posted
Here's my dilemma: the current incarnation of my WIP begins with Ethan, my protagonist, leaving Voyoo, the village he'd spent the last year in, and journeying out into the real world to try and find a way home. He went, and hilarity ensued. Three chapters later, the story slowed, stalled, and puttered to a stop.
That was two weeks ago.
Now, I'm reworking the beginning. I'm not throwing away what I have so far, it'll just be later on in the story. Thing is, Ethan's storyline in Voyoo and Ethan's storyline everywhere else are two different stories. There are no real threads connecting the two, except that what he experiences in the first will make him who he is in the second. They both have build-ups, climaxes, and resolutions, and they'll be in no way related, so I'm wondering whether I should make them into two seperate novels, or one big one. The first story is much smaller than the second, but the word count would still number in the hundreds of thousands. I'm thinking 125-150K, give or take 10 or 20K. I know the age-old "if its long, it had better be damn good" edict for first timers, and how rarely one such first timer manages to get such a tome published. In this light, it makes sense to write them as two different books, one after the other, but I'm still conflicted. I'd like it to be two stories in one book (seperated by a blank page, or a Book II divider, or something), but I'm flexible.
I just though I'd see what everyone else thinks.
CVG
PS--Apropos of nothing, fantasy nuts would probably get a kick out of an Animal Planet special entitled Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real coming out March 20th. I know I will.
posted
From what I’m understanding of it, it’d probably be better off as two books, if you become a big time famous writer like J.R.R. Tolkien later on, then you can always put the two novels into one book, but for now, just try to work with it being a series or something.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
I'm going to tag along on this one (with your permission), because I've been wrestling a similar dilemma:
My main WIP has three completely separate sections. Some characters are common even over the divisions, but really it's a generation gap in between the three parts. There's an overarching storyline. There's enough stuff I can talk about to expand any part to any length, and I can also leave stuff out without damaging the story in any way.
One book or three?
[This message has been edited by Jeraliey (edited March 01, 2005).]
posted
I'd say if Part I merits 100K words (or some reasonable length), and can stand alone, it should be its own book. But I often wish the author would cut significantly (saying "I can ... expand any part to any length" scared me a little). One of those authors is Turtledove. Another is OSC.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited March 01, 2005).]
posted
Yeah, I see how that can be misinterpreted. I didn't mean that I plan on forcing an expansion. There's just so much story that right now I find myself cutting out parts of it just to keep it at a readable length.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted
I've actually got a similar problem in that I want to write a story from one POV for the first third, a second POV for the second third, and a third POV for final part. I don't think I'll use first person for any of them (limited omniscient is good enough for me, and first person would be jarring) but I get the feeling that this is an undertaking that even very experienced authors would shy away from.
Posts: 437 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted
I think Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets and Shadow of the Giant were all supposed to be one book or something. The Homecoming series also shows how much OSC can expand a story. I don't think it's necessarly bad, it just means that your book may not wind up where you are trying to get it to. The funny thing is, that without having something to go toward, the story may never get started but then the story doesn't wind up going where you'd planned. I don't know.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted
Yea... not to mention some of the Harry Potter books (they're big and in series)... those things seem to get thicker every time... it never ceases to blow my mind that kids are read a book that big.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted
I personally like long books. Many of my favorite books are 600 pages or more but every one is justifiably that long. Now, a long book that does nothing and goes nowhere, that I do not like. I’m sure people will disagree with me, but I found the Tad Williams books to be the latter. I read The Dragonbone Chair and The Stone of Farewell and refused to read any more of his work because after 1600 pages between the two books, he still had not gotten to the events promised on the back of the first book! It just seemed to drag on forever and went nowhere.
I understand your reticence being a new writer; I am concerned about that myself. Try breaking the work into two or three books and see what you think. If you have someone that can read them for you, ask them whether they would prefer it as separate books or all in one book. If it is a great story and you feel that it needs to be one book then go with that. If the editor likes the story, they may not reject you just because it is long. They may suggest breaking it apart and you can give your reasons for keeping it together and you’ll either come to an agreement or you’ll find another publisher. Don’t break it apart and then force each piece to be book length. That would be worse than one book, written well, that is long.
