that's it, basically... a fact of life in the publishing industry... books cost a lot of money to publish... huge books cost lots more to publish than 'normal'-sized ones... publishers don't take inordinate risks with their money... you do the math...
Beowulf was an epic. By today's standards it would be a short story. But if you mean a weighty tome, yes, you will need to establish yourself as a revenue-generating author first.
My math shows that something substantial, despite the size, would generate far more revenue than some fluff that may or may not get noticed. Two of the best selling authors in the last decade, are new authors that were previously housewives, with no previous writing experience. Both are listed in an all-time best selling list. I think the shortest Twilight novel, including the debut, is about 500 pages. Rowling has a debut of 300 pages, but has written up to nearly 900 pages, for a children's book. If the publishing firms haven't learned to adapt to a new paradigm, then it's no wonder they're losing money. I'm not denying that it is more difficult, but if impossible, I will need an explanation how Meyer got her first book published, at what must have been over 150K word count. Probably close to 175K by my calculations.
The Lord of the Rings was written as a single novel. The publisher decided to print it in three volumes for cost reasons. This issue, though, raises an interesting question: How will the increasing popularity of e-readers like Amazon's Kindle affect the publication process? It sure changes the economics of publishing drastically; it would hardly cost any more to download a huge novel like War and Peace than it would to download a short one like The Great Gatsby. It seems to me that the Kindle and devices like it would make it possible, even cheap, for first-time authors to publish giant epics. In addition, the Kindle would drastically expand the market for short stories, I think. Nowadays, writers have to write a whole book's worth of short stories to get them published, or else have them published in magazines. But there aren't very many magazines that publish fiction these days, and there's a lot of competition for space in them. But with the Kindle, you could write one short story and sell it for 99 cents or something like that from Amazon's web site, just like buying one song from iTunes. We could be seeing the dawn of a great new age for writers, both of epics and of short works!
That argument actually supports the short length, first time author argument. The Hobbit came first, with 310 pages.
The Hobbit was his first fiction novel, but not his first book, and furthermore it was published in 1937. Today's publishing market is substantially different than the market more than seventy years ago.
200,000 word first novels may some day be the meat and potatoes of electronic books. Still, if it's twice as long as a single novel, it'll take at least twice as long to edit--and time is money. And I've heard more than once that time authors generally require more attention than veteran authors. As far as Kindle and short stories, just publishing a short story there doesn't mean anybody will find it or buy it. Just like if you build a website or a blog, doesn't mean many folks will visit it--and they don't have to pay 99 cents to do so. Magazines with a good reputation attract readers. It's possible that ezines maybe will largely go through the Kindle and such sellers (like B&N's Nook) in the future. Sympathypains, If you have a 200,000 word novel that can be cut in half, and the first one/part offers a complete story arc and can stand alone (but leaves room for the sequel--end half), do that. Publishers are often interested in what you have in the pipeline after they've taken the leap and accepted your first novel. Few publishers are interested in an 'only one novel in them' author. Terry
Meyer got lucky in that regard. The assistant who pulled her book out of the slush pile didn't realize that 130k words equates to 500 pages. Had she known, she wouldn't have asked to see the first 3 chapters. The length of a book does not ensure selling success, but it does ensure that getting that book to the market will cost more than usual, and so the financial risk for the publisher will be greater.
Exactly. That's why as writers, we should be skilled in word usage and qualify our comments with descriptions that include, "risky", "difficult", and "less likely" but not conclusively impossible. "Regarding "lucky", a huge part of creative success is luck. It will be luck that the right person reads your manuscript, and that they were in a good mood that day, or their kids didn't spill their milk in the car on the way to daycare, or whatever. If a buzz develops on it's own, it will also have a great deal to do with luck. If Jon Stewart, Oprah, or someone from the NY Times, by chance, decides to read it on their vacation, or a friend of one of their kids leaves it at their house, is all luck. Your chances are lower, yes, but that's only due to firms that dismiss, out of hand, large word counts without even reading them. Personally, I think there will be a new business model soon. People are getting used to longer books and longer films, and short ones seem underdeveloped and shallow in comparison. Many readers seem to be drawn to a richly woven world with iconic characters, and if the publishing firms don't learn that, I have no sympathy if they complain about falling sales.
I'd say that you can still split the book into two. The agents wouldn't have to know that they're apart of a series would they? After you get that first book published you could work on an unrelated book and release that then after that one you can tell them that you're writing a sequel to the first book you published although you had written from the start.
