FIRST TIME NOVELIST - IDEAL LENGTH - Writers Forum

horrorman101 · 07-17-2007, 05:38 PM

I have just completed my first novel, but still cannot get round the feeling that at 220,000 words it is still too long to be accepted by a Literary Agent, but feel that by cutting anymore than 20,000 words I'd loose the whole storyline.
Has anyone else had any experience with first time submissions that were perhaps too long, if indeed it is.
Any recomendations?

Stewart · 07-17-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

I have just completed my first novel, but still cannot get round the feeling that at 220,000 words it is still too long to be accepted by a Literary Agent, but feel that by cutting anymore than 20,000 words I'd loose [sic] the whole storyline

There's no ideal length. And you shouldn't be sending the whole thing off to agents anyway. Three chapters and a synopsis should suffice.

mammamaia · 07-17-2007, 11:10 PM

sorry, but that's TWICE as long as the optimum for a first novel... no agent or publisher will be interested at that length... and even though you might only be asked to send 3 chapters, that won't help anything, as you have to tell them how long the ms is when you query...

you've got two whole books there... if you can't pare it down to one, maybe you can divide into two?...

Shawn · 07-17-2007, 11:23 PM

Cut it down... revise it into a minimalists dream. Then send it off, it'll be a much more efficient novel.

lisajane · 07-17-2007, 11:32 PM

As Maia said, that's easily double the length for a standard, first time MS. Even if you think that cutting the novel back by 20k would lose too much of the plot, go back to the beginning and make you way through it, cutting out unnecessary description and dialogue, or have someone else do this for you. You might be surprised how many words you can lose.

Mythurien · 07-18-2007, 10:29 AM

Ignore anyone who tells you that there is an optimal length for a first novel, or that yours is simply too long. Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule, his first published novel, was around 250k words, and he has since become one of the best selling authors in the fantasy genre.

It's rare, of course, but if your story is good, people will look at it.

lin · 07-18-2007, 11:23 AM

True. But the book would have two strikes against it.

And going through and trying to cut half the book word by word would be torture.

I'd suggest taking a look at the story shape and getting rid of whole sections that aren't essential, or that could possibly fit into a sequel. If you can cut this into two books you're going to be way ahead, all the way around.

Last month I went through a book I was just finishing up and removed one entire plotline, bringing it down under 300 pages (I was worried about it running 120,000 words, by the way, not twice that) Almost immediately I realized the character and plotline would be more appropriate to the second book in the series.
Take a really long look at the whole thing, examining any way you can bring it down to an easier length to flog. If it's just bloated, defat it. If you can break it up, look into that. None of this scrutiny is a waste of time.

horrorman101 · 07-18-2007, 03:31 PM

It's nice to get so many replies. I am going to be having one final edit before I contemplate sending it off, but with what I have so far the story is tight having been heavily edited down from it's original length of 850,000 words, but needs must so I will just have to look at it with fresh eyes and try to loose everything that detracts from the story. utilising the remainder as the sequel is something I'd contemplated.
Of the original edit, one storyline approx 80,000 words is going to be adapted into a completely different novel, so I'll never know until I try.
Thanks for the advice.

HarryG · 07-18-2007, 04:55 PM

Please, please ignore the aforegoing. Quality novels, in their initial stages will be far more than 200,000 words. If you´ve managed more than that, stick with it, edit it, obviously, if necessary, double it.

It´s ludicrous to suggest that 200,000 words is too long, it borders on the criminal, any agent would rather consider a writer capable of writing 200,000 words which can be edited (and will be), than a woefully short submission of 80,000 words.

lin · 07-18-2007, 05:53 PM

Not true. And so wrong as to verge on irresponsible and harmful. No agent wants a 200,000 word package dumped on their desk to be fixed. Ask anybody in the business.

Azmakna · 07-18-2007, 06:18 PM

2 pages. why waste a good novel learning?

suzyq · 07-18-2007, 08:11 PM

Agents have guidelines - follow those guidelines. Some will ask for a synopsis and the first three chapters, others will ask for a proposal first. The agent will tell you what length the synopsis should be as it varies between agents. Don't waste your time sending the whole manuscript first unless the agent asks for it.

As to the length? It is rather long and it will work against you (because it costs more for publishers to print your book and if your a first time author the chances are your not going to sell many of them). But it's not impossible to attract an agent with it. You have to wow them with your synopsis and your first three chapters and/or your proposal. Diana Gabaldon writes superlong novels - she stuck to her guns and got it published. Do a google search on her - she writes about her experience on her website.

Mike C · 07-19-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lin

Not true. And so wrong as to verge on irresponsible and harmful. No agent wants a 200,000 word package dumped on their desk to be fixed. Ask anybody in the business.

I agree. If your query letter mentions 200k words, it gets rejected right there and then, unread. It's a buyer's market; you got to sell them what they want to buy.

HarryG · 07-19-2007, 04:19 AM

I think there is a misconception here about the role of literary agents. First of all, especially in America, you can knock off 90% of so called agents; proper publishers will not deal with them because they are cowboys who only want money from their clients, sometimes even up-front.

Real literary agents want clients whose work they can represent with confidence, and publishers will publish their clients.

If such an agent receives a submission from an author, who has proven his ability to write at least 200,000 words, then he will be interested, initially because it takes far more talent to write 200,000 words than half that amount. It takes even more talent to write 800,000 words, it takes an inordinate amount of talent to do that.

The real agent isn't just interested in representing his client for one novel, he wants to represent him for life, and if he comes across someone with sufficient talent to write 800,000 words for his first effort, then he will be more than interested, even if his subsequent works fall into line with the more normal standard of a quarter of that amount.

A real agent will laugh at a submission from a first author of 80,000 words, knowing that a real editor will reduce that by at least a third, leaving an unpublishable short story.

Of course, it's possible to write 800,000 words of rubbish, but it's much easier to write 80,000 words of rubbish.

Mike C · 07-19-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryG

I think there is a misconception here about the role of literary agents. First of all, especially in America, you can knock off 90% of so called agents; proper publishers will not deal with them because they are cowboys who only want money from their clients, sometimes even up-front.

I think 90% is the misconception. There is a small percentage, just as there is in the UK, but it is small, though significant, and any author should check a prospective agent's credentials thoroughly before submitting.

A reputable agent will only accept work they can sell. A 220k novel they can't sell. Therefore there's no point reading it. If you're lucky they might send it back with a note telling you to cut in in half and send it again, if not, look forward to the form rejection.

And I disagee further - it's just as easy to write 800k words of unadulterated drivel as it is 80k; it just takes longer. And in my opinion an author who can't work within acceptable limits is more likely to be producing overblown rambling rubbish than a future classic.