# Interesting Blog Post on ebook Length



## BWFoster78 (Sep 4, 2013)

How many times have we heard the following?

"You need to make your book shorter.  If you go over 70k, 100k, 120k, etc, it won't work."

Personally, I've heard that advice a lot.  When I advertised for an editor on elance, one of the proposals actually stated, "you should shorten it" without even having read it.  Needless to say, I didn't even consider that proposal.

Here's an interesting post:

eBook success: short and sweet? | Belinda Williams

The main takeaway is that the author says that, according to the founder of Smashwords, sells decrease with word count.

Thoughts?


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 4, 2013)

One thing I didn't notice in the article was the mention of fantasy books. Fantasy is known (for better or worse) for being a longer than most genre. I think some fantasy readers may get disappointed if they're looking for epic fantasy and it falls at around 75,000 words.  For other genres this makes sense. For fantasy I'm not so sure shorter=better. However, I have read some shorter fantasy works recently and I find that they are paced better for my current reading speed (slow). For the most part I enjoy longer books, but here recently I may be shifting a bit towards what this article says. This doesn't mean I won't read a long book, but if a book is shorter I may be encouraged to pick it up if it's from an author I don't know.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 4, 2013)

Phil,

Unfortunately, the article sends out missed messages.  What I seized on was that longer = better sales according to the founder of Smashwords.


----------



## dhrichards (Sep 4, 2013)

I think the take -away from this good article is that genre matters. No one (well, me) wants to read an 800 page mystery, but 800 page fantasy, I 'd be all over that.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 4, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Phil,
> 
> Unfortunately, the article sends out missed messages.  What I seized on was that longer = better sales according to the founder of Smashwords.



Yeah, I guess I misread some of it. I admit, I was sort of scanning it my first read through. 

But this part I picked up on:



> Blame it on the recent change to society and communication thanks to social media, but the fact is, the way we consume information is changing. We are serial television station hoppers – and this usually occurs WHILE we are simultaneously on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube – you get the idea. Short fiction satisfies, according to some[...]



I do think serious readers generally want more bang for their buck. While more casual readers may want shorter things they can read on commutes or vacations. This is telling:



> I was less surprised to discover that in the romance genre, eBooks are substantially shorter. Romance readers prefer books between 65,000 and 80,000 words in length, according to Coker. Nine of the top ten romance bestsellers at Smashwords were less than 80,000 words. In terms of genre, the most successful genre of ebooks are currently thriller, mystery and romance.



I was told one time by someone in the publishing industry that basically it's set up like this:

1. Romance
2. Everything else

I believe mentioned something like a staggering 90 percent of what sells is romance. I'm not sure if that figure is the same today, but it wouldn't really surprise me. 

I do agree with the advice though. Research your genre. I'd say most (not all) casual romance readers don't want to read a 150,000 word book.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Sep 4, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I'd say most (not all) casual romance readers don't want to read a 150,000 word book.



I can't imagine any sensible romance writer trying to stretch an already gossamer-thin plot for that length, either.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 4, 2013)

Diana Gabaldon's _Outlander_ is a very popular romance book that has sold extremely well since its release in 1992, spawned numerous further books in the series, and even a graphic novel.

The paperback is 850 pages.

If a book is good, readers will stick with it through great length.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 4, 2013)

That's a good point, but I would say that's an exception. Romance isn't known for being extremely long, but I guess if someone has a good story to tell, then it doesn't matter how long it is. Good books are good books. Just because a book is short or long doesn't make it better, regardless of the genre.

From briefly reading about _Outlander_ it seems it's a sort of historical romance. I can see that being a longer story than most romance.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 4, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> That's a good point, but I would say that's an exception. Romance isn't known for being extremely long, but I guess if someone has a good story to tell, then it doesn't matter how long it is. Good books are good books. Just because a book is short or long doesn't make it better, regardless of the genre.



Exactly!

It's nice to know that there is even less justification now to follow arbitrary guidelines as to word count.  The story should dictate.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 4, 2013)

Yep, I think you are both right that the story dictates. _Outlander_ isn't the only exception. It's sequels are long. Elizabeth Vaughn's romance _Warprize_ comes in at around 350 pages. _Twilight_, which is both YA _and _Romance, two genres you hear have to be short, comes in at nearly 550 pages.

Needless to say, I don't put much stock in arbitrary rules for word count. If you're going through a traditional publisher, you have to follow their guidelines of course, but the idea that you can't sell something in a given genre at a certain word length seems to me to be empirically false.


