Shorter Books are Easier - Let's Debate

[idontknowyet]

I tend to write longer stories most are long enough that I need to break them into trilogies. Recently I finished my first shorter standalone and I am working on a second.

Is it just me or are shorter books easier and faster to write? Like significantly less effort.

[Lynn]

Most of the time, I'd say yes. It's why I always get so frustrated with myself when my books go long.

The layers get so damn deep that I have to keep so much in my head to pull it all together that it becomes a huge challenge. The writing goes slower for me, and the time to complete increases exponentially as I slow down and spend more time going through what came before to keep what's coming now in order. :D

I love shorter fiction, and I seem doomed to keep writing past my preferences. :D

[Maggie Ann]

I usually have a goal when I start writing.

I've written two - 12 book series but I knew going in they were all going to be short. One series is mostly novella length and the other is novelette length.

The series I'm working on now is going to be four books and they are all going to be novel length.

I think having a length in mind when I start out, helps me to (mostly) stick to my original goal. That's not saying I might not exceed that wordage. Only that I'll reach that word count.

[twicebitten]

Totally agree. Significantly easier.  (However short stories are nearly impossible to do well! I recently tried to write a 1500 word one, and I couldn't get it under 2000 words.) A person might write twelve 55K books in a year, but writing 4 165K books is going to be a strain.

If your genre readers want or will accept 60K books, it makes a lot of sense to give them that if you possibly can. If you're in epic fantasy, for instance, that's not going to fly with readers.

I try for 75K every time, and when I run over 90K, I start to groan. I know it'll be a bear to revise, and it will need some revision, whereas a 70K book seems to follow the outline obediently and can go straight to line editing because my outlines are solid when I start drafting. But it's when some minor character gets very interesting and I start weaving in his/her subplot on the fly that the things get away from me. Perhaps next time that happens, I'll deus ex machina them to death right in that chapter. "And then a piano fell on his head and it was very sad, but they had to soldier on."

[Shoe]

Is it just me or are shorter books easier and faster to write? Like significantly less effort.

What do you mean by "shorter books"?

My 35k books are a breeze to write and edit compared to my 70k books. Those will take not twice but three times as long to finish.

[elleoco]

Yes, they're easier, but my readers don't like them as well, and a significant number of them refer to something of 55,000 words as a short story.

[TimothyEllis]

I used to aim for 85k, but with the success of my Spacemage trilogy, which each came in around 65k, I've made that the new target.

My Jon Hunter books tend to go longer, but the last one only made 72k. The fans don't seem to mind.

Talking of fans, the comment which seems to come back more often is hurry up with the next book. It's a lot easier to get a 65k book out in 2 months than an 85k book, at least with my current health issues.

I notice in LitRPG circles new authors are writing 200k+ epic doorstops, which take them all year or longer, and they don't have any point in them where they can be divided up into a trilogy.

Personally, I'd rather read a rapid release trilogy, than wait a year for an epic doorstop.

Anyway, my fans seem happy with whatever I come out with, and each book is as long as it is. But my target has shortened over the last year. If they run long, fine, but I no longer worry if I hit the 60k mark and it ends.

[LilyBLily]

I find it relatively easy to write a 50k romance, and I know there's a KU market for short romances, but I haven't been pleased with the long-term response to my main series or my other romance series or my romance stand-alone. By comparison, my stand-alone women's fiction tomes, which top out at about 105k, seem to sell better over the long term despite not being in a series at all. So that's what I'm writing at the moment and possibly for the foreseeable future.

It's fun to write shorter books and much easier, because I don't have to field so many characters. The longer ones easily will have 25 characters of various importance whereas I can get away with under 10 in a short romance. That means much less work coming up with names, back stories, and the rest.

Edited: I already have 27 characters in the current WIP and actually need to add more. Yikes!

[JRTomlin]

Sure they take fewer words so they're faster but my readers don't like them as much.

[idontknowyet]

Is it just me or are shorter books easier and faster to write? Like significantly less effort.

What do you mean by "shorter books"?

My 35k books are a breeze to write and edit compared to my 70k books. Those will take not twice but three times as long to finish.

