Is It Possible To Have Too Big A Story?

[ray gower]

Bath time reading at present is one of those Peter Hamilton short stories in three volumes, the Nights Dawn Trilogy. Apart from the obvious statements, the lead characters are the largest bunch of prima dona Mary Sue's it has been my misfortune to spend a shilling on and if the sex was taken out a rain forest would have been saved; An interesting question crossed the old brain pan before the book sent me to sleep.

Is it possible to have too many simultaeneous plots in a single story?

If we take NDT as an example, halfway through the second book and I am following the bonking habits of some 20 characters (not necessarily with each other), plus some ten different strands of the sub-plot that forms the actual story. Add the iffy chaptering and to be perfectly honest I have got lost. I'm sure it all comes together in the last page, but I am none too sure I will be there!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't know if it's possible to have too big a story, but it's certainly possible to spread out a small one past all reasonable limits.

 

[lon gallamour]

The trend in writing today is to have huge padded books a la Robert Jordan. Why? Because authors are paid by the word or the page. The best writing you will find are in the old sci fi magazines of the Golden Age. Again the reason is they were given an upper word limit.

So you will find many many stories with far too many words, but you will find few published tales with far too few words.

 

[tangaloomababe]

I am a lover of big books, but Ray has a point you can have a big book which is a great read but you can have a big book that gets bogged down in so many plots and characters that not are end up being tied up completely or not everyones character has a chance to develop, as could be achieved if less characters had been involved.
Edward Rutherford is one of those authors who through the nature of his books always wites with many characters and plots evolving, in a way his novels are many small stories linked only by relationsips. For the most part though I very much enjoy his books.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The trend in writing today is to have huge padded books a la Robert Jordan. Why? Because authors are paid by the word or the page. The best writing you will find are in the old sci fi magazines of the Golden Age. Again the reason is they were given an upper word limit.

I don't know where you get you information, but in fact it's only in short fiction (magazines and anthologies) that writers are still paid by the word. Old time writers did pad their work shamelessly because they often were paid by the word -- your Golden Age writers very likely among them -- but I can assure you that someone like Robert Jordan gets paid the same amount per book whether that book is 800 pages or 300. Royalties are based on how many books are sold, not page count.

 

[ray gower]

but I can assure you that someone like Robert Jordan gets paid the same amount per book whether that book is 800 pages or 300. Royalties are based on how many books are sold, not page count.

Then please, why write 800 pages when everything can be covered just as well inside if not 300 then 500?
It can not be because the author thinks the story is any better for it, the padding is often far too obvious and some have subsequently condensed their books for use as radio readings, 90%+ words lost without the story disappearing!

 

[jackokent]

Surely because it sells. If we the book buyers stopped buying big books, publishers would likely stop asking writers to write big books. However, there are still many book buyers who seem to think they should judge a book by the weight.

 

[Commonmind]

Then please, why write 800 pages when everything can be covered just as well inside if not 300 then 500?
It can not be because the author thinks the story is any better for it, the padding is often far too obvious and some have subsequently condensed their books for use as radio readings, 90%+ words lost without the story disappearing!

It doesn't matter how you feel about it, that's how its done, and authors often lengthen their stories under the pretext of making them better, by giving themselves more room in which to flesh out the story. Also, what you consider fluff may not be fluff for every reader; it's subjective.

 

[Urien]

Peter Hamilton does tend to overwrite somewhat, and the casts are huge. This is also true of the Pandora's Star books. But at least something is happening. I enjoy his breezy style. The same might be said of Erikson.

I struggle with long books where what should or could be short inconsequential scenes are stretched... and stretched. I finally collapsed with exasperation at about book 10 of Robert Jordan's series. The key break for me was fifty pages of getting a bunch of aes sedai through a portal. As far as I could see the whole thing could have been compressed to one line; no key character or plot elements took place.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Then please, why write 800 pages when everything can be covered just as well inside if not 300 then 500?
It can not be because the author thinks the story is any better for it, the padding is often far too obvious and some have subsequently condensed their books for use as radio readings, 90%+ words lost without the story disappearing!

I don't know Robert Jordan, so I can only guess what goes on his mind when he's writing his books. It's altogether possible that he doesn't see them as padded. Or it may be that he feels that big books are what his fans want. Or it may be that he became so successful so early that he never really learned how to edit himself, and by now no one is going to convince him that he's been doing it wrong. There could be any number of reasons for writing the way that he does.

But I do know what the industry practice is, and it isn't to pay novelists by the word.

 

[ray gower]

I not adverse to the odd dose of verbals in what I read, thick books or complexity, provided it is all appropriate, I have happily read Trollop, Tolstoy and Le Carre arguably the masters of each.

