quote:"Hunger's Brides," Paul Anderson's debut novel, is certain to be one of the biggest books of the fall. The question is how many readers will want to do the heavy lifting required to read it. At 1,360 pages (not counting 8 pages of titles and contents at the beginning of the book and 8 blank pages at the end, presumably added for production reasons) the book, quite simply, is massive. It weighs 4 pounds, 9 ounces, equivalent to two and a half copies of "The Da Vinci Code," and it is thicker than Verizon's Manhattan telephone directory (either the white or yellow pages).
I note with interest: first press run was 5,000 copies which quickly sold out. Second press run was 10,000.
An interesting comment about the hook:
quote:"It is an elaborately beautiful, intricately baroque game that has at its center this mystery about Sor Juana's silence," said Anne Collins, the publisher of Random House Canada, which published the book last fall. Ms. Collins who said she fell in love with Mr. Anderson's writing in 1999 after reading a 50-page sample from the draft of the novel, in which he wrote lyrical passages in four distinct voices.
"Not many first-time novelists have even a clue how to do that," she said. "He totally hooked me."
So, MY question is: how big is big enough, how big is TOO big? Obviously if you have written a superior piece, no book is too big.
... that article cites a novel at 50,000 to 110,000 words. I'm striving to bring mine in at 110,000 words, and have been wondering if I'm going to be able to do so.
But sheesh... my draft, set in Courier 12 point type measures 186 words per page. At 1360 pages, that alone would measure over 252,000 words.
I'm staggered. And here I thought 110,000 to 150,000 words would be pushing the envelope.
posted
I'm amazed that he managed to get such a long piece published as his first novel. It intrigues me to the point of imagingint that it must be really special or they never would have risked it.
Granted, for us mortals who don't have contacts or current publicity, we're already going to have to come up with something pretty special to catch an editor's attention. To me, this means not taking unnecessary risks. There are traditional word count ranges that are more likely to get you looked at. In spec fiction, you want about 100k words. That's what I'm aiming for on my second novel, anyway. (My first was 80k, but it also qualifies as suspense and that genre looks for 70-90k.)
posted
I have a hard enough time filling ten thousand words with meaning, much less that much. The longest novel I've written came in at about ninety-three thousand words. And one reason I haven't been able to get another off the ground since then (five years now and counting) is the Great Void of it, the inability to put word after word on paper (or computer screen) until I pass some arbitrary length. Long before I reach anywhere near the end, I'm bored doing it and I just want the damned thing to be over and finished.
I like the conciseness (concision?) of short novels, that tell a story in forty thousand words or less and don't waste a word. (The good ones, anyway.) You don't see many things published in that length nowadays. (I loved the old Ace Doubles.)
posted
Elan, manuscript pages are not the same as printed pages! Relax. Printed pages usually have 250-350 words per page, depending on a gazillion things. Pull a few books off your shelf and check it out.
You can estimate word count by counting the number of words in a few sentences and then averaging, and counting the number of lines on pages and averaging, and then multiply the averages. faster than counting every word (but of course just an estimate, not a precise count.)
posted
Yeah, I realize the printed page has a much higher word count than the draft page does... that's what I am saying.... my DRAFT has 186 words per page. Even taking into account the shorter pages that begin and end a chapter, 250 words times 1360 pages is... eep... 340,000 words. For a debut novel.
The NY Times article has a little fun fact set of pictures at the top of the page. "Hunger's Brides" weighs as much as a six-pack of beer, as much as two and a half copies of the Da Vinci code, more than a chihuahua, and almost as much as a quarter of a large watermelon.
I guess there is hope for the long-winded, as long as you are telling a captivating tale!
Not only has he thrown convention out the window with novel length, but he says he has tossed everything we've been taught about concise writing, as well.
quote:It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see the ten-second sound byte as the oddity—the language of a technology, television, in which brevity has the cardinal virtue of preserving time for advertising. I don’t see it as the concern of literature to perpetuate or enshrine this (at least until it’s been around for a couple thousand years). -- Paul Anderson
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited August 25, 2005).]
posted
Good grief! That's one that I won't be lugging along on the bus ride to work! Then again, that's when I get nearly all of my reading done. If I had to read it at home, it would take ... hmm, calculating ... 27.3 years.
I'm just wondering: They say that literature has evolved during the information age, due largely to the influence of other media. Obviously if you compare today's novels with the likes of Henry James or Charles Dickens there has been an enormous swing in the concision of modern prose.
So, does Mr. Anderson's work represent a swing in the other direction? And what might be the cause of that swing? Perhaps the widening gap between watchers and readers? Perhaps the readers are tired of watching and yearn for a richness that can only be found in the written word, and which has become largely absent from literature in the past 50 years or so in an effort to keep the watchers reading?
In which case, there is hope for my WIP as-is. YAY!!!
posted
I'm a little suspicious of the serious value of anything that trades in sheer novelty. And it is apparent that this book isn't relying on text as it's medium, so that's two strikes in my book.
I can wait a while to see if it's for real. And so I will.
posted
This conversation sounds strangely like one on these boards some months ago about the debut of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. Although not as large, if I remember correctly, it was also a mammoth debut novel. Maybe there is a slight shift in that direction, if two books can be considered a shift. But then, considering the marketing costs for these two books, I'm not sure the release of books like this are good for the rest of us. What's spent on promoting that single book will probably be siphoned from the promotional budget of several.
[This message has been edited by Minister (edited August 25, 2005).]
posted
No, that would irk me even worse. Yeah, I know that you weren't talking to me, but I want people to read my books because they like them. I don't want a bunch of copies sold to serve as decorative items.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
To consider "Gone With the Wind," and its volume of words...watch the movie from beginning to end, then read the novel and take careful note of everything that was left out...
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
Oh, yes! The movie was a shell of the book. I devoured the book in three days as a teenager, despite its length. I guess we'd have to read this new book to find out if it is also worth its word-count!
(And, BTW, Vivien Leigh was wonderful, and Clark Gable was-- well, who WOULD want to kiss Clark Gable?! Now Timothy Dalton as Rhett was awesome, but who can say anything good about the book OR movie "Scarlett"?!)
Um, I think I've again delved into the irrelevant...
posted
I have to say that, sometimes, I just LOVE to lose myself in a big, fat and delicious book: Stan Robinson's 2,500 page 'Mars' trilogy or Simmon's 'Hyperion Cantos' or David Zindell's stunning 'Neverness' quartet. Admittedly these were all split into multiple volumes, but were designed as one novel, and in each case I waited until the whole series was available and then happily devoured them.
Sure, a story doesn't have to be big to be good, but dontcha just love that sensation of living for weeks and weeks in an author's imagined world?!
posted
Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six" was long. It took me a week to read. If I remember right, it has somewhere around 1600 some pages. I thought I'd never get done with it.
But that book was good. I'd read it again if I had a week to burn.
posted
Man, anymore I'm lucky if I have the time to read 250 pages a week. Either I'm busy writing, with volunteer work, or I fall asleep with the book in my hands.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
I like big books, but they have to be good. I have to admit, I didn't bother to read Rainbow Six because I thought the opening was lame. Maybe he went back and fixed that, who knows?
If a book is really well written, I can read it in one day. Whether I will depends on whether I plan on doing anything else that day (unless it's a pretty short book).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
of modern prose. 
Now Timothy Dalton as Rhett was awesome, but who can say anything good about the book OR movie "Scarlett"?!)
