Nathan Bransford - The Forums

Since the issue of word count comes up over and over and over, I tend to keep my eye out for good industry posts on word count. This one is a little over 2 months old (can't believe I forgot to follow this blog!), but I thought it was helpful, because it also talks about the exceptions to the rule [cough]established authors[/cough].

Read lots of these, and some consistencies emerge:

http://theswivet.blogspot.com/2008/03/o ... ength.html

Having set billions of words of type in hot lead, cold lead, photocompositor lead, and binary lead, I perceive a word count as an approximation of the shape of a finished product. Two hundred fifty idealized words equals one Standard Manuscript Format page 8 1/2 inches by 11 inches by one-quarter point thick. An idealized word is five character glyphs and one word space comprising a two-dimensional line space 6 picas wide and 12 points tall. Five hundred SMF printed recto only pages is a ream of letter paper (international paper standard is A1 size). A ream of basic 20 pound copy bond letter paper is 125 points thick; 12 points to a pica, 6 picas to an inch; or 1.736 inches thick under compression.

How an SMF page translates to a published format page varies according to typeface, column width, margins, page dimensions, paper style, and header, footer, and illustration design.

Margo wrote: Read lot of these, and some consistencies emerge:

Yep; word count is consistently the dumbest metric used to evaluate books.

I only look at paintings that use 15-18 tubes of paint.

steve wrote:I only look at paintings that use 15-18 tubes of paint.

And only through those fabulous French kaleidoscope goggles.

steve wrote: Yep; word count is consistently the dumbest metric used to evaluate books.

Not from a manufacturer's perspective. Imperfect, yes. Like anything similar, a useful word count is good enough for manufacturing planning strategies recognizing the law of diminishing returns.

steve wrote:Yep; word count is consistently the dumbest metric used to evaluate books.

Yeah, total disagreement with you on this.

Read many 300,000 word WIPs from unpublished novelists? They're pretty bad. The word count guidance isn't just about cost-benefit considerations - which are entirely valid to anything not be published solely in e-format - but also about helping newer writers understand that more is not the same as better. In fact, more is usually quite badly written.

polymath wrote:

steve wrote: Yep; word count is consistently the dumbest metric used to evaluate books.

Not from a manufacturer's perspective. Imperfect, yes. Like anything similar, a useful word count is good enough for manufacturing planning strategies recognizing the law of diminishing returns.

Book manufacturers can be smarter, just like they were decades ago.

One of the cool things about books from the past -- say 19th century to WWII -- is that there's a uniformity to their size.

One can print nothing but 250 page books and have word counts vary from 50,000 to 100,000.

Font size, margin width, illustrations, etc. all served their purpose. Big books like those from Thomas Mann were divided into 2 or 3 volumes.

Smart.

I only look at sculptures that weigh between 100 and 120 pounds.

Sure, smarter. Once the current marketplace upheavals settle down into some kind of predictable pattern writers, publishers, and consumers somewhat come to an agreement upon. However, original art defies patterning. Take recent emergences of standards for age group niches. A middle grade novel is one pattern, a young adult novel is another pattern, an early adult novel is another pattern, a category romance novel is another pattern, a fantastical genre novel is another pattern, a literary niche novel doesn't easily fit into a pattern, a mass market paperback is another pattern, a trade paperback is another pattern, a casecover novel is another pattern, a digitally distributed novel has a plethora of potential platform patterns, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

I gotta ask you, polymath, do you ever feel like just letting a new or newer writer just believe what they want to believe, even if you know it increases their chance of rejection?

One of my psych professors in grad school had a saying. "Stop being Captain Save-A-Ho." One classmate I keep in touch with reminds me of this often, because I'm guilty of it often. Upon occasion I put in considerable effort to stop it. I have yet to succeed.

Margo wrote:I gotta ask you, polymath, do you ever feel like just letting a new or newer writer just believe what they want to believe, even if you know it increases their chance of rejection?

Letting or not letting believe makes no difference to anyone.

How many psychiatrists does it take to change a burned out lightbulb? The lightbulb can change itself if it really wants change.

Make believe is one final analysis of what creative writing and reading truly are. I neither want nor intend to impose my species of make believe on anyone. I offer freely as may be of service to fellow travelers wherever they may be on their journeys. In the meantime, I might as well work on my persuasion skills where the opportunities arise.

polymath wrote:In the meantime, I might as well work on my persuasion skills where the opportunities arise.

HA! That's an interesting new take I hadn't considered. And a much more positive spin.

In Steve's defense (and sorry Steve if I got this wrong), I believe he has stated in the past that he is not a writer but rather an avid reader. He is also a provocateur who I think enjoys yanking people's chains.

Down the well wrote: He is also a provocateur who I think enjoys yanking people's chains.

I only listen to songs between 2:50 and 3:10 in length.

I'd comment, but I only reply to posts of a dozen words or more.

Down the well wrote:In Steve's defense (and sorry Steve if I got this wrong), I believe he has stated in the past that he is not a writer but rather an avid reader. He is also a provocateur who I think enjoys yanking people's chains.

Yes, I do recall this. I wasn't actually referring to him when thinking about new writers who insist on believing what they want to believe, but I was thinking of the ones who would latch onto his suggestion that word count shouldn't matter at all.

cheekychook wrote:I'd comment, but I only reply to posts of a dozen words or more.

Ouch. I just snorted hot tea. But that's brilliant.