by Elizabeth S. Craig, @elizabethscraig
The key to discoverability, at this point, seems to be either writing a blockbuster of a book (which we’d all clearly be doing, if it were such an easy endeavor), or owning a lot of real estate on Amazon. In other words, having a lot of books available for sale at Amazon.
Readers seem to like series. And readers are impatient for the next book…evidenced by semi-joking notes I’ll get on Facebook from readers: “Can’t you write faster?”
And I’m thinking, “Okay….but I’m writing four books a year. Isn’t that fast enough?” No, I’d never respond to a reader that way. I’ll usually answer back on Facebook by thanking them and encouraging them to read one of my other series. And I take their question as a compliment—although it stings a little, too.
I read a post last week by D.D. Scott on “The Writer’s Guide to e-Publishing” blog, entitled: Indie Epublished Authors: Build Your Backlist Quicker with Shorter-Length Novels.
In it, D.D. (who’s had a very successful e-publishing career) took an informal reader poll and found that:
1. Ideally, they would love to wait no longer than two months between new releases from their fave authors. (That keeps an author fresh in their minds.)
2. Because of their tight schedules as working moms and dads and/or grandmas and grandpas, and in today’s multi-media world, they love quick reads that they can (a) read or listen to during their commute or at lunch, (b) read while waiting on the kids at soccer practice, cheerleading practice, music lessons, dance lessons, etc., (c) read while in a doctor’s waiting room, and (d) read knowing that the characters they’ve come to love will be back very soon with a new adventure.
3. Their attention spans are getting shorter and shorter so they like something they can invest a relatively short time in. Get great laughs and move on.
4. They have no clue how long a book “should” be. As long as the story is great, they don’t care either. Except that, again, they do have short attention spans that are getting even shorter.**********************
I’m not going to put a book out every two months, no matter how much readers might like it. :) But at a shorter length…sure, I could write more books in a year.
My thoughts on this:
Readers don’t seem to mind short books. My shorter self-pubbed books have enjoyed a good reception from readers…several of whom even commented (in reviews and directly to me on Facebook, Twitter, and email) that they enjoyed the “quick reads.” One of mine is about 160 pages (according to Amazon), one is equivalent to 170 pages…and one is just listed as 366 kb. :) I know that book is roughly 59,000 words.
Shorter books mean that you can write more books in a shorter period of time. (Sometimes. If you’re a writer who naturally writes long, then it might be tough/time consuming for you to edit down to short length.)
For my genre (cozy/traditional mystery) my publisher expects a 75,000+ word book. No problem. I deliver those books, with that length, to them on a regular basis. But my first draft for those books was probably 55,000 words. That’s the basic story. That’s with no chapter breaks, little description, shorter hook time (if I’m incorporating food, quilting, etc. in a series…which I do for my two Penguin series), very little character description, sparse setting, and limited subplots.
If these books are poor quality, we’re going to end up in hot water. It doesn’t matter how much space you occupy on Amazon if readers hate your books. And readers remember. I think we all put out a book every once in a while that isn’t up to par. If every book we put out is a stinker, though, we’re cooking our own goose.
What I’m doing for now:
Continuing to write longer for my traditionally published books (as required by my contracts.)
Writing shorter books (but still, full-length novels) for my self-pubbed Myrtle Clover series (which started out as a traditional series).
I’m aiming for two traditionally published titles in a year and over two for my self-published titles (that’s two finished books and maybe be half-finished with a third. Or even have a finished third self-pub title ready for formatting.)
Keeping it in check:
I’ll watch out for burn-out and stale writing. I’ll ask my beta readers and freelance editors to tell me if my writing doesn’t seem fresh (I know my traditional editors will definitely let me know if it doesn’t.)
In the last couple of years, however, I’ve noticed that the more I write, the more I want to write. The more excited I get. The more confident I feel. The more I miss it when I have an odd day when it doesn’t get done (which means I squeeze it in at the end of the day, just to get that satisfied feeling. A writing addiction?)