My shorter books are 65-75k.

Most of my trilogies run about 210k  which equals out to about 70k ish per book though there is some variance in them. It takes me much longer to write one set of trilogies then it does 3 standalones. though I am only working on my 3rd on now.

[VisitasKeat]

I have not done novellas but lots of novelettes. I usually take 7-10 days to complete first draft provided I don't procrastinate, get lazy, or, get too busy with my job. I have done just one 90k standalone novel and I expect my WIP to be around the same length.

In my experience, the difference is the total number of scenes. For a novelette, it's not more than 8 scenes for me.

Another factor is the time period over which the storyline spreads. For a novelette its usually over one or two days, many times, even overnight or just an afternoon. The focus would be more on extrapolating and exploring and magnifying a single cause or concept or problem.

And finally, the world building would be minimum as the story usually happens at one or more places... usually at just a single location.

However, cozy novelettes, I presume, would take more time if the dots aren't connected properly to solve the mystery, as also taking care of justifying the exact times when the breakdown of the solved mystery is posthumously considered for purposes of assimilation, evidence, and conclusion.

[alhawke]

My novels always come up to be around 80k. I think its just habit. Before publishing stuff, I used to write 120-150, and I have a few of those old manuscripts collecting dust. My record was a 250k epic fantasy. It was good practice.

I really wish I could write shorter--even short stories. I once entertained the idea of writing a bunch of them and giving them out for free as a magnet for readers on my website, but I just can't get myself to enjoy writing shorter.

I think shorter, around 65,000, would be easier. And cheaper. On the practical side, 65k-70k would be an ideal length (of course, accounting for differences in genre).

[Bill Hiatt]

My novels vary in length, I'd like to think in accordance with how much length is required to tell the story adequately. All things being equal, shorter is definitely easier, but squeezing a story that would definitely benefit from longer treatment into a smaller word count could be brutal.

After reading a couple of novels I liked from a trad author, I looked at a shorter one she'd written. Reviewers mostly seemed to be asking for more. To them, the story raised a lot of issues that never got developed. Since her other works had a lot of depth, I'm assuming that's what they were missing in the shorter one.

[TimothyEllis]

After reading a couple of novels I liked from a trad author, I looked at a shorter one she'd written. Reviewers mostly seemed to be asking for more. To them, the story raised a lot of issues that never got developed. Since her other works had a lot of depth, I'm assuming that's what they were missing in the shorter one.

Was the shorter one stand alone?

Its what I like about Indie series. Even if a book comes in short, it can be followed up by multiple books further down the series. And when the series is done, one binge reads anyway, so the shortness is never an issue.

[Marti Talbott]

The question is pricing a shorter book. I have readers who want 100 pages and some that don't care. I can't write long books. I've tried, so I just price my shorter books lower. So far, so good. 60-65k is average for me.

[TimothyEllis]

The question is pricing a shorter book......60-65k is average for me.

I'm getting $3.99 for these. If they go around 75k+, $4.99.

[The Bass Bagwhan]

After trad-publishing seven full length novels I was happy to switch to 35-40K horror novellas, because I enjoyed being able to focus on a single premise. Things didn't have to get too convoluted just for the sake of going the 100-120K distance, and there was no angst about, "Damn I'm not going to make the distance". So I'd call shorter books more enjoyable to write, rather than "easier". However, I've since accepted the push-back against such shorter works and my target now is 60-70K, which can still be a single premise.
It's a good sweet spot for translating into audio too. Because 7-8 hours is a cheaper to midpriced audiobook that might attract sales when someone's subscription token is used up.
Just being able to consider such options is an indicator of how much the industry has changed, although I suspect that most trad publishers would still prefer 90K+ words to make printing and distribution cost-effective.
So "easier" ... I'd say no. All the requirements of good writing are still necessary, and many people will anguish over just one sentence or paragraph for days regardless of if it's in a 20K novellette or 200K door-stopper.
But for me, more enjoyable and fun, and less pressure.
I'm writing horror though. Chuck a ghost in the basement and a body in the back yard, and you've pretty well got it covered...

