So break it into two books. Really, write what you need to, then break it into marketable size. When you have a contract and then you need to cut the word length to fulfill the contract or to respond to your editor's notes than you can cut it beyond what the story requires. And even then...
OK well I recently did a textbook chapter. And I was given a 5,000 word limit, and told my editor given the subject that I was not sure I could do it justice in less than 10,000 words. And my editor said "try". My deadline was April 15. March 1, I had a pretty good draft. But it was 10,000 words. So I sent it to my editor saying: "this is where I am today, and I really can't find a good way to cut it further".
And my editor wrote back with some notes on some really minor changes he wanted, then added. "Overall, this is first rate. And don't worry about the word limit. You arguments for 10,000 words convinced me at the beginning, but I did not tell you that to get you to write as tightly as possible. But I really appreciate your getting a first rate draft to me before deadline."
I might have to look at two books if I can't shrink it down, but the story would work better in one.
The thing about going over too much, is I doubt it would even be looked at.
Again two books. Submit the first and tell them you have a draft of the sequel.
"Buy this first book, which is really good, because I've got a sequel nearly finished and ready to go, which will make you even more money."
I suppose no matter what I do, the current process of cutting is all for the better. I need to get rid of anything that doesn't contribute.
Maybe I'll go back to the two book solution in the end. There may be some appeal in have the sequel pretty much done. I'll have to experiment with adding more description and see how that works. I worry I just suck at description, but not much I can do about that except work on it.
Where to split is an issue too. There are two natural split points. One is a major betrayal of the MC, but it isn't very conclusive. The other is with the victory of the villain, which actually reads fairly conclusive, but you know it really can't be. Trying to conclude on a minor victory would require grafting something into the story.
I worry I just suck at description, but not much I can do about that except work on it.
I worry about that too, because I see the picture so clearly, and I'm afraid of adding fluff. But when I read things a year or so later, it seems a little flat. With a good story, the picture builds in the reader's head, but a bit of help along the way is useful.
My feedback on this is so divided. There are people who are happy with lean description, my wife is fairly strong on this and doesn't like a lot of details that end up at odds with the mental image she'd formed. Then there are others who want a lot of detail or they can't visual the scene and I've been told my stuff is a total fail in a couple of cases for lack of it. I know I'm not going to make everyone happy, but I'm having a hard time figuring out the right balance since I can see everything clearly no matter how much or little I put in.
If you've got divided feedback that falls squarely at opposite ends of the spectrum, that's both maddening and a good thing. Maddening, because there's no one way to "fix" things, but good, because it's polarizing. Readers aren't indifferent, which is worse than a strong opinion one way or the other.
Ultimately, you've got to follow your gut instinct on this. WHAT is the book you'd like to read at the end of this? Because I'm sorry, in the end, you're writing primarily for yourself. If you start thinking about "audience" you're going to drive yourself mad with your inability to meet expectation, because there is absolutely no way to make every single reader happy. So you have to make yourself happy.
I'll step off my soapbox now.
