Blind Leading the Blind
Teresa Neilsen Hayden has an interesting column/discussion on BFF–Big Fat Fantasy.
A choice observation from Patrick:
I will say that the extent to which “brick-shaped fantasy tomes are what sell” is hugely exaggerated. A few fantasy authors sell very long books in impressive quantities. This has led many other moderately successful fantasy authors to conclude that if they write at greater length, their work will sell in enormous quantities too. This generally proves to be a self-destructive mistake.
I’ve heard it said, both in writing groups and at panel discussions, ‘what editors are looking for is bigger.’ This piece of wisdom has gained such a strong hold on the collective consciousness of writers that it is regarded as foolish, even professionally suicidal, to ignore.
I’m struck at how pervasive this attitude has become yet how isolated it is from the horse’s mouth. I’ve heard writers say ‘bigger is better’ but I’ve never heard an editor say it. (I’m sure at least one editor has, once, somewhere.) While I have heard editors say ‘I’m looking for the next Jordan,’ that’s not quite the same thing.
Indeed, if the comments in Theresa’s blog entry are any indication, a backlash is building among readers against bookstop sized volumes. That’s not to say that many readers won’t continue to prefer the immersion of BFX, only that some readers want more variety.
If my experience with computer systems is any indication, small, nimble and quick to deliver are strong attributes in today’s consumer driven market. If you spend two years getting product to market, the best part of your opportunity is lost no matter how wonderful the software is. Better slim and sooner than perfect and later. I don’t think we will see the end of the Big Fat Whatever anytime soon. But expect to see a return of slimmer volumes to the shelves of your local Amazon.com outlet.
Also lots of discussion about the collision between print and computer game, especially computer based role playing.
Best regards,
Alan
Revised 1/29/2004
January 27th, 2004 at 9:22 am
what a ridiculous comparison to make between
computer systems - which are of course superseded in
a very short time frame due to hardware upgrades and
powerful competition - and books - which if they are any
good may will stay in print for years regardless of length
and what else is out there.
Also you confuse length of work with length of time it
takes to write. To write a slim work can and frequently
does take much longer - as Mark Twain said, \’If I would
have had time, I would have written a shorter
letter.\’ Verbiage implies that the author didn\’t bother or
couldn\’t figure out how to edit out what wasn\’t required.
January 27th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
I\’m indulging in a little crystal-ball gazing here. I am consciously trying to bring my experience in a different field to bear on the process of publishing a book.
When I started as a computer programmer, we felt like we had all the time in the world. Three years to release a new rev was good and four was common.
When I left, it was commonly accepted that if you couldn\’t get to market in a year, you needed to reconsider your approach. Six months was a much more comfortable interval. Lots of good companies went under because they bet the wrong way at the transition. They were still producing at a rev per 4 years when their competition had shifted to 2 revs per year.
I\’m quite aware that different formats have different per- unit development costs. Novels vs. short stories, for example. Many writers I know prefer to work with novels because you\’ll do four times as much research for a novel as a short story but you\’re getting paid for 190,000 words instead of 8,000. (And generally better per-words rates as well).
I\’m also well aware that specific works might take proportionately longer to produce ina short format than in a long format. But it remains my assumption–a supportable one, I trust–that the development effort is roughly proportional to the length of a work. (By development, I mean the reasearch, plotting, outlining and finally typing.)
I believe the development effort for a 900 page book is roughly 50% more than the development effort for a 600 page book. You have to keep those extra 300 pages roughly consistent so you need roughly as much action, plot twists, detail etc. When you sit down to write, its the same number of pages per day, roughly, whether its 600 pages total or 900 pages total. The part that takes the most time for most writers–putting the bloody thing on the page–still proceeds at eight pages per day or whatever the individual pace of the writer might be.
Yes, it is easier–and faster–to just throw words on a page. It takes time and discipline to write concisely and some authors don\’t need to. But–in general–when a bloated manuscript his your editor\’s desk, you will wish most heartily that you had written with discipline. By the time a writer goes through the seemingly endless, painful rounds of edits and revisions, I bet most writers wished they had shorter works if only it would bring fewer change requests.
Here, smaller is clearly more efficient in the long run.
The question is whether writing markets change sufficiently relative to the time required to bring a product to market. I think the prevailing wisdom in the industry is that books, novels or short stories are unlikely to be superceded in the time it takes to get to market. Time to market for a typical book is about four years. Surprisingly, the time to market for a short story is often longer.