[Bill Hiatt]

After trad-publishing seven full length novels I was happy to switch to 35-40K horror novellas, because I enjoyed being able to focus on a single premise. Things didn't have to get too convoluted just for the sake of going the 100-120K distance, and there was no angst about, "Damn I'm not going to make the distance". So I'd call shorter books more enjoyable to write, rather than "easier". However, I've since accepted the push-back against such shorter works and my target now is 60-70K, which can still be a single premise.
It's a good sweet spot for translating into audio too. Because 7-8 hours is a cheaper to midpriced audiobook that might attract sales when someone's subscription token is used up.
Just being able to consider such options is an indicator of how much the industry has changed, although I suspect that most trad publishers would still prefer 90K+ words to make printing and distribution cost-effective.
So "easier" ... I'd say no. All the requirements of good writing are still necessary, and many people will anguish over just one sentence or paragraph for days regardless of if it's in a 20K novellette or 200K door-stopper.
But for me, more enjoyable and fun, and less pressure.
I'm writing horror though. Chuck a ghost in the basement and a body in the back yard, and you've pretty well got it covered...

There's no question that writing well takes time. I'd still be inclined to think that writing something longer well inherently takes longer than writing something shorter well. But it is certainly true that enjoying the writing process more probably makes it go faster. There may be other variables as well.

Being an indie writer has its challenges, but it's nice not to have to work toward an artificial target set by somebody else.

[Vijaya]

There's no question that writing well takes time. I'd still be inclined to think that writing something longer well inherently takes longer than writing something shorter well. But it is certainly true that enjoying the writing process more probably makes it go faster. There may be other variables as well.

Being an indie writer has its challenges, but it's nice not to have to work toward an artificial target set by somebody else.

I agree with this, except when I think of how long a little novelty book (Ten Easter Eggs) took me to get right--10 yrs. And once I did, it sold within months, and some back-and-forth editing to make it an Easter book (it was originally just Ten Eggs). I joke that I wrote half of a couplet per year.

[T. M. Bilderback]

I simply write until the story is done.  I don't worry about length - I only worry about getting the story told as well as possible.

I don't see the need to pad shorter stories, and I don't see the need to shorten a longer story.  If the story is told...stop.

[Shoe]

I simply write until the story is done.  I don't worry about length - I only worry about getting the story told as well as possible.

I would assume that's a given for most people.

I'm quasi-pantser. When I sit down I have the story arc (in three acts) bullet-pointed by chapter, each chapter 2500-3000 words. Fifteen chapters mean a 37k novella. Thirty chapters will run 75k or more. I don't worry about the actual length, but if my chapters are getting too short or too long, I know it's time to consult the bullet points and revise.

[Rosie Scott]

Twenty years ago I struggled to write more than 21,000 words. 21K was my record for years. Nowadays, I struggle to write less than 110K. One of the "easiest" books I ever wrote was Death, the last book of my flagship series. It came out to 240,000 words, and that was considering I didn't write many planned scenes and 5K words were cut during editing. Everything just flowed so well at that point because I was wrapping up character arcs and plot points. I was a typing fiend.

Genre has a lot to do with it. The books I release on my pen-name (coming-of-age m/m romance) are all around 65K, and I'm not skimping on any details with that count. But when I try to imagine writing short stories or novellas on my main name (as permafree introductions to my work and whatnot), I just...can't. The books I wrote growing up skimped out on character and world-building, which are two of my favorite things to expand upon now. It's like my mind has rewired itself to only consider longer story arcs and highly embellished characters, so when I try to think of something shorter I'm at a loss. There are too many avenues I want to explore now.

Longer books take more time, but I have to be one of the exceptions here and say they're overall easier for me to complete because I'm more comfortable with their style. I wish I could write shorter books. I'd release far more than I do, and I already release around four books per year (both main and pen-name).

[wearywanderer64]

I disagree.

I find it easier to fluff out a book than to keep it concise. I've read loads of books that could easily have been cut in half or even more.

[idontknowyet]

I disagree.

