Self-Pubbed Books Shorter?

[BearMountainBooks]

In trad publishing it is also common to see word count requirements in submission requirements. Baen and TOR prefer books at 100k or even a bit longer and their sub recs used to state that (I haven't looked in years.) Harlequin has very tight recs--and a word count that is considerably shorter (I want to say 65 to 80...but it has been a long time and that was not a market I targeted). Same with every genre/publisher. Those word counts have changed some over time, but there were some pretty general guidelines if you were writing for a particular publisher or market.

[arjaybe]

It's interesting to see what different people consider "short" and "long." I aimed for about 300 pages because I didn't want to abuse readers with a too-large book. I came in at 134,000 words after hacking about 10,000 out. By my count, that's a little over 300 pages, so I was satisfied. By the comments here, it's a short book for some and a little long for others.-)

I'm more likely to be irritated by a book that's too big than by one that's too small.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

It's interesting to see what different people consider "short" and "long." I aimed for about 300 pages because I didn't want to abuse readers with a too-large book. I came in at 134,000 words after hacking about 10,000 out. By my count, that's a little over 300 pages, so I was satisfied. By the comments here, it's a short book for some and a little long for others.-)

I'm more likely to be irritated by a book that's too big than by one that's too small.

That's huge and in mass market would be at least 450 (I'm ball parking. There is an actual formula somewhere.) But in trade paperback, you could get it shorter, easily.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

That's huge and in mass market would be at least 450 (I'm ball parking. There is an actual formula somewhere.) But in trade paperback, you could get it shorter, easily.

I counted the words on what I felt was a "standard" paperback page and got 400. So I figured a 300 page book would be 120,000 words.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I counted the words on what I felt was a "standard" paperback page and got 400. So I figured a 300 page book would be 120,000 words.

I guess that depends on what you viewed as standard sized. I don't read many novels over 100k--and in fact actively discard anything over that. Really my limit is around 95k or so. If I'm in a bookstore, I will generally not buy anything in the 450 range or above (BUT I will read 450. It just takes a stellar blurb and a good first few chapters. I'm just a harder sell on those. Go to 500 pages and I won't even read the blurb.)

But I think this just proves that the "standard" paperback doesn't exist. The standard may very well be whatever is on an individual shelf and that will largely be determined by genre and other preferences!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I counted the words on what I felt was a "standard" paperback page and got 400. So I figured a 300 page book would be 120,000 words.

8-10 words per line is what you want. I counted in one paperback and got 36 line. So I would guess 300-350 as some kind of standard.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by tompe

8-10 words per line is what you want. I counted in one paperback and got 36 line. So I would guess 300-350 as some kind of standard.

Yes, I've found that 10 words per line is pretty reliable.

[susan_cassidy]

Originally Posted by momsfunlife

Very few books I read are 400 pages or more. I just don't have the time! Most are under the 300 range, ebooks are usually under the 100 page range unless they are a library book.

How is reading one 400 page book different from reading 2 200-page books? It would take approximately the same amount of time. If you continually read, as I do, it makes no difference, except you have to buy two books, as opposed to one.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by susan_cassidy

How is reading one 400 page book different from reading 2 200-page books? It would take approximately the same amount of time. If you continually read, as I do, it makes no difference, except you have to buy two books, as opposed to one.

Because I like the feeling of a complete story. I usually read a book in one or two sittings. Three at the most. So I'm thrilled with a good, complete story that is 150 to 300 pages. Much over that and I can't sit with my tea and chocolate and indulge in the same manner. I'll read somewhat longer ones, but I tend to really enjoy a nice book that takes me four hours or so and no longer.

[crich70]

James Michener was writing his books like Centennial in 1974. I don't remember exactly how many pages it is off hand but I do remember my dad's copy to have been pretty thick in paperback. I'd guess it was over 200+ pages in total.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And that anecdotal evidence was enough for you to state:



Not only did you claim that books over 200 were rare--perhaps they indeed are in your collection, but do you have any justification for assuming that your collection is representative?--but you jump from your anecdotal evidence to make a claim about what publishers then specifically did in response.



I don't see how looking at your personal library allows you to conclude that (1) readership started to decline, (2) books became bloated and boring, and (3) people turned to other forms of entertainment.

Are you saying there hasn't been a decline in reading?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Are you saying there hasn't been a decline in reading?

I'm saying that you made sweeping claims and drew conclusions without providing any evidence whatsoever.

[Pulpmeister]

Centennial was over 400,000 words-- an epic. Probably 400+ pages in paperback depending on type size.

There have of course always been those who wrote big books, 120,000 words and over. The Victorians loved enormous books, look at Nicholas Nickleby. However, if you scan the bookshelves in the nearest bookstore, you'll find books run to around one inch to one and a half inches thick, roughly the 80,000 to 120,000 word bracket.

Authors who have a lot to say often say it over several books rather than a single vast tome. (Good marketing, too; three books worth of royalties is better than one.) Anthony Powell's Music of Time sequence ran to 12 novels, each quite compact at around 80,000 words, but coming close to 1,000,000 words in total. Or, sticking to printed pages for comparison, around 2,000 pages!

I think one of the things about digital books is that the size is not immediately visible. You can buy an e-book and not know, until you dig in, whether it's a zippy 80,000 words, or a prolix 250,000 words. But a shelf full of paperbacks, spine outward, gives you an instant visual guide.

For myself, I don't mind long books, but if, for instance it's a whodunit, and you can't bring it in under 100,000 words, then you're padding. Ditto straight action thrillers.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm saying that you made sweeping claims and drew conclusions without providing any evidence whatsoever.

You mean like you did when you said the vast majority of corporation published books were error free, and yet were unable to point to just one example of the ones you have read?

Here's a list from 1970, most books released that year are under 200 pages (only 1 tops 500, and a couple more that are just over 300 pages).

https://www.goodreads.com/book/popular_by_date/1970

Here's a list of books published in 2010 so you can compare page counts. All over 300 pages, lots of them over 500 pages.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/popular_by_date/1970

the decline of reading over the same timescale is well documented, but here's one of the links:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-lover/283222/

"The number of non-book-readers has nearly tripled since 1978."

[saoir]

I personally suspect the Harry Potter generation are driving the longer book to some extent.