The nice thing is that I think writing shorter books for my self-published series is giving me a creative shot in the arm. I’m thinking about new ways to explore writing the series—maybe holiday novellas. Traditional publishers can be leery about putting out holiday titles (short shelf life), but it’s something that’s always been interesting to me.
Do you write short? What are your thoughts about what the boom in digital publishing means for book length? As a reader, how frequently would you like to see titles release in your favorite series?
Image: Flickr: Biking Nikon
The one thing to remember is that now our books stay in print, so even if readers are clamoring now, we’ll at least satisfy readers who find us later when we have a bigger backlist!
As for shorter books: I always loved the trilogies of Nero Wolfe novellas that Rex Stout used to write. I’ve wished for more like that for decades.
As for my own writing: I have four active series, and each is different. Some demand longer books (80k?) But right now I’m having the time of my live writing serials on my blog: 40 or so very short episodes — like a comic strip — published twice a week, making for a novella.
It’s a different kind of writing, very hard, but fun. I’m hoping to find readers for some stories that don’t fit in a particular genre.
Hi, I see this trend too. I seem to write in around 60K words, my books don’t contain a lot of description – something I’m working on – and they are plot driven. 60K seems to tell the story including a sub plot. I try for 5 – 6 books a year and I’m writing three different series right now.
My NaNo story is a stand alone which is great for me, because it gives me fresh people to write about, but I’m getting grief from my readers who want new books in the series. :( no way to please everyone.
Thinking about it, one of the books I’m reading right now is under 300 pages and has been a quick read so far. The author is writing two different series right now. It’s something to consider.
I write short. My memoir was 120 pages. I’m writing my first novel and I’m two thirds of the way done and it’s only 106 pages, but it’s bare bones – just the basic story. I know I have to go back and flush it out, so I don’t know how long it will end up. As a reader, I’m willing to wait for releases from my favorite authors.
Karen
I’m not a series reader. However, I think most books should be less than 400 pages. Not many 5-600 pagers deserve that much of my time >:)
Cold As Heaven
As much as we hate to disappoint readers, we can’t crank out ‘fast’ if the quality isn’t there. And my most recent release turned out significantly longer than the previous one.
With word count not imposed on authors of indie books, they can write for the story rather than publisher limits. And, Mark Coker of Smashwords said the best selling titles are longer books, not shorter. I think it might be a ‘more bang for the buck’ mentality on the part of the readers. They don’t like paying the same price for a novella as they are for a full-length novel. And, given the sliding royalty rate, authors make much less on the lower-priced books.
Personally, I like to know that I can spend days, not hours, with well-crafted characters.
However, I DO think that a novella length work, or some short stories can help tide readers over–especially if it’s exploring something merely touched upon in the series. Kind of ‘bonus material.’
Terry
Terry’s Place
I do write short, so this gives me hope. :)
I had a really strong reaction to that article. I felt really conflicted about it. Yes, I think there’s a tendency to stretch out a book when shorter would do much better – these days everything has to be at least a trilogy or at least 400 pages and it’s a little ridiculous. So I like the idea of writers not having to stretch things out to a word count that doesn’t really fit the story.
But, I see tons of bad reviews that complain “if I had known this was so short, I wouldn’t have bought it.” And a new book every two months??? To me that’s insanity. People don’t expect that kind of output from other creative careers – they accept that it takes time to produce a painting or a clothing line. Why can’t authors take more time to craft their stories? To me, two books a year from an author I enjoy is good, and three books is a downright delight. If they were putting out a “full-length” book every two months I would have to start worrying about their health because they must never eat or sleep!
Elizabeth – Thanks very much for your perspective on this. I couldn’t agree with you more that there is nothing wrong with shorter books. In fact, most readers I know don’t want really long books. They have busy lives too and don’t always want to dive in for 4-500 pages. You also make a well-taken point about checking to be sure there’s a freshness in what we write. Readers deserve something new when they turn or click a page. Besides, changing it up a little keeps the author interested and that’s contagious.
Chihuahua Zero–I’d love to see stats on how frequently readers will pick up other series by the same author. Are they strictly loyal to one series, or loyal to the author? I know that I’ll almost always give another series by an author a go, but I usually have a favorite series of the two.