I find it easier to fluff out a book than to keep it concise. I've read loads of books that could easily have been cut in half or even more.

Teach me your ways!!! I write dialogue and basic description but past that is painfully hard.

[Lynn]

I think it's pretty safe to say that fluffing out a book and writing something long and involved is not the same thing. :D

[wearywanderer64]

I think it's pretty safe to say that fluffing out a book and writing something long and involved is not the same thing. :D

Oh, I totally agree. But fluffing happens a lot.

[wearywanderer64]

I disagree.

I find it easier to fluff out a book than to keep it concise. I've read loads of books that could easily have been cut in half or even more.

Teach me your ways!!! I write dialogue and basic description but past that is painfully hard.

When I become famous, I'll let you know...in my best-selling book.

[LilyBLily]

I like fluff in a book if it's the right kind of fluff. If it's a period romance I actually want to know the details of what everyone is wearing, for instance, and what their horses and carriages and houses are like. Well-researched details about what they're eating, too, not guesses. I positively adore accurate talk about flounces and remade gowns. I used to sew clothes and I'm interested in costume. Also, if an author can string me along in a scene and stretch out the emotional, romantic moments without messing with elapsed time (by stopping the action to do an entire long paragraph about the hero's hotness, as an example of a common annoyance), I'm happy. Spin out those good scenes. Fluff 'em up.

Can I write like that? Not quite.

[VisitasKeat]

I feel that the creative process is more dense and complex in shorts as against the long form. And that could be because there is very little mind-space and time (in the story). Also, there is very little scope for padding words.  The LI is just a bunch of pages as against in the long format which usually is a couple of chapters. So, one really needs to dig deep in order to come up with  punch lines that grab reader's attention instantly.

[Lynn]

I feel that the creative process is more dense and complex in shorts as against the long form. And that could be because there is very little mind-space and time (in the story). Also, there is very little scope for padding words.  The LI is just a bunch of pages as against in the long format which usually is a couple of chapters. So, one really needs to dig deep in order to come up with  punch lines that grab reader's attention instantly.

I think it's pretty safe to say that fluffing out a book and writing something long and involved is not the same thing. :D

Oh, I totally agree. But fluffing happens a lot.

Maybe this is the reason there are so many boring books out there. :D

I mean, if longer is more "stretched out" and/or "fluffed" and less full of all the good stuff that makes a short book powerful... well, that just doesn't seem like a smart use of more words.

I like fluff in a book if it's the right kind of fluff. If it's a period romance I actually want to know the details of what everyone is wearing, for instance, and what their horses and carriages and houses are like. Well-researched details about what they're eating, too, not guesses. I positively adore accurate talk about flounces and remade gowns. I used to sew clothes and I'm interested in costume. Also, if an author can string me along in a scene and stretch out the emotional, romantic moments without messing with elapsed time (by stopping the action to do an entire long paragraph about the hero's hotness, as an example of a common annoyance), I'm happy. Spin out those good scenes. Fluff 'em up.

Can I write like that? Not quite.

Attention to detail is not fluff, as far as I'm concerned. :D 

However, I have to say, I don't mind descriptions of hotness. :D Those in no way qualify as fluff to me. Those are essential details that bring a story to life for me. ;D

 

[Alexa]

I try for 75K every time, and when I run over 90K, I start to groan. I know it'll be a bear to revise, and it will need some revision, whereas a 70K book seems to follow the outline obediently and can go straight to line editing because my outlines are solid when I start drafting. But it's when some minor character gets very interesting and I start weaving in his/her subplot on the fly that the things get away from me. Perhaps next time that happens, I'll deus ex machina them to death right in that chapter. "And then a piano fell on his head and it was very sad, but they had to soldier on."

Ah, that would've been wonderful 
My latest book was 130K, such a disaster, I had to revise it twice. Cut it down to 107K. The editing nearly killed me. I told myself I would never, ever again write a book over 90K. Compared to a 60K standalone romance novel I once wrote, my fantasy series feels like a huge weight on my shoulders. The only way to stay sane is to keep those books short-ish. It's difficult enough to keep track of all the layers, meta plot, character arcs, etc.