But in the case of the volumes that prompted the original question, it strikes me that there is just too much going on (or coming off) aside from the various story plots.

If the story were simpler, I could (possibly) live with being told about the heroes blonde hair and the villains sensuous latino face every other chapter and that they know 600 positions not depicted in the Kamasutra. But as it is, by the time I've finished 20 or more pages of cavorting, I've forgotten what happened elsewhere. All I can point to as a climax of the book is that the the two protagonists are running a score of about 60 conquests apiece (some of them female and/or pregnant) and somebody has run off with a planet. Who did it, whether it is important, why, who to and how it got to that conclusion I am at a loss to explain.

 

[Laura Stamps]

Then please, why write 800 pages when everything can be covered just as well inside if not 300 then 500?
It can not be because the author thinks the story is any better for it, the padding is often far too obvious and some have subsequently condensed their books for use as radio readings, 90%+ words lost without the story disappearing!

That's a good question. And there are several answers to it. First, it is important to realize that this is a money issue for most authors. Not that they get paid more by the page (that is only for short stories in paying magazines), but often the bigger the book the higher the retail price. Plus, there is always the hope a big book will be issued as a trade paperback, and that is a big jump in price from a mass market book, meaning more money for the publisher, agent, and author. So this is one reason why many agents and publishers push their authors to write long...more money for them in sales and commissions! Also readers tend to think a big book is a "good" book, meaning better story and better quality writing. It makes no sense, but it has been this way for the 30+ years I have been in the book business, and it doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon. Also some authors tend to write long naturally. Some are good at it, and some could use a ruthless editor.

I do agree with you, and that is because padding bores me too as a reader (and as a writer). It reminds me of Danielle Steel (wrong genre, but good example). If you have ever read one of her novels you can see she has a formula for her books that allows her to stretch out the length. This formula includes 2-3 page descriptions of every outfit the main characters wear (including most of the minor characters) EVERY TIME THEY CHANGE CLOTHES. That takes up a lot of space in a novel. It also makes it possible for her to write 2 or more novels every year, and her fans love it. I never understand it, but they do. Go figure. Now she may have changed, because I haven't read one of her novels in over 10 years (I had a friend who just raved about them, so I tried a few...but not my thing).

So I agree with you...I think you can have too many subplots going on in a novel. That often tells me the book should be two novels or a series, but not one big confusing mess. Another thing that drives me nuts is a big novel with lots of characters, and 3 or 4 have similiar first names, meaning names that begin with the same letter or letters. Now that is hard to follow, at least for me! I know Shakespeare did it, but at least with a play there is a list of characters at the beginning, so you can mark that page and keep going back to it when you get lost in all the similar names.

Tight writing is a beautiful thing to behold. I wish there was more of it. But then many books would be very slim, and the big publishers are having a hard enough time making ends meet this year as it is.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Plus, there is always the hope a big book will be issued as a trade paperback, and that is a big jump in price from a mass market book, meaning more money for the publisher, agent, and author

This is wrong. The sales figures on trade paperbacks are so much smaller than for mass market, the higher price is meaningless in terms of the profitability of the book. Books are issued in trade paperback as a cheaper way of getting the same review attention and library sales as a hardcover.
And careers have nose-dived because of low sales figures in trade paperback. It looks like a step up, but it can come back and bite the author ... hard. When my last book came out in trade paperback, I sweated every moment until the mass market edition came out.

Also readers tend to think a big book is a "good" book, meaning better story and better quality writing. It makes no sense, but it has been this way for the 30+ years I have been in the book business, and it doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon. Also some authors tend to write long naturally. Some are good at it, and some could use a ruthless editor.

Now there you are absolutely right.

 

[ray gower]

Perhaps somebody in publishing should take a note of the Heinz effect?
Take 10 beans out of the tin and increase sales by 50%?

While I still get through two or three books a month, I rarely buy a new book any more and Mr Hamilton is on the growing list of current authors not worth reading. I only bought the first one, despite the warning bells at the thickness, because I was desperate for something to read at the doctor's

Danielle Steele is awful. Jilly Cooper is probably worse. But would recommend Mave Finchley as being a friendly gossip sort of writer

 

[Laura Stamps]

Perhaps somebody in publishing should take a note of the Heinz effect?
Take 10 beans out of the tin and increase sales by 50%?

While I still get through two or three books a month, I rarely buy a new book any more and Mr Hamilton is on the growing list of current authors not worth reading. I only bought the first one, despite the warning bells at the thickness, because I was desperate for something to read at the doctor's

Danielle Steele is awful. Jilly Cooper is probably worse. But would recommend Mave Finchley as being a friendly gossip sort of writer

How funny...you crack me up! And sad, because you are soooooo right about the Heinz effect.