The Daring Novelist–Oh and HOW I’m looking forward to that day! I don’t even feel like I’m close, because I’m writing several series. So I’ve got 8 books currently available for purchase, and 2 in production that are coming out next year. But since those ten books are all in different series, I don’t have enough backlist to satisfy a hungry series reader. I’ll love it when I’ve got 6 or 7 books in *one* series out and then readers discover the books. Give myself a little breathing room.
I used to love mystery novellas, as a reader. Some days, all I have time to read is short fiction, so I appreciate short reads, too.
You’re still primarily mystery, right? Just in different formats? Or are you experimenting a little?
P.A. Wilson–It sounds like you and I are in almost the same situation, except that you’re more productive than I am! Yes, I’ve thought about stand-alones, too, but am worried about reader reaction. Those series readers want that next book! I understand, since I love series, too. But there’s got to be some balance there–something fresh for us to work on. Maybe I’ll write a stand-alone and just sit on the thing for a while.
Cold As Heaven–I start losing interest around 400, for sure, if the story isn’t especially gripping. I have a favorite author (who shall remain nameless :) ) who needs a little editing, I think. I love her, love her books, but it’s just too much book sometimes.
Karen–And really, you won’t have to flesh it out that much…maybe just a handful more pages…elaborating on what you’ve already got. Lengthening a scene here or there, adding a bit of description, adding a few lines of dialogue. It won’t take much.
To answer your question as to whether I write mainly mystery:
Two of my series are mysteries. The other two are oddball old-time adventures. They’re the ones I’m serializing, because they are like old-time movie serials and melodramas.
Nearly everything I write has a mystery/intrigue element, though. (And also an oddball adventure element.)
I write pretty short manuscripts. getting the re-write of my second book past 80,000 took a fair amount of work and planning, and even with that I wasn’t sure until I started writing the climax that I’d manage it.
I could happily write a long series of books that only hit 60,000 words. I think it helps that I’m a slow reader, myself. If I see an inches-tick fantasy novel sitting on a shelf next to one I could slip into my jacket pocke, and I don’t know the author or the series well, I’m probably going to pick the shorter book, because it’s less of an investment of time and a faster return in terms of satisfaction. Or, if I don’t enjoy the book, I haven’t spent that much of my reading time on it.
For now I’m happy to stick closely to the average standards for book-length, and I’m pretty sure my third book is going to be longer than 80,000 in the first draft. But I do have some projects in mind that I don’t think would work as very long novels.
This is a timely post as I’m outlining some short stories 50 to 100 pages. Probably closer to 50. I like short stories. Stephen King has some really good ones. Dolan’s Cadillac is a favorite of mine.
For me, so much depends on genre for how long I write. My YA stuff tends to all come in under 70K–sometimes as low as 60K. The mysteries run 70K first draft. But my adult suspense still runs longer. The one I wrote this summer will end up 120K once the missing scenes are filled in… should be shortened to 100K before it’s ready.
I think you’re right that eBooks have a lot better tolerance for shorter. in paper or hardback, a shorter book feels really unsatisfying to me, but in eBook I am perfectly content with 2 pages per ‘percentage’ And you are absolutely right about having LOTS of books being the key to success. I actually have in my mind having several READY before commiting to self publishing anything… I can trickle them out and try to traditionally publish, and hopefully a few of them will go that way. But once I’ve gotten there, having ten or so ready for a year of releasing every other month is perfect.
I had an idea for four novelette length stories tied into one book, but maybe four short books would be better?
I just read an article where the ‘expert’ best seller said that quality still trumped quantity. So who knows?
Interesting post :)
As an avid reader (I read at least 4 books per week), I will say that I don’t really like short books. I don’t read books under 70-80k words. And I don’t read short stories.
My ideal book is around 100k words. Even more. As long as it is interesting. In any case, if a book doesn’t hook me in the first 5-10 pages I’ll give up, no matter the length of it.
Short books are tricky and require very good (or excellent) writing. It’s difficult to comprise issues, conflicts, scenes, dialogues etc.
