How do you know when to stop writing an idea?

Hello, Good evening/afternoon/morning to everyone in the house. [Another question please.. ]

So, I have an issue I would like opinions on.

The highest words count I have written is 161k words. I am still trying to increase it to 200k.

I asked other authors how they write books with 200k words and above. My author friends said they kept adding new conflicts and characters.

This means that a story idea can go on for as long as we want. A book of 150k words can become 300k words without filler chapters, just exciting scenes.

The questions I want to ask are these. How do you know when to stop writing an idea? How do you judge the estimated length you want your book to be?

I'm just confused.

 

Everything I wrote up to a certain point were short stories. I existed in that mentality. But then one thing I was working on grew to become a novel. When that happened, I found I slowed way down and discovered my novel-writing patience. You dwell longer on things, take more time, let the ideas expand, and the writing with it. Rather than taking a sinlge brief paragraph for something to happen, it might take a page now, with more reflection on the part of the narrator, or just more detail. Basically what I'm saying is if your stories are going to expand into novels, you need to expand and become a novelist. There was a thing Angela Carter wrote, in the Afterword to her first book of short stories Fireworks. Let me see if I can find it. Here:

I STARTED TO write short pieces when I was living in a room too small to write a novel in. So the size of my room modified what I did inside it and it was the same with the pieces themselves. The limited trajectory of the short narrative concentrates its meaning. Sign and sense can fuse to an extent impossible to achieve among the multiplying ambiguities of an extended narrative. I found that, though the play of surfaces never ceased to fascinate me, I was not so much exploring them as making abstractions from them. I was writing, therefore, tales.
​

Of course she's being a bit symbolic here. It isn't really the size of the room that determines the size of the idea and thus the story, it's the size of the writer's consciousness that's capable of holding the story. It's like your mind is a workshop, and you need a very small one to craft short stories. But to make novels you need a much larger one, like an airplane hangar, with appropriately large tools. Fortunatley the consciousness is designed to be able to transform its size and capabilities. It might take a while, but once you're well and fully set on being a novelist and understand (more or less) the construction of novels, and have read enough of them to have the feel for them as stories, it should be a pretty automatic process. In fact of course it is, you couldn't do something like that through conscious effort.

For me it happened some ways into my story. The beginning is written like a short story, everything compressed to fit the smaller form of the story, and after a while it began to slow down and expand to fit its new purpose. I was surprized when it happened, I was a little lost for a while, I wasn't used to having the luxury of all this extra room to work with. It took me a while to adjust to it. But it did happen within maybe a few thousand words or so.

 

My first book is about 20k more words than the one I'm currently working on. There are fewer words, but the stories are both told within those ranges of words. I always aim for at least 100k, since my books are the everything sci-fi genre. I've heard that's a small sci-fi story. I have a four book series, and each book is going to be covering specific parts of the story. If I were to combine it all into one book, it would be well over 400k and that's daunting as a reader.

My question to you is why do you have to have 200k? What is the purpose of expanding it so far?

 

This was my first thought, too.

Why does it matter if it's 200k or 160k? What are you trying to write? If your story is complete at 160k words, well, that's the story. There is no need to go further. Novel-writing isn't a length contest last I checked.

It's hard to answer this without knowing more details about your project. Does it have a proper ending? Or does it just kind of end? If it ends in a satisfying way, then, there is your answer. A good ending is when it's a good point to stop.

If you have no ending at all and you just want to keep going because of that, then I suspect that your project has weak story structure underneath. The Three-Act structure, which is old and relatively simple, essentially says: Every story out there has a beginning, a middle, and an end, which are *drum roll please* the three acts!

In most cases, if you've reached the resolution of the main conflict after the climax, then that's the end. The "story arc" is completed.

Is it possible to keep going after that? It actually is. You just write another arc and you go through the three acts all over again. When you're done with that new arc, then you can start another. It can pretty much go on forever like this. But you shouldn't do that unless you have a reason to keep coming up with new arcs.

But to answer your question...

That can be achieved using an outline like the Snowflake Method. You outline based on a structure so your story is solid and well-planned. Because of that, you write a list of scenes, and you have a pretty good "picture" of your story. Assigning a target word count to each scene and then adding them all up will give you an estimate.

If you are a discovery writer and you have nothing planned at all, then obviously, predicting your word count is pretty hard.

But the essence of it is: Write the story. If the story has reached its ending, then that's when you should stop.

 

Hello @DonnaGene

I think you have some very good views from members thus far but I tend to side with @Dogberry's Watch and @ps102 in that is there any need to extend the word count just to reach a number.

For me, a great story is not dependent on length, but whether the arc of the story is satisfying and inspiring.

I was chatting to a writer friend not so long ago about series writing and they said that usually the 1st novel is the best and the latter ones are padding. This intrigued me as their view seems very valid but also pointed that more books in developing the original story was extended the same story.