[LilyBLily]

My WIP is 101k so far and not done yet. Revising it will be necessary, and it won't be pretty. It's a lot easier to revise a 50k ms.

[DougM]

I just wrapped a WIP of 240k. I'm now zooming through a stand-alone book just to get a change of pace, and I've done 53k so far this month (while having a full time job). Short books are way, way easier, to the point I can write a first draft in 20 days.

[Vinny OHare]

I just wrapped a WIP of 240k. I'm now zooming through a stand-alone book just to get a change of pace, and I've done 53k so far this month (while having a full time job). Short books are way, way easier, to the point I can write a first draft in 20 days.

That is a big book. Can't imagine doing one that big. I get antsy and want to hit the publish button after 50k Good for you!!

[MaxDaemon]

I haven't got much to talk about yet, having only written four books. However, they've all come in about 50-55k.

I do begin to feel, though, that the time is coming to expand on some of those descriptions. My worry is always having enough story to cover the entire page count, but I get the feeling I'm not giving my story enough credit. Some additional fluff might be the way to go.

[Pyram King]

I wrote my story in one long massive novel (over 250k words). I decided to break it up into 4-6 novellas and break-up the story arch a little and flesh it out more. Now each book is about 40-50k words, fleshed out more, and I think more bite-size. I could always do it as a giant brick of a door stop, but I enjoy the novella to short-novel format.

My thought (as someone who flies a lot) that I want to be able to finish a the book on a 4-5hr flight. Then I can grab another. Just a personal preference.

Book 1 was just released, now I am fleshing out book 2.

[VisitasKeat]

I used to toy with the idea of converting all the novelettes in my fantasy series into full length novels. Sounds like a crazy idea. Has anyone done that?

[B. Anés Paz]

You guys find any ties to success in terms of length, or do you think it's still strictly genre based? Like, would it theoretically be better to write 4 60k books or 2120k books as a baseline, or would that be genre-dependant?

Honestly, I really only ask because I read fantasy and expect at min 80k to get my money's worth. The big-name fantasy authors, like Martin and Sanderson, can range up to 300k (!). A lot of litrpg, a growing subgenre with several offshoots (like progression fantasy and wuxia), also tends to go longer but that may be because most of them are web serials. One of the more popular ones just reached over a million words, I believe. It could also be because two of the biggest names in litrpg/progression fantasy write longer novels too, setting the trend.

I just don't know if it's something I should really worry about considering I write fantasy and the expectation is for longer books anyway.

[TimothyEllis]

Just as a matter of interest, how are we defining lengths these days?

Short story, Novelette, Novella etc.

Just curious as I'm doing a short book now, and cant find the last place length was given a name. The idea came up short.

[B. Anés Paz]

Just as a matter of interest, how are we defining lengths these days?

Short story, Novelette, Novella etc.

Just curious as I'm doing a short book now, and cant find the last place length was given a name. The idea came up short.

I personally use what I often see posted as the broad-strokes guidelines. Anything above 40k is a novel, 20-40k is a novella, 8k-20k is a novellete, and up to 8k is a short story. Readers care less about accuracy and tend to use whatever terms they want, and I used to be that way too. For a long time my world was short story or novel, take it or leave it.

[Laughing Elephant]

Just as a matter of interest, how are we defining lengths these days?

Short story, Novelette, Novella etc.

Just curious as I'm doing a short book now, and cant find the last place length was given a name. The idea came up short.

SFWA still maintain the following word count guidelines:


Q/ Short Story: less than 7,500 words;
Novelette: at least 7,500 words but less than 17,500 words;
Novella: at least 17,500 words but less than 40,000 words
Novel: 40,000 words or more. /Q


#5 https://nebulas.sfwa.org/about-the-nebulas/nebula-rules/

[VisitasKeat]

One point worthy of merit and contemplation is how many doors and windows a particular sentence can open up inside the mind of a reader. I mean, how much they directly kindle or stifle the imagination of the reader, the visual impact. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. So, a novelette can pack as much visuals or more than a 80k novel. Similarly, a 200k novel may just roll out flat but may not be visually rich. The greatness of any work, short or long, then would be measured by the visual impact.