I am aware that I’m also a fast reader and that not everybody is like me, but if it’s good I want it to last more :).
Paul–I always panic that I won’t make the word count, too–but it always comes together pretty easily. Not too padded, either, but making up the slack with a fun subplot or something along those lines.
Paul, it’s funny you should mention that. For new-to-me authors, I almost always pick a short book (and this is from the library…not even ebook). I think I almost want a sample of their writing and am not wanting to invest too much time in a book if I end up not wild about the writer’s style, plot, etc.
Terry–I totally agree about the quality. Right now, though (and series writing makes this so much easier I think–ready-made characters, ready-made setting), I’ve got plenty of ideas for my series. Now, what I worry about is when the *demand* is still there and I need to refuel with ideas. That won’t be as much fun. So I see an end at some point to the frantic pace…I don’t think it can be sustained forever. (Although I see some career writers who manage it.)
I hear you on the longer book issue. I do know that I purposefully look for long ebooks for my son, who reads quickly (and it takes me a while to find him books because he likes only particular sub-genres.) Yep, if I find a 400-page equivalent ebook for him in one of those genres, I’m buying it and I’m *thrilled* because I won’t have to hunt for books for him for a few days.
For me, it depends. For my favorite writers (Elizabeth George, Louise Penny), I’d love to spend days or over a week reading one of their books. But I’m also satisfied with the very quick reads from M.C. Beaton. Now, if Elizabeth George or Louise Penny started putting out short books–I think I’d be surprised and probably not as happy. That’s because I *expect* long books from them because they write long.
What I’m wavering on is how to do a novella for a mystery series. I really don’t like the idea of having a novella for a mystery series that doesn’t have a mystery in it! But I see those all the time. I might need to just adjust my mind-set on that one.
Stephen–It’s a smart idea, I think.
Hart–Very genre-specific…good point.
A stream of steady releases from a backlist or unpublished works would probably be ideal.Mine are in drips and drabs of found time. :)
Teresa–Thanks for coming by. :)
Megan–A new book every couple of months–a full-length book that’s well-formatted, has a nice cover, etc.–I’m totally with you on that one. I think what D.D. does is put out a mix of some shorts, some novellas in there. And the novellas are pretty short (even for novellas), I think. Still, though–I’d probably be pulling my hair out, for sure.
With 4 books a year, I only write 3.5 pages a day. That’s a decent pace that doesn’t seem to burn me out. I edit really quickly. What takes gobs of time for me is online/platform stuff. What some of these self-pub writers are advising is for us to cut down on our Facebook, Twitter, blogging time and turn that into additional writing time. That’s where time gains could be found, I think. It also helps that I don’t have a day job (except for mothering, which gets wacky enough on its own.)
I’ve definitely seen some of those reviews, but only on genuine short stories…like 17-30 page manuscripts. I think, if we release short stories as singles, we have to be really, REALLy careful about how we present them. I’m thinking about even putting (short story) as part of the official title when I get far enough along to write shorts.
L. Diane Wolfe–That’s what I’d do, Diane.
I think quality definitely *can* trump quantity. But I *think* (and I’m just starting to develop opinions on this stuff) that it’s got to be truly amazing quality to get discovered by readers in the tons and tons of books out there. So what I’m looking at is actually *sales*, I guess. To get the sales, we have to get our books in front of readers and have them buy them. What seems to get attention is a wonderful book that gets a lot of attention/reviews/likes and pure volume of books sold. I think, ideally, we’ll have a fantastic novel in quality (a hit) at some point when we’re producing a nice-sized backlist. Best of both worlds.
Margot–It’s a time investment for the reader. If they know the author can deliver a bang for the time invested in reading, I’m sure the longer book will win out with many readers. But so many of us are shorter on time than we’d like…or trying out new authors. I think that’s where a shorter book can be especially advantageous.
Purely as a reader, I like shorter books because there are more books out there that I want to read these days. I still read longer books but I usually find that they could have tightened it. But, if I’m loving it… then I really don’t care.
Does that make sense?