I'm not sure if this view is completely accurate as I view a story (whether this covers one book or more) depends if the question of the overall theme of the story is answered. If this is and a story fits nicely in 100k words then I see no reason to extend it just to hit a target.

This is just a personal view btw, as I don't like writing to restrictions and word limits, though I do understand that having limited boundaries places more emphasis on writers to be more concise and remove redundant words without sacrificing your own style. I feel, if you are happy with the story then that's it. I have expanded many stories in hope that they read better but ended up bloating a nice story by slowing the story down too much that it lost all the paper and impact it had when it was shorter.

Maybe seek your beta readers and ask if they feel there is a need to expand more... if they think so then look to add. If your readers are happy then there is no need to add more.

 

Each genre has an average story length you can find with a search online. Fantasy typically runs about 80 k words, the epic fantasy subgenre tends to run higher. You never mentioned what genre you are working in. Personally, I stop when I feel the story is done. If I feel the story is to long for the genre expectations, I look at where it can be broken into a series.

 

That's very interesting @Xoic.

When I was a kid and young adult I had a lot of time to think and I would write the first act of novels, especially when I was on holiday and moving through big landscapes.

Until recently I mostly wrote when I went on long leisurely walks about town on a weekend and what came out were short stories that I could just about compress into flesh* fiction if I wasn't being precious about them.

Currently (temporarily I should hope!) I seldom have more than an a half hour spare, mostly in the same small spaces, and if I can write fiction at all its a neat little idea that I can just about plump up to a still thin flash piece.

Essentially you and Carter are saying that the radius of the sweep of your thoughts defines the radius of the sweep of the fiction you can conceive. I like it.

____
EDIT: Going to leave that typo in there. Freudian slip?

 

I have been noticing a trend recently, where multiple character POVs are basically short stories about that character, which are structured into a larger framework of a novel. So the two are not exclusive of each other.

 

Sometimes it does seem like the space you're in confines or contains your consciosuness or the expansion of your thoughts. I think that's mostly just symbolism though, when your thinking is very constricted. We tend to see correspondences between the macrocosm (external world) and the microcosm (inner world). It's how symbolism works. Otherwise, if we want to believe the space you're in literally constricts the size of a project you can do in it, then you couldn't write a novel indoors at all. You'd have to go sit on a woodpile like @Lifeline does when she writes, or in a field or something. Though I do find most of my best ideas occur while I'm walking outdoors, often to or from the grocery store, or when I go sit outside to think things through.

 

They're right. Depending on whom you ask (and which genre you're in,) they tell us that agents are not looking for books outside the 80K-100K (maybe 120K) range. If it's a debut, if you're going to try to pitch it as your first novel, you're looking at a hard sell, maybe not impossible, but very difficult. From what I understand, most agents won't even read past the word count in the query letter.

Believe me, I can identify. My first novel, Reset, is short at 60K, and my second, Curios, (still in the beta reading and rewrites stage) is currently 163K and likely to expand a bit as I edit. I 100% believe these are the perfect lengths for these stories. They're paced the way I want them paced, and they tell the stories I want to tell. I'm even proud that I wrote something so long without it getting boring or stupid, but the fact is, I'm going to have a hard time selling either to an agent. It seems short is better than long, so I'm going to give the whole thing a go with Reset, but I fully expect to be ignored by a lot of agents. Also, that 80K-120K thing is mostly just for debuts, so I'm fine with the second being long. Anyone who reads a lot knows that tons of books are published in the 150K-250K range. Hell, you even see 450K+ on occasion.

Aside from the debut publishing issue, there's still a problem with adding beat after beat after beat ad infinitum. I can't imagine being able to pace something like that and keep it interesting indefinitely. Which is not to say it couldn't be done, but it would be a struggle, for sure. I don't subscribe to any of the prescribed plotting methods. I don't believe stories necessarily have to fit any particular form, but I do know stories have shapes. The ups and downs, the laughs and cries and triumphs and terrors, they all have their places on the rollercoaster, and each story has a natural progression and length, whether planned or spontaneous (plotted or pantsed.) If that rollercoaster goes up and down over and over and never ends, people will want off.

 

I was reviewing a writing friend's story earlier this year (and reviewed one of their other novels too) and this does seem like a growing trend. They had different PoVs in this story and the reason why they did so is that it gave a much broader view to their story. It was interesting and it worked like novellas building a different take on the story. It was quite a refreshing read.

I think this is key... the word boring. I am very conscious of writing stories that feel great when I do the first draft and add/develop more in the second, only to go over every passage with great care to see if it boring. I think you can see it a mile off and have cut large passages even though the writing was good and it read well, the pacing was fine, but it added nothing to the story. I think that is key, whether something adds to a story. I am very much like yourself, in that I add more in later drafts, but I do remove sections and rework a story if I find myself reading it becomes slow or my attention drifts. It may seem bad as I'll have read a passage many times, but I think it is a good barometer against 'boring writing.'