As for sales, royalties differ according to publishers. Some give you very good contracts, and some don't. I have experienced both in my career.

Who is Jilly Cooper??? I've never heard of her. Is she also a romance writer like Steel? If so, I wouldn't know her, because I have never been able to get into romance novels. I've tried, but I think that genre is a lost cause with me.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

As for sales, royalties differ according to publishers. Some give you very good contracts, and some don't. I have experienced both in my career.

But it's still more profitable to get a smaller percentage and sell tens of thousands of books than to get a higher percentage and sell in the low four figures.

For instance:

15% for a $15.00 book x 2000 copies = $4,500
versus
8% for a $8.00 book x 20,000 copies = $12,000

And of course if sales for the $8.00 book are in the range of 30, 40, or 50K, the difference in royalties (though still at a lower percentage of a less expensive book) grows greater and greater.

 

[ray gower]

Cooper is Ms Steel but with a Jefferey Archer type bitchiness

 

[Laura Stamps]

Cooper is Ms Steel but with a Jefferey Archer type bitchiness

What a hoot!!! Thanks for the info.

 

[drosdelnoch]

Ok coming at this from a diffent angle.

Authors in thier contracts are given a percentage of sales, however they are also given a sub ahead of publication which has to be earned back before they start to make any money.

Now lets go through this from teh start. Lets say that we've written a book and managed to sell it to publisher A.

Now our contract says that we have to write a three book series to fulfill the contract. Each book gets us £3,000 up front, however we dont get the sum for the book until the first one is complete etc.

Now the contract also says that we get 10%. This is of the sale price, not the cover price. We think cool.

So out comes our book. Its been lucky enough to be printed in Hardback as the publisher thinks we have potential with the cover prince of £18.99
Not bad you think, I get £1.89 of each book sold, magic. We then end up selling 5,000 copies (not bad for a first time author considering that hit books can sell around the 17,000 hardback). So off we toddle and do the math and think cool I am about to get £9,450, minus our up front payment of £3,000 and we're about to get a nice little cheque for £6,450

Not big money but its a start. So the royalty cheque comes in for a lot less. What happened. Well the contract stated that you got 10% of the sales price. Amazon sold 3000 copies of your book for £10, eeekkkkk. So that now means that you made £1 per book, so thats £3000 plus £3,780

Thats a hell of a loss, plus the publisher could have some way of messing with the figures so that you get even less. Not that they will do but it used to be done in the past. So off you go with book two and have it out in time and do the same again. However during the release of book 2 your original book is out in paperback. Well the moneys not rolling in but its getting there.

What IM saying is that a number of subs are never achieved and authors feel that they were left wondering was it worth it after all after writing the book, they had to do a hell of a lot of unpaid publicity in an effort to sell the book and yet come out with a measley sum. Now how authors tend to make money is foreign sales and upon completion of contracts when they come to sign another they also renegotiate the sales figures for their previous work, so where they were getting 10% originally, then they manage to get between 12 and 15%.

Writing isnt for everyone and as such it should never bee seen as a way print money. Yes the thrill of getting published is probably a buzz like no other, however very few are ever successfull enough to make a living at it and even fewer ever make serious money.

As a person who aspires to write for the love of it rather than an end goal, I always think that a good writer is someone who reads alot. When you do that you start to see the architeture behind the writing so that you can figure out how its been created etc. It gives you idea's, you can then also start to see whats wrong with the pieces or have ideas that would make them better.

Try it, to not know a number of authors from genres that you wouldnt normally read is not a good way to go. I may not read a lot of romance but I have embarked on the odd Jackie Collins to see how the genre works, likewise Ive read Jilly Cooper and also Danielle Steele. Theyre not my cup of tea but it is a good way to expand your reading knowledge and to see how others work the whole thing to thier advantage.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't know how it is in the UK, drosdelnoch, but at least in the US contracts and royalties are somewhat different than you describe them.

The percentage stated in the contract is based on the cover price of the book, with a few exceptions, such as when the book goes OP and is remaindered, or if there is a special "bargain" edition sold to a dealer like amazon at a lower price (often the exact same edition with a special mark on it -- this happened with the TP edition of one of my books). With regular sales, though, no matter what the bookstore or distributor sells the book for, the author gets the percentage off the cover price, because the publisher gets the same amount whether the bookstore or amazon offers their customers a deal or not.

Also, you don't get to negotiate for a higher percentage on your royalties unless the sales of your first book were very good indeed -- certainly not if you haven't earned back the advance. And with many books the foreign rights are never sold at all -- so most of the time, for most authors, the advance is it, that's all they are going to see.