----------



## Devor (Sep 4, 2013)

First, you have to write for the story you're telling.  Maybe you'll sell better to write a shorter story, but you don't do it by gutting a longer one.  Insomuch as it matters, for a few reasons the thing to consider would be shelving the longer one and writing a shorter one first - but again, I only say "consider, insomuch as it matters."  But don't cut things that belong in the story.

Second, genre matters, absolutely.  Fantasy leans a bit longer.  You've got the worldbuilding, among other things, which justify the length.  So can style, and the complexity of your story.

Third, it depends on where your skills are as an author.  If you're good, the longer the better - people will want more of you.  If you're mediocre, no offense intended, but shorter doses are easier to put up with.  Even the most obnoxious readers will get wrapped into a story by the time they've read two hundred pages, and nothing encourages "Let me read a bit more" like finding yourself halfway through.  Skill level matters.  What kind of length can your writing carry?

Finally, you've got to consider how fast you write and how quickly you can publish a book.  Writing a shorter book gets you started on the next one all the more quickly.  Having a group of works under your name is going to help your sales a lot, but you can't do that if your time is wrapped up forever in a huge volume.

I don't know if that sounds like I'm pushing one way or the other.  But there's a bunch to consider, and you have to figure out what's right for you.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 4, 2013)

Up front disclaimer: I didn't read the article.

I've always thought word count guidelines dealt more with traditional print publishing through agents and publishers. This makes sense from a print standpoint where the monetary investment, for printing, is a concern. This is especially true for a new writer hitting the scene. It's a risk for them to take on new talent, with no established fan base, if they need to shell out funds for printing prior to receiving one cent of revenue. Less words = less cost = less risk.

For ebooks, and specifically self-publishers where POD is an option, it shouldn't be much of a concern. Just tell the story as it needs told.

I do think most people will appreciate an involved, detailed, possibly complex story for their money though. I know I would. I'd be more willing to spend $2 on an unknown author with a 160k word count than to spend that same amount on a new writer that puts out 75k word stories. It's all expectation though...and perception. Word count doesn't guarantee quality work.

Factor in that a lot of the "slush level" self-publications are likely to fall within the lower word counts (total speculation on my behalf), I'd tend to the longer works would earn more.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Sep 7, 2013)

And yet there there's a huge surge in the publication of - and buying of - novellas and short novels, these days. The "why" of the old 80k give or take a bit length for most genres had nothing to do with it being a good length for a story - and had everything to do with that being the optimal length for print books on bookshelves, given the price publishers wanted to charge and the space the book took up. Publishers have collected a lot of data about this subject. Their length guidelines stem from physical marketing constraints.

Go back fifty years, and most novels were 40-60k words long. An 80k book was a big. And again, this had to do with the way the books were packaged and marketed.

Now, short is growing in popularity again. Why? Because readers LIKE ebooks in the $2.99-5.99 range. And writers have learned that they can package an 80k word novel for $5.99, or two 40k word novels for $2.99 each, and make the same income, but have increased visibility and marketing strength by using the shorter works. Pus, they tend to be a little faster to write.

Much as marketing concerns forced the increase in average length over the 1980-2010 period, marketing concerns are forcing average length down today. Short stories are selling well, and serial novellas are doing very well too.

Long novels still do great. But don't forget - much of Mark's Smashwords data comes from Apple's bookstore, which is heavily curated by hand. It is VERY hard to browse deep into the "stacks". Readers are presented with short lists of books, and get to choose from those lists. It's not like Amazon or B&N, where readers can browse deep.

Also, the Smashwords data is hurt because as someone commented above, more unskilled writers tend to write short than write long... So you tend to end up with a higher percentage of the really bad stuff being shorter works. These books don't sell, and then bring down the average of shorter books. I'm not so sure that the data would match his, if you took a look at only books from more skilled writers.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Sep 7, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Now, short is growing in popularity again. Why? Because readers LIKE ebooks in the $2.99-5.99 range.



Being cynical, I would suggest that one reason shorts are growing in popularity is that it's not always obvious that it IS a short. Several times I've bought an interesting-looking, cheap book assuming it's full length only to be discover it's actually a novella. On Amazon, the length is in very small print. Devious authors take advantage of this. Caveat emptor, of course.

On Smashwords, on the other hand, the length is very clear, and that's where the statistics come from that show that readers prefer more bang for their buck.


