Books of a Certain Length

Author’s Note: This is a topic near and dear to my heart.  Thinking about yesterday’s post about the rise of YA fiction as a force majeure in the SF&F publishing world, it wasn’t far for me to start thinking about book length.  Also, to be entirely honest, Dear Wife suggested both topics.  I’ll also note: this is a very meaty (i.e. wordy) and at times contentious topic.  For that reason, I am going to do something I rarely ever do on my blog: I’m implementing sectional subtitles.  Why?  Because this turned out to be a real, long, in-depth, even semi-scholarly article on the topic of wordcount length, with quite a bit of data and market analysis.  Your conclusions will be your own, but I’ve tried to synthesize a lot of information for this article.  I considered splitting the article into several posts, as I often do when a single post grows this long, but I felt that it would weaken the analysis to have the disparate elements separated onto different pages.  So, instead: one long post with sectional subtitles.  Finally, you’ll find I prefer the compound word “wordcount” as opposed to splitting the word into two: “word count”, which is the more common usage.  The reason for this is that when I refer to “wordcount” I’m referring to a single, distinct idea: that is, the total number of words in a manuscript.  Splitting the word into two diffuses this unified notion. 

~

Books of a Certain Length

If you look around on the internet, it won’t be hard to come up with some solid advice for how long your book should be – depending on which genre and market you are writing for.  I encountered advice on the issue in this post on the Magical Words blog – where you’ll find me entering the fray in the comments.  There’s also this post on The Swivet.  I won’t quote all the genre length guidelines these two posts suggest (which are mostly in accord).  But if you’re either a fan of meaty Epic Fantasies or books like the Harry Potter series, and write in anything approaching a similar vein and genre, you might find some of these guidelines a trifle… strange.  Epic Fantasy is given a high-end wordcount length suggestion of around 120,000 words.  For YA it is suggested you stay under 80,000 words with some flexibility up to 100,000 in special circumstances.

For those of you unfamiliar with relative wordcount lengths, you may consider that and say to yourself: “Okay, so, what’s the big deal?”

The Challenge of a Verbose Writer

Let me first start by offering this full disclosure: my writing style tends toward the robustly wordful.  For example, I’ve participated in several “Flash Fiction” challenges during the history of this blog (with most results posted  here) with the goal of turning out a super-short story under 1,000 words in length.  I rarely reached that goal.  My first attempt at a novel, “Project SOA”, had reached the two-thirds complete mark at approximately 140,000 words before I abandoned that version of the story.  I’m planning on my current novel project, “The Book of M”, to be about 125,000 words… but I fully expect it to be closer to 175,000 (based on my experience of planned length versus actual final length for other, shorter works).

Of course, I’m no professional, as yet. Continue reading

Beat to the Punch

Regular readers may recall a few weeks ago this post, in which I go on about a possible “successor model” to the way publishing is done today.  Well, a friend from class clued me in late last week to this:

http://springwise.com/media_publishing/tenpages/

I’ll give you a minute to go check that link out.  Okay.  Done, now?

So, for those of you who didn’t click the link, here’s the gist: Dutch website “Tenpages.com” has created a partnership with several publishers (presumably Dutch ones) in a venture that allows the users of the site (who act as investors on a virtual market) to decide which books sourced through the site will get published by buying “stock” in that book.

Sound familiar?  If you were here a few weeks ago when I posted about my “Novel Venture” concept, you might be thinking “yeah, that does sound familiar”.  The ingenuity of this site, it turns out, is that, well, it’s a website, and takes that whole “building up a community of investors” problem out of the “Novel Venture” concept I proposed by establishing a virtual place for that community to gather.   Frankly, though, I’m surprised that someone else (albeit in Holland) had almost the same idea, and is actually finding a way to make it work.  I was ambivalent enough about the chances of my idea proving successful that I wasn’t sure anyone would ever try it, so imagine my surprise to learn that someone already has.

The biggest drawback that I see to this site, however, is that it offers writers and investors only a 10% royalty/share of profits each.  In normal publishing contracts, the writer gets roughly a 20% royalty rate (actual rates vary, but 20% seems about average), so a 10% rate is pretty low.  In other words, this is only going to attract brand new, unproven authors.  And those authors, if they grow successful, are going to want to renegotiate their contracts.

From the investor’s perspective, the 10% rate is also too low.  These are the people putting up the seed money to get the venture started.  Although, to really analyze whether that share is really too low or high, I suppose, the amount of the seed money will need to be compared to the amount the publisher is kicking in.  The investors need to be justly compensated for the degree of risk they’re taking on, and it matters which party is bearing the majority of that risk.

Overall, I think the idea is a very intriguing concept.  I wonder if it can work here in the States.  And I wonder how long it will take someone here to try.  I think the idea has to work a few kinks out if it’s going to prove successful: the amount of seed capital needed to get a book off the ground and get a publisher on board, the royalty and returns offered to writers and investors, etc. will all need to be fine-tuned.