Some authors who successfully published long books as their first work are listed below. They are all Fantasy authors because that is what I am most familiar with.
Raymond E. Feist Magician Broken into two books – Magician: Apprentice and Magician: Master The editor decided to break the book up and the author agreed. But it still got published and later, when the author was hugely successful, he republished it as a single tome.
Terry Goodkind The Sword of Truth series There are nine books out with a tenth coming this summer and not a one is under 800 pages.
Melanie Rawn The Dragon Prince series These are only around 600 pages each but back in the late 80s that was a big book.
I think there is a trend toward longer books. Perhaps it is just what I’m picking off the shelves now but I seem to notice more long books (at least in Fantasy) than years ago.
Though Archer's comment should not be taken lightly either.
After some debate, I've decided to just write out the stories and if I finish (when. I meant when ), to try and sell them seperately, mentioning that "there is a sequal in the works, entailing Ethan's struggle in the outside world", or something similar.
posted
I know you have your answer, but here's my two cents anyway, because... well, I'm on lunch break and darn it I wanted to share with you! hehe
When sending your letter off to the publisher, is it VERY good to let them know you have a sequel, or series, in the works. They know then, that if they like your work, they'll be able to buy more from you and you're not another one-novel-wonder.
posted
Hmm. I know you've made your decision, but it's an interesting topic.
I've written only three novels. I've made about 10 serious attempts at writing others over the years which have all bogged down for various reasons. The finished trio are so bad (or was, in one case), so awful, that I intend never to let human eyes gaze upon them--one is lost, but the other two are extant--and I am a loon who loves getting a reaction from my stuff, good or bad, and normally isn't reluctant to show people anything, if that tells you something. All were in the 60,000-70,000 word range (the third is missing a few chapters and is only at about 52,000 words, but it squeaked in originally at about 61,000 or thereabouts, IIRC).
I don't think this is because I'm a genius at planning, because the first book was mostly freeform (and it shows... boy, does it show). I wonder if writers just have a standard length they habitually write to, or if I simply tend to write less involved stories, with fewer threads that need to be tied up. The second strikes me as more likely but I'd like to hear thoughts on both possibilities, and hear other opinions.
[This message has been edited by ScottMiller (edited March 08, 2005).]
posted
As a reader who works a full time job and has a family plus chickens and goats and other time consuming obligations, I like works which can be read in no more than two weeks of hour-before-bedtime sessions. My usual maximum comfortable read is maybe 130k words.
I would think the average reader affluent enough to afford books by new authors probably has much less time than money. They'd probably rather buy a DVD than a long book.
Hmmm. Aweful, unprintable stuff by Miller? Tropic of Cancer? Tropic of Capricorn?
[This message has been edited by keldon02 (edited March 08, 2005).]
posted
I don't know, I'm a college student with next to no time on my hands, but I love a good thick book if it's done right. Then again, I'm a fast reader--I finished the fifth Harry Potter book in two days (of course, that was in the summer, but still...), the Firebird trilogy in three (during school) and Pride and Prejudice in a week and a half (again, during school, but this was right in the middle of midterms). Maybe I'm just a bookaholic...
Posts: 437 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted
I'm a bookaholic too, Jaina, and it's nice to meet another one. Everyone at work always looks at me like I'm a freak for carrying a book everywhere, reading in the hall, the elevator, on my way to the car...take advantage of every moment. Why walk staring at my shoes for three minutes down the hall, down the elevator, up the parking deck elevator and then across to my car when I could be reading? Posts: 225 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted
keldon02: I've been found out! My pseudonym is no longer a secret. How long can I hide the time machine in my basement?
I've read 800-page books in a day before, but it usually takes about eight or nine hours, which is why it only usually happens on a weekend, or during a vacation, or when I'm sick.
I try not to base a purchasing/borrowing decision on length, but if it's a real bug-squasher and it just doesn't grab me at the beginning (I give a book five pages before I give up on it) I put it back. There isn't enough time to read all the good books in the world and I'm not about to waste any more time on books I don't enjoy anymore.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hmmm. Aweful, unprintable stuff by Miller? Tropic of Cancer? Tropic of Capricorn? 