----------



## Telcontar (Sep 7, 2013)

I remember the original release of the smashwords data and find it very interesting, but I doubt it's value to any individual reader. Trends like this don't matter much to any single data point - no author should be modifying their books to fit the mean of a bell curve, because that would likely negatively impact the quality of the book itself. Quality of story and how it resonates with readers is still far and away more important than length (and one would hope, always will be). 

As Devor said, you've got to write for the story you're telling.


----------



## Devor (Sep 7, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> Being cynical, I would suggest that one reason shorts are growing in popularity is that it's not always obvious that it IS a short....



I think there's truth in that.  But I also think that "short" has been kind of suppressed in print form, for the reasons Kevin talked about.  Lift those restraints, and of course novellas are going to grow into their own segment.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Sep 8, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> Several times I've bought an interesting-looking, cheap book assuming it's full length only to be discover it's actually a novella. On Amazon, the length is in very small print. Devious authors take advantage of this. Caveat emptor, of course.



That's odd.

Book length is in the same size print as the "Kindle Price" line, and is right under the price. It's almost impossible to miss...

I know some folks might not read that, which is why I usually advocate publishers put "short story" or "novella" someplace in the title or description. Pissing readers off is never a good idea.   All an angry reader is going to do is return your book and never buy anything else from you again.


----------



## Sanctified (Sep 15, 2013)

Why should prices be set by word count? Why are editors and others concerned about book length before reading a manuscript?

I really don't understand. Length has no bearing on quality, and novelists who work up huge word counts are also prone to getting sidetracked and rambling, to the detriment of the story.

And if the ebook market is really so obsessed with book length, wouldn't a 40k word novela for $.99 sell regardless of whether it's any good?


----------



## Sanctified (Sep 15, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> That's odd.
> 
> Book length is in the same size print as the "Kindle Price" line, and is right under the price. It's almost impossible to miss...
> 
> I know some folks might not read that, which is why I usually advocate publishers put "short story" or "novella" someplace in the title or description. Pissing readers off is never a good idea.   All an angry reader is going to do is return your book and never buy anything else from you again.



So if a story is excellent, readers will get angry that they overpaid by a buck and didn't get, say, another 10k words out of it? I'm not being sarcastic, I really am amazed by this and I have very little experience with ebooks.

Would the opposite inspire loyalty?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 15, 2013)

I think they'll be angry if they feel deceived, even if they liked the product. No one likes to feel as though they bought something due to deception.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 15, 2013)

Sanctified said:


> So if a story is excellent, readers will get angry that they overpaid by a buck and didn't get, say, another 10k words out of it? I'm not being sarcastic, I really am amazed by this and I have very little experience with ebooks.
> 
> Would the opposite inspire loyalty?



What Steerpike said.
Imagine you're barricading yourself in the sofa with a good book and it's finished before even half the candle's burned. Even if the story was great it didn't last as long as you'd expected.
I don't think the same really applies if it's too long. If the story just drags on your excitement will slowly fizzle out, while if it's too short your disappointment is more immediate.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Sep 16, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think they'll be angry if they feel deceived, even if they liked the product. No one likes to feel as though they bought something due to deception.



Yes, this.

Nobody likes believing they have bought one thing and finding out they bought another. If they're EXPECTING to buy a good, ten hour read and they GET a good, one hour read? Readers are going to be pissed.

With print books, you can tell by looking at the physical object how many words are there (roughly, anyway). It's important to use markers on a digital product so that readers know what they're getting.

EVERY reader wants - and expects - a good story for their money.   It's the other expectations that must also be met or exceeded that can mess you up as a publisher.


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 17, 2013)

For once, I'm fairly pleased that most of my stuff looks like it will be on the shorter side.

Especially as I did some rather brutal editing to turn an old unfinished 'novel' into a series of short stories/novellas.


----------



## Lord Ben (Sep 19, 2013)

I don't know much about publishing, etc but I will say that I buy several free-$2.99 books off Amazon each month.  I will avoid something if it's <100 pages but would also avoid it if it's too long.   I have a few things added to my "wish list", which I use as a "maybe later list", A Storm in Tormay: The Complete Tormay Trilogy I have in my wish list and while it's only $5 for 750 pages I simply have had more interest in starting smaller and more easily digested books than in something big and massive even if it's cheaper per page.

So I lean towards the ~200 page books that move along at a good pace and simply tell me an interesting story.  I'd rather read four 200 page interesting books with different stories than one 750 page interesting trilogy.


----------

