Question of Pages

[Giovanna Clairval]

I just bought Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, by Susanna Clarke (starting with magicians in York), and it's 1006 pages (paperback, size 10)

What to think?

[Balthazar]

That's a good book, Jonathan Strange.

Also, the word count for YA or Middle Grade books can be shorter.

I just finished draft zero and I am at 34,000 words. With future edits I think I'll reach 45,000, because I know there are some areas I need to flesh out.

Here's a great site where you can find word counts for YA books:

Renaissance Learning - Online Store

[Giovanna Clairval]

Alas, I don't write for the YA market, and my novel made 198,000 words until I cut it down to 160 000 (which seemed too much, though).

What makes you say that J. Strange is good? There are impressive reviews, but what's your opinion, Balthazar? Care to elaborate, if it's not too much offthreading...

Could SC have done the same in a shorter form, and how is it possible that a first novel of that length was accepted?

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Giovanna Clairval

Could SC have done the same in a shorter form, and how is it possible that a first novel of that length was accepted?

My own opinion is that the type of novel Clarke was writing needed to be a hefty tome. (Possibly not quite so hefty on that account alone, but the length is justified in other ways.)

I wouldn't even attempt to guess at the word count.

As to how it was accepted at that length as a first novel, I think it was a combination of excellence, timing, and the fact that she had already had short fiction published.

(The fact that she also had publishing connections may have helped to bring her work to the attention of the right people, which never hurts.)

[Ursa major]

I suppose the style of the book (contemporary, I suppose, with the action portrayed) makes the reader expect a long tale (all those multi-volume novels). But I too am surprised that such a large volume was taken as someone's debut effort.

I know we shouldn't trust Wiki, but it states that the book was published in the US 12 days before it was in the UK. I didn't notice American spelling in the hardback copy I read, but perhaps I was too involved in the stories and all those footnotes.

I enjoyed the book. I can't give chapter and verse (there are too many ) on why that was, but when I drew near to the end, I was disappointed that there wasn't more to read.

[Green]

I loved Strange and Norrell. This was in part due to the writing itself, but also due to the whole package - the charcoal drawings, the black page edges, the binding quality etc. It added to the feel of the whole thing. I am a sucker for a shiny package (ahem).

The book itself is unashamedly hefty, and it suits the style perfectly. It lets Clarke take her time to tell her tale and meander around while describing the period and the characters' lives. It's one of those books where it doesn't matter if you take your time - there's plenty to take in, and I get the feeling it's a better experience that way. She doesn't feel like a debut novelist, but an accomplished professional, imo.

The story itself could have been a bit beefier for the length of the novel, but that's my only (small) quibble, really. I don't think I would advocate cutting any of the book out/back.

As for a debut that long getting published, all I can add is that I think this is a great thing. I'm sick of authors playing it safe because of arcane and conservative publishing practices. I wish more novels like Strange & Norrell were published - I don't mean very long novels, necessarily, but novels that are as long as they are, as long as they are meant to be. If I were a publisher, reading the same tight tripe every day, I would jump at the chance to publish this book. But then I don't have the bottom line to worry about.

Rant continues. I visit a few writing boards, and it is kind of shocking to me the length to which some (not all) writers on these boards just write by the numbers. Obviously, these people often have to scratch a living from the thing, so they have to write something that will sell... but so many conversations on one board in particular revolve around maximum word counts, maximum chapter sizes, theme above everything, and the same old tired plots/ideas.

I don't find myself wanting to read any of their books.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Hi, Green

You are sooo right about wordcount terrorism. As for me, I wrote my stuff without thinking of the problem...

But then I read a few editors' blogs... and a few threads here. And a freelance editor --one who has an impressive history of editing bestsellers-- before reading the typescript, said that, with a 190 000 word novel and an unknown writer, it was risky to submit (in the States, anyway). And this is all very reasonable.

Still, I wouldn't have cut off bits of my baby if it hadn't been for "plot" reasons: I had three storylines in it, and the third one wasn't hefty enough, while it added too much complications...
I don't feel I gave in to wordcount terrorism. My third story was superfluous; it'll make for a good prequel .

So, my two cents are: cut if it is necessary, but for reasons inherent in your oeuvre.


I've just read five chapters of Jonathan Strange and I see why the novel was meant to be like it is; everything seems to be necessary for the building of an atmosphere (and that outrageous--and marvellous-- use of enormous footnotes...!); it's a whole.

[JDP]

I think I raised this question at some point on John Jarrold's publishing thread. My WiP is around the 100k mark, and I wondered if this was too short for adult fantasy.

His response, if I remember right, was that the length would not work against it. It is the first of a series, though, which might have made a difference (?).

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think 100K is fine whether it's a standalone or a series novel. (They can always use larger print if they want it to look more substantial.) Any shorter than that would be going against the trend -- not fatal, but disadvantageous.

The real problem, I believe, is when a book is longer than a publisher is likely to publish, but too short to cut in half.

Giovanna's 190,000 words was tricky that way, particularly if the best dividing point (had the decision been made to turn one book into two) had resulted in one book of 100K and one of 80K. But she's found a much better solution. Very often there is such a solution, but it takes a fearless honesty to look for it and find it. I respect Giovanna's ability to do that.

[Anne Lyle]

Originally Posted by Giovanna Clairval

Could SC have done the same in a shorter form, and how is it possible that a first novel of that length was accepted?

As far as I can tell from reading agents' blogs, what UK fantasy publishers are looking for and what US ones are looking for are rather different things.

In the UK, the emphasis seems to be on big, juicy, dramatic books that aren't necessarily an easy read but that suck the reader into a unique world. Something a bit off-beat and non-formulaic, even eccentric

In the US, on the other hand, they seem to play safer, with tighter word-count ranges and less interest in the off-beat. If your manuscript's long, it had better be standard epic fantasy - if it's not, they'll slice it into two volumes and leave the readers to fume over the cliffhanger ending to part one!

At least, that's the impression I get from perusing the bookshelves and comparing books published in the UK and ones that were printed here but originally came out in the US.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Anne Lyle

At least, that's the impression I get from perusing the bookshelves and comparing books published in the UK and ones that were printed here but originally came out in the US.

But then you are only looking at the American books that UK publishers choose to reprint. That's just a tiny percentage of the books written and published here -- the majority of which are, believe me, ponderous tomes. Although you can find smaller books, too.