Epic Fantasy Novel Word Counts

[The Bravest Newbie]

My first draft was 75k, my second 80k and my third and current 86550. I'm experimenting with keeping the story short with maximum content.

 

[Tirellan]

Just a straw in the wind. A writer of my acquaintance who also is repped by my agent has has a rewrite and resubmit request from a MAJOR publisher. The novel (which I've read) they saw is 120k and the author has been asked to expand it aiming for 200k.
I'm not suggesting that new writers should aim for 200k but it seems that, for the UK market, length is less of a concern than once was.

 

[Brian G Turner]

author has been asked to expand it

What a bizarre request - effectively doubling the size of the book. I hope that's because they felt that the story was incomplete, rather than because they want padding for the sake of a longer wordcount!

 

[ralphkern]

Potentially the dark side of pay per page?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

What a bizarre request - effectively doubling the size of the book. I hope that's because they felt that the story was incomplete, rather than because they want padding for the sake of a longer wordcount!

That wouldn't surprise me.
I also know of an author asked by their mass-market publisher to change the hero from male to female.

 

[Ronald T.]

I have to agree with Brian Turner on this issue.

If you go into any B&N bookstore and go to the epic-fantasy section, you will be hard-pressed to find novels that weigh in lower than 100,000 words. It's easy to calculate. Simply take a pocket calculator with you and do the mathematics. Look for any of the volumes published from the 1990's on, books that appear to be closer to the thinner end of the spectrum, and choose a half dozen or so. Debut novels are preferable. Pick ten random pages, count the lines per page, and estimate an average word-count per line. Average the word-count on each of those ten pages, add them together and divide by ten for a refined average, then multiply that by the number of pages in the book. I think you will find that most books fall in a range from 140,000 words to 200,000 words. And I find that to be quite common with the smaller books. But with the thicker volumes the number can go much higher.

It's a simple test.

If you go to the books that were published in the early 1960's to the mid 1980's, you will find many books that came in between 75,000 and 100,000 words. But those books were very thin...180 to 220 pages. These were novels by authors such as Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, John Norman, John Morressy, David Eddings, and others.

I think word-count numbers have become quite skewed in the past fifteen years of so. And I think that the skewing has been deliberately done by publishing houses who care only about the bottom line. It only makes sense from their business-minded point of view. With the onset of e-publishing, big publishing houses could see the writing on the wall. To keep their costs down, they realized that if they mislead often enough and long enough, they knew people would begin to believe the fallacy.

But how does that serve us as authors? Even worse, how does that serve the art of producing a well told story?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Welcome to chronicles, Ronald T.

But how does that serve us as authors? Even worse, how does that serve the art of producing a well told story?

I guess it just means that epic fantasy really needs some sense of being epic, but there may be more than one way to approach this.

Either way, my WIP is around 120k words, which is short for the genre - but I've tried to be concise and write for pace, and avoid unnecessary padding. We'll see how that approach is regarded soon enough, I'm sure.

One thing I have learned, though, is that a focus on word count is a distraction. A story requires only so many words as are needed to tell it well. There are clear examples of novels that break every wordcount recommendation, yet remain successful. A guide, not a necessity...

 

[Ronald T.]

Thanks for the welcome, Brian Turner.

As a new member, I've read only a small portion of the posts offered on this sight. But I want you to know, Brian, that I've found many of your posts reflect my own opinion on certain issues. I've found your posts thoughtful, interesting, educational, amusing, and filled with passion. Keep up the good work.

As time goes on, I hope to become a regular contributor to these forums, and I look forward to getting better acquainted with all the members of Chronicles. My best to all of you.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Just by the by, my space opera book came in, after editorial additions, at around 125000 words (space opera and epic fantasy are usually comparable.) By contrast my sci fi thriller came in at around 80,000. So there is allowance for epic to need more.

 

[Gary Compton]

I don't think 100K is that long. Most TBP books are that and I have emails from fans that are longer - just saying...

 

[Ronald T.]

I have to agree with Gary. For me, 100,000 words is the starting point.

I enjoy long books -- 200-000 words and more. I don't mind if a book is shorter, say -- 100,000 to 150,00 words -- but I then prefer that it be part of a series.

I'm not saying there aren't some great books out there that tend toward a more modest word count, but I am less likely to be interested in them when I have longer books to choose from...books every bit as great. And the reason is, I am often left wanting, somehow unsatisfied, when I finish a short book.

I invest myself in a world and it's characters to such a degree that I want the story to continue -- need the story to continue. When It doesn't, I feel unfulfilled, even slightly cheated. I know! There's something wrong with me. But that's how I feel. We're all different and have different needs. Life would be pretty boring if that weren't the case.

But I think the big publishing houses are simply trying to increase their profit-margins by convincing writers that these smaller word-numbers are a realistic reflection of what readers want. As a long-time reader myself, I find that a bit hard to swallow.

