You may have wondered why, as the song has it, Captain Marvel has no balls at all. It's Superman's fault.

100,000, to me, isn't a novel. It's damned near an epic.

Plainsong was 70,000 words. Weaver was 68,500. Famous Flower is 76,000. Matty Groves clocks in at, for me, a whopping 85,000 or so.

Non-fiction is entirely different.

I have no comment on the "turn of the critical thing and write" because that's basically where I live anyway, mostly. I think I do, anyway. I could be wrong.

I don't suck. I doubt Betsy sucks. In fact, I know Betsy doesn't suck.

Not sure why speed is so valued.

What is different about non-fiction, word count-wise?

Not sure why speed is so valued.

I think it's for those who fear they'll never finish a book. It's not the speed so much as the time-compressed, "get it all done in one shot" idea. The theory being, I guess, that then you have a complete book to work with, to revise and polish, rather than worrying you'll never type "the end". There's a similar process called Book in a Week that I read about in RWA's magazine a few years ago.

What is different about non-fiction, word count-wise?

Word counts often have to do with price points, especially with paperback originals. If a publisher wants all of its historical romances to sell (this year) for $6.99, they want them all to be about the same length, partly for the consumer, who doesn't want to feel ripped off for buying a 50,000-word book at that price, and partly to budget the production costs (printing, etc.). For hardcover, one-shot books (in that they're all unique, not that the author will only ever write one book), the price point can be whatever is called for.

There are plenty of lengthy nonfiction books, and plenty of pretty short novels. For a nonfiction book like yours, Allyson, I'd think anything over 50,000 words would be fine.

I think it's for those who fear they'll never finish a book. It's not the speed so much as the time-compressed, "get it all done in one shot" idea.

Exactly. Precisely what AmyLiz said. And the other half of the theory is that the time deadline means you CAN'T ruminate.

And the other half of the theory is that the time deadline means you CAN'T ruminate.

Yup. And that's a big problem for a lot of writers, me included. I'll write something as simple as a paragraph, then go back and pick it apart before continuing. My internal editor is very vigilant, very opinionated, and very bossy. I can hardly convince her to take a coffee break, much less a vacation.

Good luck, by the way, Betsy. If you get even close to the finish line, it's a good thing. I've always loved the idea of having all that semi-raw material sitting in front of me, ready to shape, smooth, and polish.

I love reading the detailed "why" answers to the speed thing, but I rarely get them, or grok them, or whatever. Yes, I am a big old writerly freak. No, I'm not being cute - apparently, I really am freaky in the way I write. Je ne comprennez pas. C'est la guerre. Possibly because, while writing, I don't see myself as actually doing something, in the same way that telling a ghost story around the fire wouldn't be mechanically doing something. I'm just telling a story. I'm learning that way is weird, though. Not bad, just weird.

Allyson, largely yes and yes on what Amy said about price points. I don't give a damn personally - I'd he happier paying $30 for a slim, telling, beautifully researched killer biography than one padded for page length with possible garbage, for instance - but I think there's a huge perception, both on the part of the purchasing editor and of the buying public, that paying $20 for 20,000 words is somehow a rip.

Not so weird. Well, that is to say, from what I can gather, I'm fairly certain that I write the same way you do, deb. Which, I suppose, doesn't make it not weird. It just makes me weird right along with you.

It just makes me weird right along with you.

We need to go sit around the fire and speed-bard.

Woot!

I love my brother-in-law (the English one, not the psychotic one).

He and my sister keep a flat in Kent, just outside London. Nick (my sister Alice is also married to a Nicholas, which shows remarkable good sense on her part) is there two or three times a year, dealing with the flat, and with other family property and business.

I just asked (since he's been home far more recently than I've been there) for certain specifics for the fourth book in the series, Cruel Sister. They were:

a) was rundown and suffered at least some Luftwaffe bombings during WWII;

b) is near the river, either bank of the Thames; and

c) is currently being "improved" by yuppies doing property.

I immediately got back the following:

A. The Isle of Dogs (my note: for those who don't know London, it's by the Tower Hamlets. Not really an island; it's a peninsula, the area on the north bank enclosed by the signature U-bend of the Thames to the east of the City, opposite Greenwich.)

On (a), I assume it was bombed heavily during the war because of the docks there, though I'm not sure of this. It certainly meets requirements (b) and (c) perfectly. It was working class, but now boasts Canary Wharf/Canada Tower (the tallest buildings in the UK, maybe Europe) as well as expensive housing by the river restoration there.