"Personal" question(s) to John Jarrold

[David Elliott]

Hi John,

As an editor, do you ever suggest a lot of cuts to client's work? Or is it more to do with character, plot, pacing, etc?

I know word count has been discussed quite a lot on this thread, but I was just wondering whether there's ever a huge difference between the word count of a published manuscript, and the original submission to an agent /editor ...

[John Jarrold]

Yes, I often suggest cuts - in terms of scenes that go on too long, stuff that slows the pace down and stuff that is completely unnecessary - the author being 'clever' or waffling. I know of a number of books that have originally been over 200,000 words being cut to nearer 150,000 ...you do it to make the book work better. Authors can be precious about their prose, even when it actually detracts from the story. Editors are there to be realistic.

[David Elliott]

So have you ever received any submissions, that really shouldn't be novel length? Novels that are basically short-story ideas, with ridiculous amounts of padding?

[John Jarrold]

Well, the first thing you look at, as an agent or an editor, is the prose. If the first ten pages don't grab you, you say no and move on. So I daresay some of those 90% of submissions that can be turned down on that basis would have been padded!

[David Elliott]

Thanks John,

Anyway, enough procrastination ... back to the book!

By the way, I've just read this on another site:

"People who exhibit procrastination, appear to be prone to internet addiction."

Hmmm ... I think it's time to seriously re-examine my life!

[TheEndIsNigh]

Thanks John. Noted

[John Jarrold]

We aim to please! The percentage of unagented novels (and quite often those from scattergun agents, too, who bung everything out to everyone, unthinkingly) one can turn down quickly hasn't changed in the last twenty years, for any SFF imprint. It's discussed whenever editors meet. The last time I spoke about it was with people from Gollancz and Orbit ... yep, still 90%.

[Teresa Edgerton]

When I sold my first book, they said, "We love it, but we want you to cut 10,000 words, since it would cost too much to publish a book that that's long." (I laugh to think of that now that everyone is selling books that are so much longer.)

I thought to myself, "Ten thousand words! I could never find ten thousand surplus words to cut!" And it would have been one thing if they had asked me to make it tighter, but making those cuts to save paper and ink and please the company accountants was another thing entirely.

So having convinced myself that I couldn't do it, I set to work. And as I worked, I discovered that there were indeed things I could cut out without harming the book at all. When I was finished, I found out that I had a book that was about 12,000 words shorter. Do I think the book was better or worse as a result? I sacrificed some things that I really liked, but I could see that I had improved the pace. I think it all balanced out.

[John Jarrold]

Yes, I know of UK authors who were asked to cut 20,000 words or more in the US, for exactly that reason, Teresa! And I'm starting to hear it again from the US, but not from the UK...

[Teresa Edgerton]

10,000 words was a big chunk for a 110,000 word novel. But what I learned is that it needn't be a matter of cutting out whole sections, as some people think -- although that would certainly be the easy way -- but a word here, a sentence there, a paragraph in another place. It all adds up.

With some of the weighty tomes that people are submitting now, you could take out 20,000 words and never miss them.

(Someone once told me, only half-jokingly, that you can reduce the word count by quite a bit just by eliminating the word "that" where you don't really need it.)

[ctg]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

10,000 words was a big chunk for a 110,000 word novel. But what I learned is that it needn't be a matter of cutting out whole sections, as some people think -- although that would certainly be the easy way -- but a word here, a sentence there, a paragraph in another place. It all adds up.

With some of the weighty tomes that people are submitting now, you could take out 20,000 words and never miss them.

(Someone once told me, only half-jokingly, that you can reduce the word count by quite a bit just by eliminating the word "that" where you don't really need it.)

You're absolutely right, taking bits here and there, will reduce the overall word count, and I really have noticed you don't word "that" in all the places. In some places one can use it very easily, but in many other places it does disturb the flow. If you - general you, not you Teresa - do as Mr Banks recommends and "practice", you'll notice change in the way you use words (guess that's a style). But strangely you also learn a totally new way to listen what people say and how they say it ... and that really reflect your writings.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Of course sometimes you do have to make more substantial cuts, because the characters won't shut up, for instance, or because they're getting into unnecessary arguments to raise the tension but in reality they're causing the pacing to flag.

But when you are cutting solely for the purpose of hitting a certain word count you can accomplish a lot simply by taking a little nip out of it here and there.

[John Jarrold]

In my first three months in publishing, I was thrown an 'erotic novel' set in Victorian times, and told to take a third out. The author sold well (almost every UK paperback imprint had its erotic fiction list in the 80s) but always delivered far too much material and knew it would be severely cut...

[TheEndIsNigh]

Meanwhile back on the family friendly site John was selecting 'the best bits' from an over long book.

I sympathise especially since some folks opinions vary wildly on such things. Did the author resent the cuts you made or did he use the fact he knew the cuts would be made and so use it to get someone else to do the difficult bit of getting the balance right.

Also on a slight tangent what's the general take on graphic passages in SF. Is it frowned on or acceptable if relavent to the plot.

[John Jarrold]

That particular author - and this can be true of those involved in that area (or it was then) - didn't care, as long as he was paid the advance. Obviously, with SF and Fantasy, I cut to improve the book, in terms of pace and losing unnecessary waffling.

Graphic passages. Look at Richard Morgan. I'd say he's fairly graphic. He's also very intelligent and a good story-teller.