 

[Brian G Turner]

But I think the big publishing houses are simply trying to increase their profit-margins by convincing writers that these smaller word-numbers are a realistic reflection of what readers want.

Epic fantasy I think is something of an aberration when it comes to word count. From my personal reading, 100k-120k seems the typical range for a genre novel. However, that would usually be considered short for epic fantasy - which tends to involve more POV characters, which necessitates a longer story to cover that.

Even then, there's always room for brutal editing.

 

[Ronald T.]

Well said, Brian. And I guess it all comes down to a writer's style and a reader's taste.

Yet I am one of those people that believe a story can be stripped of flavour if it is too brutally edited.

I guess I march to a different drummer when it comes to well thought of writers like Ernest Hemingway. I would choose Tad Williams any day to the works of Hemingway. And the reason is...Hemingway is simply too stark for my taste. The essence of the story is there, but with no embellishments.

Let me create a scenario to show you what I mean.

Let's suppose you were invited for a Thanksgiving turkey dinner. But when you get there, there is nothing on the table but a beautifully roasted turkey. Now, the invitation was correct, the turkey is there, and it's a big enough bird to fill everyone's stomach. But there are no side dishes. No stuffing, no mashed potatoes, no gravy, no green-bean casserole, no cranberry sauce, no Waldorf salad, no wine -- just turkey. It's truly a turkey dinner. Nothing more.

But I need my special dinners to not only supply the turkey, but to offer a cornucopia of side dishes. I need a multitude of flavours...I need the gravy.

As with most aspects of writing, it's possible for brutal editing to go too far, just as overwriting can go too far. But I'm one of those people who think the main course can be enhanced by a variety of well-chosen side-dishes.

Just a thought.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yet I am one of those people that believe a story can be stripped of flavour if it is too brutally edited.

I have to admit, I feel as though I've learned the advantage of brutal editing. Heck, my first draft was 700k words. It now stands at 120k. I don't feel that I've lost anything from the core story, merely tried to make it more concentrated. Gone are my 20k word scenes providing history and backstory of my world - but I feel now that my story is richer for its loss.

Let's suppose you were invited for a Thanksgiving turkey dinner. But when you get there, there is nothing on the table but a beautifully roasted turkey. Now, the invitation was correct, the turkey is there, and it's a big enough bird to fill everyone's stomach. But there are no side dishes. No stuffing, no mashed potatoes, no gravy, no green-bean casserole, no cranberry sauce, no Waldorf salad, no wine -- just turkey. It's truly a turkey dinner. Nothing more.

One of my big mistakes early on was lack of focus (as you might note from the above!). Certainly a lush meal could invite pages of dedicated description. But what would the POV character really see and focus on? That's the big question. After all, we are a visual species, and we think that we see a lot - yet most of our vision is peripheral, and only a very small part is ever actually defined.

Of course, there is an argument that there are big epics out there that could be edited down, but have enjoyed immense popularity regardless. It's the decision of the writer as to how much they dare indulge in, and there will always be a readership for sheer immersion.

However, these days my personal opinion very much veers towards less is more. I used to revel in grand descriptions -let the reader know every detail! Now I've learned the lesson that many readers do not want every detail given, but instead would rather a few well-chosen verbs and adjectives to allow them to construct their own image in their own mind.

I dunno. I don't disagree with you - I'm just making a general cautionary note that lack of focus may harm a story more than brutal editing. It's the challenge of the individual writer to decide where the boundary between both may lie.

 

[tinkerdan]

The idea of lack of focus is interesting because one of the most constructive criticisms of my first book was from a fellow author who demonstrated this for me using portions of my novel; though her actual words were that she could tell where I was still trying to figure out the story and where I should have gone back and cleaned it all up once I did.

So though it does look like lack of focus it also looks like part of the creative process while the author is still trying to find the target that the story is trying to hit; which sometimes is a moving target even when you have a set plan and outline.

Though there is an affectation within that where there were instances where I might have gone overboard trying to demonstrate that the main character was trying to figure out the story (or more specifically elements in the story that she is learning). So in a small way the character has a level of lack of focus and there is a balance that has to be reached if the author is trying to convey that and fit it into the character and the narrative without going overboard and inserting the writers lack of focus over the top of the character--if that makes any sense to anyone else.

Again it's a balancing act.

 

[MWagner]

I have to admit, I feel as though I've learned the advantage of brutal editing. Heck, my first draft was 700k words. It now stands at 120k.

Wow. That makes me feel a lot better. I was worried once I passed 100k words that I wasn't near enough to the planned climax, and would go over my 180k word limit (which I intended to cut back to 150-160k in the second draft). I fretted and started reworking my outline to bring the climax closer. My wife told me to just write my story and worry about word count later. I can see by your heroic cutting that she gave me sound advice.