Rock ON, Susan! Go you! I'm staring at my just-started project and I have 1,700 words written. 48,300 to go before I can call it a novel.

I heard about an aquaintance yesterday who'd written a 50,000 word fantasy novel. She's got an agent and it sounds like it'll sell but -- and this kills me -- the agent says it's too short. She needs another 30,000 words. So she's taking the first six chapters of the sequel and revising them and adding it in.

Oy. I don't know what I think about that. Because a story has a natural flow, a natural ending, and I don't think I like the idea that a fantasy novel has to be a certain width on the shelf to be worth buying. Wizard of the Pigeons, anyone?

I don't like it, either, but there are definitely standard length expectations out there.

And I really should've figured this out before now, but about how long is a 100,000 word novel in terms of standard paperback pages in a standard font? Stupid of me, but I have no idea whether I'm writing a longer or shorter than typical book.

there are definitely standard length expectations out there.

I think that the minimum length thing is partially to blame on production costs. The publisher can get more "bang for the buck" when books are over a certain number of pages, and under yet another number.

Ah, length.

According to Ruth, the standard average length (she bases this on mystery) is 80K. Fantasy tends to run longer, hard scifi can run shorter. Romance can run as short as 60K, depending on the pacing and the writer.

The writer, if established, is the final deciding factor. Example: I tend to write short, concise books with a tight flow. Fire Queen, for me, was a damned epic, at 94K. Plainsong came in at just about 70K. Good Buddy Tad, OTOH, writes boat anchors, in terms of length; he's happy at 800 pages. The third book of his TGAT series (To Green Angel Tower had to be delayed because when the UK publishers bound the hardback, it wouldn't stay bound. It was so thick, it cracked the bindings. had to be split into two. The sucker was something like 1100 pages.

Weaver is extremely short by modern publishing standards - it's about 68K and will be just under 200 pages hardback - but the flow is unbroken anywhere, and Ruth didn't want one word added. Famous Flower of Serving Men was longer, denser: 78K and Ruth says she thinks it could actually be tightened in a few places, to make it shorter. So I'm bucking the trend by not writing nine billion words epic. And Still Life is about 83K, and for me, it's long.

Romance can run as short as 60K, depending on the pacing and the writer.

I hope it can also be as long as 100-120K, because I just don't see any way to make this puppy much shorter, even if I trim fat ruthlessly. Which would mean cutting out all the description I've been adding in at my writing group's behest. ("More visual details, Susan! I'm sure you can see it all in your head, but help us out a little.")

Susan, I've seen them that long, especially historical romance; it's the modern ones that are generally shorter, sometimes because they start at as paperback and never see hardback publication.

I expect you're fine. Other thing is, if an editor did want you trim it, he or she would say precisely what they thought wanted trimming, and where, and would likely suggest how.

My experience, anyway.

Romance can run as short as 60K, depending on the pacing and the writer

That's for Harlequin. Standalone romances are ~100,000, up to ~140,000.

Geraniums are scarlet. A Chrysler Imperial rose is crimson.

Good Buddy Tad, OTOH, writes boat anchors

No kidding. I loved Otherworld, and didn't mind that it had to be published in four volumes.

(My longest fic to date is now at around 120,000 words. Eep.)

Standalone romances are ~100,000, up to ~140,000.

Cool. I'm in the right ballpark, then. But it's a damn good thing I decided to put some sex in it. When I started I thought it was a trad regency, and they're about the same length as contemporary series romances.

Though now that I think about it, I'll be able to trim it some just because writing it out of order has led to a certain amount of duplication. For example, I have a tertiary character whom I introduced in a late scene just because I needed someone to fill out a dance set. I didn't waste much time on her, but I gave her a name, an age, a hair color, and a connection to the community. Then, last week, writing a scene that's chronologically much earlier, I needed a "filler" person again, so I brought her back and gave all the basic info again. I'll only save about twenty words by cutting the description in the later scene, but multiply that over the whole book and it'll be something.

It's a bit of a hassle, but I'm glad I decided to write in the order scenes impressed themselves on my brain rather than in chronological order. I'm sure I would've abandoned it long ago otherwise, since there's still a big chunk of the beginning remaining to write, and I'm just now figuring out what needs to go there.

It's a bit of a hassle, but I'm glad I decided to write in the order scenes impressed themselves on my brain rather than in chronological order.

Many do. Including me, which sucks, because dammit I want my plot NOW!