you will have the same success. To mimic them, you'd have to start with a trad pub career on your CV that gets you to where they are at. (Hm, Irony in there somewhere)
> 
> Just pointing out his self-interest for the tone of his blog post and that following what he says might not suit everyone. It could In fact destroy what you are trying to build if you follow his lead to alter the length of story you are happy with writing.
> 
> ...


DWS isn't making these assumptions up out of thin air. He worked in traditional publishing for decades, he's seen how they've done business and how they've changed over the course of that career. He's also not the first I've heard accuse publishers of basing word counts more on the economics of printing and shipping physical books than on reader desires, so I really doubt he's just throwing stuff against the wall here. It's a very legitimate point about arbitrary word counts and if you have proof that he's completely wrong then by all means present it. Otherwise to insinuate that DWS is making this up out of some self-interest to convince people they should buy his short work is in my opinion ridiculous.

Here, for example, is a post from Literary Rejections about word count:



> The guidelines are there for a reason: economics. Not just managing the economy of word usage, but of greater importance, it is more economical to a publishing house to publish a book of a specific length, than to publish one that is longer.


It's clear that short fiction used to be extremely popular in a number of genres--again, look at the pulps. Then pretty much overnight, readers en masse suddenly decided they no longer wanted short fiction but long? And you really think it has absolutely nothing to do with the economics of printing? Really?


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

'DWS isn't making these assumptions up out of thin air. He worked in traditional publishing for decades, he's seen how they've done business and how they've changed over the course of that career. He's also not the first I've heard accuse publishers of basing word counts more on the economics of printing and shipping physical books than on reader desires, so I really doubt he's just throwing stuff against the wall here. It's a very legitimate point about arbitrary word counts and if you have proof that he's completely wrong then by all means present it. Otherwise to insinuate that DWS is making this up out of some self-interest to convince people they should buy his short work is in my opinion ridiculous."

He worked with publishers for decades. I worked in printing for decades, so what? He is making it up as an assumption out of self-interest to sell his shorter works, because the premise he puts forward doesn't make sense. Don't forget in the time period he is talking about, books had to be type set using lead right up to around 1965 to 1970. I don't know about the US, but in the UK, it was highly unionized and highly labor intensive to run a print works. The argument falls down in how print books are formatted as per the examples I gave above. If it were all about the buck, then they would have kept the word counts the same, ie smaller, and formatted books to look longer by having thicker spines to give the impression of value for money.

I could understand it if he was talking about having a cut off at high word counts, because that would be the reverse of what I say below. What he is basically saying is that the trad-publishers sort of said _en masse_. "I know lets increase our costs by increasing all out editing time by 100%" Yeah, right.

Less words is less time for purchasing editors, less time for substantive editing, less line editing, less proof reading, less time formatting, less time print setting in the old days (copy editing now.) less ink used = less cost price = more profit.

You think what you want, but I can't see how from a business POV and the trad publisher angle, how his idea holds water. Like I said before. good luck to him.

To say longer word counts are not what the reader wants is equally ridiculous. If I put a full length work out for a free day and don't market, with a word count around trad pub norms, I get around 70 downloads. When I put out a short story out for a free day, I get get 7 downloads if I'm lucky. That says it all to me. I can't blame publishers for readers needs.

That's my final say on the matter.


----------