I’ve been reading mystery novels for over 50 years. The ones I liked best were the paperback novels which were 50,000 to 60,000 words. I still enjoy them the most and go back and read some of them again.
I think that as paperback books got more expensive, publishers began to think people expected more pages, fatter books which seemed to be worthy the increased price. Now that we have electronic books, I’d be happy to see my favorite authors go back to the somewhat shorter length.
I could do shorter stories! Wait, they’re already rather short. And I probably couldn’t write any faster than I do now. Bummer.
Laura–It makes perfect sense to me! But that’s because I share your view, as a reader. I’d rather read several short books than a really long one (exceptions–books by my favorite authors.)
Joe–I like those, too. They’re just really tightly plotted, aren’t they?
Now that’s very interesting. So you think it was a visual selling point for the publishers…a fatter book represented a better entertainment bang for the buck. Now that length isn’t so obvious…maybe it will readjust.
The Daring Novelist–So the mysterious element as a common thread.
I like the idea of trying a different genre, but I think I won’t be able to for the next 2-3 years or more.
I used to love oddball adventure stuff…and I haven’t seen that much of it around, so maybe you’ve got a niche! Sort of like “Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad (etc.) World?”
Alex–Do some short stories! Those would be amazing for your genre. And would tide readers over until the next Cassa-adventure. :)
I.J.Vern: Thanks so much for coming by and for your view as a reader!
And I think you’ve got an interesting perspective on this. It makes me think that I may need to consider writing both longer and shorter books in the future. Although for my genre (sub-genre, actually), the books don’t usually run upwards of 80K. But–with ebooks, anything is possible, as I’ve just mentioned! So that could be another change (genre moving to a longer form) later in the game.
You’re so right about writing short being a challenge. I’m a real admirer of short stories, but have botched my efforts in that area so far. :) I’m going to have to keep practicing…
I’m trying all lengths. One of my novellas far outsells all of my other works but I’m keeping tabs. What I’ve found doesn’t sell well for me are short stories but I’m hoping a short collection of them versus singles might work better for value proposition?
I’ve been thinking about this lately too. The indies I’ve picked up are in the 50-60k range, or shorter. My stuff- for my series- is in the 75-80k range. If I have to make it shorter, I’m either going to lose a lot or put it into even more volumes. But right now I’m at 4, and my gut says 4 is the max for New Adult romance :-)
Deb–I’d keep them the way they are then! You don’t have any reader feedback on length, you seem like you write quickly, and your books naturally end up longer. :)
I must be one of the abnormal readers, because I hate when a book is over too fast! If I’m going to invest my time in characters and their world, please please please give me AT LEAST 70,000 words!
And putting four books out each year!? Wow. That’s pretty good! I can understand how, in a way, it’s a bit of smack to be told that you should write quicker because as we writers know, it’s a time-consuming task that takes a lot of thought and time and well, words. And yet, for someone to say that means they enjoy your work. Which is always a good thing–who wouldn’t want people eagerly anticipating their next novel? :)
Jessica
Malena–Haven’t tried shorts yet (I haven’t mastered that art yet!) but I’ve heard some of my writer friends say that their short story collections sell pretty well.
coffeelvnmom–There are writers that I love who give me that same type of feeling–don’t let it be over! But I’m also an impatient reader, particularly with mysteries. I’m always thinking as I read, “Did Jack do it? I think Jack is the killer. Is he? How many pages until I find out if Jack did it?” :)
And I definitely do appreciate it and take it as a compliment and thank the readers. But…yeah. As a mom, you’ll know that a mom’s guilt mechanism is highly honed! So–it’s really a sense of guilt that I feel. Like I’m letting down the reader. The most important thing to me is always to do a Good Job. :)
I’ve been beating this drum for two years now, likening this to the golden age of pulp. I love doing short stories and novellas and novelettes, as well as full length, letting the the stories be as long as they need to be. I love the novella form, which was dead, and now is alive. The addition of content (which is key to self-pub success) has given me an upward trend line every quarter since the beginning of 2010. A bonus is that one of my novellas was the first self-pubbed work to get an ITW Award nod. This is truly the golden age for writers. Nothing like this was even remotely possible before 2008.