I've read a lot of stories from writers of varying abilities, helped many, and you can spot a great writer in how they construct their sentences and write their prose. Sadly, however, they don't make memorable stories and I find that the more inspiring writers are ones who are really daring and overstretching a story with new ideas and ways of telling a story. Those needs huge refinements but I go back to the initial point highlighted and to the word 'boring.' Reading a well written story is one thing, making it memorable is another. Length of a story isn't the issue, it is whether it is engaging to a reader.

I very much agree with this point too. What you described well here is the journey in a story. If a writer can make a reader care for their character, they will follow their every word. How the story pans out depends on how the writer can create enough suspense to pull a reader to the ups and downs. I am very much a character based writer, as I believe the most engrossing stories are ones where a reader forms a connection with the characters, as this is a great way to show the journey a character will go on.

 

I really do not know how to just stop. I have things going in writing and I really think of more things for it, to add or to yet tie up, and could still keep going. Short stories I have done with limits already on them, but the writing I otherwise have do not have the imposed limit. One I made a finish to just to have something I will get published soon.

 

I go with however long I need. With one book I've been writing, I originally wanted twenty two chapters, only to realize that I needed an extra chapter to build up to something else. Then I realized that characters needed a few more chapters to really flesh them out, resulting in me ending up with twenty seven chapters. And, thinking on it, I'll probably need one or two more. I do know that I want to avoid hitting the thirty chapter mark if at all possible. I dunno why, thirty just feels like too much, like you're just barely sitting on the half a hundred chapter mark.

I guess it's just a gut feeling. You'll know when you need to stop when your brain tells you it's time for the story to stop. Of course, if you're finding yourself hitting the fifty chapter mark, maybe consider splitting it up into a smaller series of books.

 

Read the rejection rejection rejection thread for a while and ask yourself if it is worth writing your manny directly into the scrap bin. I say be as concise as you possibly can by omitting superfluous chapters, scenes, and getting rid of unnecessary sentences, paragraphs, and words. When in doubt, ask a beta to provide feedback.

 

I usually know it’s time to stop when I’ve said everything that feels essential to the idea and repeating myself won’t add value. It’s a balance between trusting my instinct and feeling satisfied that the message is clear without over-explaining.

 

I agree that this is the 'usual' template given to every writer, yet I often feel that it is this advice which makes stories quite generic and lacking in individuality or style. Personally, I believe a great story is all about pacing, about the characters that having these two elements (and there are many others that are crucial to a good story) they can carry your writing a very long way.

I read a short story by Haruki Murakami, it is one in his collection Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman (read it a few times actually) and the story is really slow in pace. I didn't enjoy it much, yet out of all the stories, it was one that continued to play in my mind for many days and weeks after. His style is slow, writing concise yes, but the unnecessary sentences and paragraphs... there were plenty. Many I felt did nothing other than drag me along to reach the end of the page and see when this story would end, and when the end came, I was left a little down having been 'made' to read it. But, this story stayed with me through the next story, even though the next was much better, quicker in tempo and style and I know that this book would have passed through many sets of eyes, polished more times before it is allowed to print yet I see it as one of his standout stories in this collection.

Reason being, that he made me read, made me think of this story and why it worked. Like I said before, others were more enjoyable, but this boring one stayed with me. When I am reading other's work, I hold back on giving my full verdict on unnecessary chapters and passages, the most important thing for me is what information do they carry and did it serve a purpose. I think everyone here knows that each sentence must carry a new piece of information to the reader... and I set this as a mantra for my writing. But it doesn't mean I can't over elaborate or put setting in in odd places in order to build an ambiance an feel

There is Chinese proverb that beautiful flowers are sometimes not noticed among a bed of beautiful flowers. But even an ordinary flower can be the most beautiful in a patch of foliage and weeds. My point is, that not every chapter has to be outstanding, others can be used to serve a purpose (create an atmosphere) thus for me pacing and character development are what strikes me in a good read.

 

I think the confusion stems partly from the concept that an idea NEEDS to be a great length. This is a modern problem from publishers and readers expecting every book to be doorstop length when, in reality, any story needs only to be as long as the conflict requires. So that's also your solution. You need to understand what the core conflict of your story is and see how close you are to resolving that conflict. Adding more conflicts and characters just to add length will, more often than not, make a story worse. So if your story is Plot-centric (e.g. Character has to accomplish a task) then all you need to know is how close they are to completing it. Or if it's Character driven, how far along in his character Arc are you? On the other hand, if you're writing by the seat of your pants and you have no real goal in mind, then all you need to do is to find the central conflict governing the action of your current story.

Also, the length of a book should generally be determined by how many plots you have. For example, short stories around 5k words typically only have about 3-5 scenes and 1 or 2 plots. I'd check out Dan Well's Story Structure lecture on youtube of an idea about plots and how to go about them.