Thoughts, dear readers?

A Novel Venture (A Publishing Successor Model)

On Saturday, I alluded to the possibility of posts on some ideas I have for possible “successor” models to replace the existing “traditional publisher” model that predominates publishing today.  Market forces are whittling away at that dominance, and publishers are struggling to find new ways to survive.  Eventually, they will more than likely have to change to remain viable.

Today, I present the first (and possibly only, as so far this is the only idea I’ve come up with for an alternative) Publishing Successor Model.  The format is this: I will begin by describing the Model, giving it a name and detailing the basic function.  Then, I will offer an argument for why it will succeed.  Finally, I will conclude with an argument for why it will fail.  (If there are any future Publishing Successor Model articles, they’ll follow the same format.)

What it is:  The Novel Venture Capital Model

How it Works:  The model is based loosely on the way many small businesses in America today get funding, and how they are primed for success.  The idea is that the mechanisms by which novels are screened and edited (and financed) are decoupled from the printing and publishing process.  Instead of sending off query letters to publishers, novelists in the future will prepare short business plans (including a short summary of the novel, sample chapters, reviews of the finished work when available, an explanation for why the novel will succeed, target audience analysis, that sort of thing) for review by “Novel Venture Capitalists”. 

NVCs, as we’ll call them, are a decentralized, loose network of angel investors and avid readers of some means who organize together to fund “Novel Ventures” for publication and distribution in exchange for an equity share in the business venture (potentially anywhere between 20 and 60 percent stake).  Working with an NVC group gives an author access to that group of NVC’s network of distributed, experienced, and vetted freelance editors, artists, designers, proofreaders, and so on, as well as to established relationships between NVCs and the large, old-school printing, distribution, and marketing firms (today’s traditional publishers will become these, and will make their profit on a per-book-sold fee).  An NVC group may work with a number of different printing and distribution firms, depending on the specific distribution channel (for e-Books, Hardcovers, etc.). 

Because the primary role of the NVCs will be to screen and vet novels and novelists for publication, finance the venture, connect the novelists to skilled and experienced professionals who will manage the process, and then get out of the way and let the system work, the NVCs will develop a talent for, well, recognizing talent.  Everyone else gets to do the part they’re good at, and nobody has to support the overhead of trying to cram all that talent together under one roof (most of these jobs can be done from freelancers’ homes).

Why it Will Succeed:  Today’s new mid-lister authors will be tomorrow’s old guard, blockbuster novelists, replacing the current group as they pass away or retire.  And these mid-listers/future-blockbusters will be increasingly disloyal and disillusioned with current traditional publishers even as their own names increase in brand recognition with the reading public.  As the traditional publishers try to demand more and more rights from writers and offer ever-diminishing royalty rates in a bid for their own survival, these established and experience authors will revolt, seeking new opportunities in the open marketplace.  They’ll seek ways to maintain all of their rights, bundled together and closely held, and only sell out shares of the potential profits: a business model that ties easily with existing network of angel investors. 

Bereft of their big-name, tent-pole authors, the current business model of traditional publishers will suddenly implode as the reading public abandons them in droves.  They are forced to divest unproductive assets and imprints in order to lean up and compete with the smaller printers that are lapping up the new business.  The old publishers still have the means to do large-scale print runs the most economically possible.  Their divested imprints have the marketing and distribution relationships needed to manage the book, the publication process, and ultimately success. 

Writers get to keep the rights to their own work and keep on writing (even if they sometimes have to write business plans).  NVCs reap huge hordes of cash when Hollywood moguls purchase licensing options for film adaptations.

Why it Will Fail:  Typically, novelists are terrible at writing business plans, and have a general lack of business acumen.  Real-world Venture Capitalists demand huge returns on their investments, on the order of 30% or more over a couple of years (for comparison, the stock market historically returns something like 8% in the long term).  It’s uncertain whether the chance to fund (and get a share of) the next J. K. Rowling or Stephanie Meyers will be worth the risk of funding (and getting no return from) the next John. Q. Nobody (who is a more populous animal than the J. K. Rowlings) to business-savvy VCs.  Plus, the idea is predicated on groups of VCs who love books and reading simultaneously coming up with this same idea and spontaneously forming networks.  Heavy industry consolidation in publishing means the remaining players have a lot of power to manipulate the market for their own mutual benefit and to prevent their own demise.  It will take some heavy defection from some really major tent-pole authors (we’re talking tomorrow’s Stephen Kings et al.) before all the old publishers will be in any serious trouble.

What do you think?  How do you think the market and industry will evolve to solve today’s market and industry inefficiencies and problems?  Let me know in the comments.