I–self-appointed expert–think I see signs that reader tastes are starting to shift quickly enough that it\’s time to start paying attention. Cyberpunk came and went in about 5 years. Where was \"New Weird\" three years ago? Interstitial? Christian SF?
I think if I started a BFF today that required three years to write (and another year to find an agent and a publisher, followed by two years to actually appear on the shelves) I might be in for a rude shock.
I\’ll buy you a glass of single malt if the market for fantasy is still essentially the same in six years as it is today. I, personally, would not be willing to bet on it.
As an abstract approach, I could reduce my risk as a writer by breaking my massive tome into three parts and sending one out per year if, for no other reason, than I get to change direction when market direction drifts.
Do I continue to think that the future will belong to the nimble? Without a doubt, from the writer\’s keyboard to the agent\’s in box to the publisher\’s meetings where the editor is trying to sell my novel to the senior staff.
And does the future belong to smaller? Smaller isn\’t the only way to support nimble. Maybe we\’ll see more team efforts, collaborations, anthologies and writing by committee. But to the extent that smaller supports works getting through the pipeline into the hands of the reader faster, yes, I expect to see something of a return to shorter. In fact, I think we\’re already startingt to see it: \"Publisher\’s Lunch\" newsletter has mentioned a couple of deals in the 250-300 page range, almost unheard of in the adult market over the last decade.
Best regards,
Alan
January 28th, 2004 at 4:57 am
I really do think that you are wasting your time in
indulging in this piece of futurology. Just because one
or two books are signed up that are shorter than
average does not signal a sea change - short books
and long books have been published alongside one
another from time out of mind. In Britain, Lord of the
Rings still reigns supreme when people vote for their
favourite book. That is the fattest of books.
But my main argument with you is that you are putting
the cart before the horse. What matters is what people
buy and why - not what publishers, agents and (frankly)
even writers think about it (they almost always react to
what is out there and what has sold - even authors,
though the would seek to deny it). And most people
don\’t buy books because one is thinner than the other -
unless they have particularly weak biceps - certainly in
the sci-fi and fantasy genre and quite probably in the
mainstream. Most people want to be told a good story. I
agree the enormity of something like Mary Gentle\’s Ash
will put some readers off (I read that and enjoyed it, but
still skim-read most of the last two hundred pages as I
was sick of how repetitive it had become), but there are
still plenty of people out there who want to lose
themselves in a good book. The longer the book or the
series the easier it is to lose yourself, I suggest.
The genre\’s boundaries tend to be the walls of
escapism. If you can scratch the surface of why it is
people seek escapism in their reading habits then you
might be able to address trends in those who read it.
Best
Colbie
January 28th, 2004 at 8:14 pm
In my writing group there are people who have been in the business for twenty years and one for thirty years. What I hear is that it has never taken so long for a book to get from the author\’s desk to the reader\’s lap. It has them deeply worried in the sense that careers are on the line here.
The belief is the delay is the result of more titles in production–2003 up more than 10% over 2002–even as mergers and cost cutting measures reduce the workforce necessary to process that volume.
How serious its it? I hear more more deep concern among writers about time to market than advances.
What can I tell you? I certainly agree the interests of readers should be paramount. I agree it\’s hard to keep the needs of the end reader in sight for all of the people involved–editors, agents, sales force, writers–because of the number of layers a book has to be \"sold\" to. It becomes easy to think that the next layer down the pipe is the important one since if you don\’t get through that one, you\’re burnt. The writer must sell the book to an agent, the agent to the editor, the editor to a committee, on and on.
It\’s a long time to market right now. It needs to be shorter. It looks like its only going to get longer. That part is pretty real and a competitive advantage goes to whoever can figure it out. Do I see the end of the BFX? Not hardly. Do I think some writers will tighten up their text? Sure, if that works for the end audience. Perhaps we will also see some experimentation with serialized formats: what is released in a single volume today might be released in more parts, then re-released under a single volume once all parts are in print.
My solution is a small one in the scheme of things and I\’m happy to admit it. Its just the easiest one to implement right away.
On another topic, thanks for mentioning Mary Gentle. I absolutely loved her early works but lost track of her after \"Grunts.\"
Best regards,
Alan