James–Love your comparison to pulp’s golden age. And I love the idea of letting the *story* determine the length of the manuscript. It’s an amazing time for writers. Congrats on the ITW award.
This subject totally fascinates me, and your writing schedule blows me away. I’m a very slooooow writer, and a very slooooow reviser.
Julie–Well, compared to some of these other writers, *I* feel like a slow writer! :) I think that series writing naturally goes faster (because we already have so much already in place when we start a sequel.)
I think something else to be considered is that a proper amount of time between series installments helps build enthusiasm and excitement. Look at the run-up to the latest installment in any Hollywood blockbuster series. The hype that builds coming up to the release is a major part of the promotional machine.
Take the film adpatations of Lord of the Rings. These could have all been released in one year, if they’d just delayed the first release and concentrated on post production. But instead they were released a year apart, each. That gave time for each movie to be absorbed by the fans and the “I can’t wait to see the next one!” idea to grow in peoples’ minds.
While people might say they want the next book in a series to be released a mere month or two after the first, giving people what they want, all the time, can lead to them feeling jaded. You need to walk the tricky line between releasing the next installment soon enough that fans are still enthusiastic, but with enough of a delay that they have time to get hyped up.
Paul–You’ve brought up an excellent point and something that I think is going to start getting a lot of attention in the industry…release date spacing. For my traditionally published books, sometimes I’ve felt there was *too much* spacing. For instance, I had a Nov. 2011 release and the next book in that series is releasing July 2013. That’s quite a gap.
I’m not sure I’d want a whole year, but I do like the idea of spacing books every 7 months or so. You’re right about the idea that there can be too much of a good thing…a little demand isn’t always bad. Law of supply and demand, right (says Elizabeth, trying to remember college business principles from ages ago….) :)
12 months can be good spacing if you’ve got a good time of year for your release date. I’m hoping that the sequel to my book will be out next year, and if at all possible, another November release would be great, because it keeps the release close to Christmas.
Paul–Very true. As opposed to February or August (which are sometimes kind of dead, I think).
This is a trend in academic monographs.
Debra–Interesting! So it’s spilling over into non-fic, too.
I read and enjoyed D.D. Scott’s post on this last week as well.
I wonder if this might be highly genre specific in terms of what readers want. For example, I’d be perfectly happy to read a shorter romance or mystery and read a few more of them, but when it comes to fantasy or science fiction, I want a longer read.
The re-readability of a book plays into it for me as well. If the book is so wonderful that I’m going to want to read it again in the future, I don’t mind if the author takes longer to put out their next book. I’d rather have the longer wait for a book I’m going to re-enjoy for years to come.
Hi Elizabeth – I feel I will want to read proper books in actual form … but faster read, shorter books .. I feel will hook me onto a eReading once I get there … that’s what my gut is telling me will happen.
A lot of readers are just readers .. and they devour books often of the same ilk … so there’s a big market – as Mills and Boone found out pre Digital Age ..
You’re set being published and are in a position to exploit and explore your markets – great for us .. in this day of the blog as we can read how it pans out for you ..
Enjoy your weekend .. Hilary
Oh bother!! I knew I had a clever comment to make .. I’ll have some of Amazon’s real estate now … now they’ve got wine in stock?! I think I’ll enjoy my cup of tea quite soon!!
Cheers Hilary
Hilary–Good point about Mills and Boone! Yes, they definitely capitalized on readers’ appetite for romance novels. Could pan out for other genres, too.
Enjoy your tea! And…that Amazon has a finger in everything. :)
Marcy–I think you’re right about genre specificity. I think it *could* work well with lit fic (I remember some excellent classics that were short reads), definitely for mystery, romance, YA….SF/F is frequently a longer read. Worldbuilding can take time.
I used to re-read books more frequently than I do now. But I do re-read Christie’s books. Interestingly–Agatha Christie’s books were also pretty short. And she experimented with short stories, too. So your observation on genre is apt even for older books.