[VisitasKeat]

One point worthy of merit and contemplation is how many doors and windows a particular sentence can open up inside the mind of a reader. I mean, how much they directly kindle or stifle the imagination of the reader, the visual impact. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. So, a novelette can pack as much visuals or more than a 80k novel. Similarly, a 200k novel may just roll out flat but may not be visually rich. The greatness of any work, short or long, then would be measured by the visual impact.

I think I accomplished that pretty well with my shorts, even the 300-word flash I later expanded for publication.

You must be very talented! Have you tried the reverse, that is, compressing a full length novel into a novelette or a short story or a flash fiction? I consider it tantamount to zipping a large number of chapter files to save space and upload time. That must bring tears to the slogging author inspite of the all the lossless compression techniques unless one enters a competition or a publisher requests such a thing.

[VisitasKeat]

No, not edited down, but just doing "lossless compression" for the sake of, say, a competition. The same story then would be equally beautiful when read as a novelette or a novel. And that brings up another question: Has anyone published the same story simultaneously as a novel and a shorts? Is it ethical? Is it allowed by Amazon?

[TimothyEllis]

No, not edited down, but just doing "lossless compression" for the sake of, say, a competition. The same story then would be equally beautiful when read as a novelette or a novel. And that brings up another question: Has anyone published the same story simultaneously as a novel and a shorts? Is it ethical? Is it allowed by Amazon?

Not at the same time.

I did a novella length for my book 6.

2 years odd later, I found someone with what I lacked, and we turned it into a full novel.

The original novella was unpublished to avoid problems, and about 6 months later was republished. So both exist now, one subtitled as the original novella, and the other as the extended version.

Both are selling.

Amazon don't have a problem with that.

[Jeff Tanyard]

You guys find any ties to success in terms of length, or do you think it's still strictly genre based? Like, would it theoretically be better to write 4 60k books or 2120k books as a baseline, or would that be genre-dependant?

Honestly, I really only ask because I read fantasy and expect at min 80k to get my money's worth. The big-name fantasy authors, like Martin and Sanderson, can range up to 300k (!). A lot of litrpg, a growing subgenre with several offshoots (like progression fantasy and wuxia), also tends to go longer but that may be because most of them are web serials. One of the more popular ones just reached over a million words, I believe. It could also be because two of the biggest names in litrpg/progression fantasy write longer novels too, setting the trend.

I just don't know if it's something I should really worry about considering I write fantasy and the expectation is for longer books anyway.

I wouldn't worry about what Martin and Sanderson are doing or not doing.  They're big-name trad authors, not indies, and they play by a different set of rules.  Indies should look to other indies for guidance, not to trad authors.

As far as length goes, my vote would be for smaller books.  You can always do a box set later if you want to lump everything together.

I'm assuming, of course, that you actually have a complete story that can be told in 60k words and you're not just chopping one big story up into jagged pieces for marketing purposes.

Caveat: I don't write LitRPG, so I'm not familiar with the genre expectations, so take this post with the appropriate-sized grain of salt.  ;)

[elleoco]

I only know for myself - my readers prefer western romances to be longer, at least 80,000 words. Not just reviews but sales reflect that. I've seen them refer to novels of more than 55,000 words as "a short story." I'll admit I prefer longer myself, although I'll read novellas and even short stories by favorite authors. Craig Johnson's The Spirit of Steamboat showed me a novella can be as good as any novel and better than many.

[VisitasKeat]

No, not edited down, but just doing "lossless compression" for the sake of, say, a competition. The same story then would be equally beautiful when read as a novelette or a novel. And that brings up another question: Has anyone published the same story simultaneously as a novel and a shorts? Is it ethical? Is it allowed by Amazon?

I have no idea what you mean.

By "lossless compression" I mean writing the same story as shorts but without even opening the original manuscript or getting it self or professionally edited. So, no chopping, telling more where shown, and so on. You write directly on a fresh file, from scratch.

[okey dokey]

This is a great discussion.
lots of meaty chunks of technique on both sides of the question.