Writing contemporary fiction? Don’t rewrite War and Peace.
by Anne R. Allen
I recently read on an agent’s blog, “Nobody’s looking for War and Peace.” And alas, I fear it’s true. I can’t remember the last time I said, “I want to get into a big 19th century novel.” (And there was a time when I loved them.)
Fiction is constantly evolving
Fiction writing has gone through vast changes since Tolstoy’s day.
In fact, it has changed a good deal in the last decade.
Amy Collins at The Book Designer reports the average NYT Bestseller is now half as long as it was in 2011.
And the brand new Smashwords survey shows bestselling romance novels have decreased by 20,000 words since 2012.
The fastest growing fiction form right now is the novella.
If you want to sell books in the 21st century, you need to write books for the 21st century reader.
Unfortunately, this fact makes some people very angry.
“If it was good enough for Leo Tolstoy or ______(insert classic author here.) It’s good enough for me! %*&! your rules!”
“I learned everything I need to know about popular fiction from reading Mickey Spillane and ______ (insert bestseller from days of yore.) I don’t need no stinkin’ writing classes.”
“That’s just your opinion! Besides, I’m not writing contemporary fiction. I’m writing classics!”
We get these comments every time we write a helpful craft post…in spite of the fact we always remind people that our tips are only guidelines to help you get successfully published, and not hard and fast rules.
But a lot of people get their panties in a twist when they find out that you have to learn how to write fiction..
They read books. Classics! So they ought to be able to write them without studying anything else.
Even wildly creative writers had to learn how to write
It’s true that there are no hard and fast rules for writing fiction.
But it’s also true that assuming you can write great novels just because you read them is like thinking you can play basketball like LeBron James because you watch a lot of Cavs games.
Writing clear, fresh, entertaining prose takes storytelling skills and precise use of language. Learning those skills takes study and practice.
Trying to write a novel without studying the craft of writing contemporary fiction is like trying to build a car with no knowledge of the internal combustion engine. You’re going to waste a lot of time and probably end up with something that doesn’t move very fast.
You need to learn the rules of writing contemporary fiction to break them.
I know the idea that rules for writing exist makes some people intensely angry.
The angriest comments are usually from retired people of my generation (yeah, I’m a Boomer) who are writing their own version of War and Peace, The Long Goodbye, or On the Road now that they’re done with the day job. When we tell them that reading habits have changed in the last century, they’re devastated.
Other angry comments come from recent English majors or MFAs who have discovered their super-expensive degrees and all those hours ferreting out nature symbolism in the Cavalier Poets did not provide automatic tickets to fame and fortune in the publishing industry
The angry Boomers are generally writing to impress their creative writing teachers from 1974, and they want all the snowflakes to get off their lawn so it can be 1974 again.
They think sending us furious messages will do the trick.
Unfortunately, our TARDIS is in the shop.
And as for the recent graduates, we agree that MFAs are generally overpriced, but we can’t make your education relevant to today’s book-buyer no matter how many pompous insults you tweet at us.
Reading the classics of world literature is a great way to educate yourself and learn how the power of words can expand the mind and increase our knowledge of the human condition. We can learn a huge amount from them. All writers need to read the masters.
But it’s not a good idea to imitate them when we write our own books–or assume that reading War and Peace will teach us everything there is to know about writing fiction.
8 Reasons Why a 21st Century Reader Won’t Buy Your Imitation of Tolstoy, Chandler, or Kerouac.
1) If classic authors did it, it’s probably a cliché now.
I’ll never forget taking a friend who had never seen a Shakespeare play to a stupendous production of Hamlet. When we left the theater, I was exhilarated.
“Wasn’t that fantastic?” I said.
“Not really,” he said. “Shakespeare used so many clichés!”
He was astounded to find out that when Shakespeare wrote stuff like “neither a lender nor a borrower be” and “to be or not to be,” he was inventing them for the first time.
On the other hand, just because Shakespeare used a phrase brilliantly, doesn’t mean you can.
So why–say the classics fans–if those expressions are brilliant, can’t we use them? Don’t these whippersnappers today appreciate Shakespeare?
Actually, things become clichés because they are appreciated. People love them. And repeat them. A lot.
The first romance author who thought of introducing the heroine sitting at her dressing table assessing her looks in the mirror was using a clever device to let the reader know what the heroine looked like while using a single POV.
But when the 20,000th author does it, she’s not being clever. She’s being lazy.
And she’ll make her readers tired.
Ditto other clichéd openers like dark and stormy nights, alarm clocks or dead men walking. Once brilliant—now done to death.
Readers want something fresh.
2) Publishing changes with technological innovation just like other industries.
I was thrilled when a friend gave me a gift of the first season of the old TV show Route 66 on DVD. That On the Road-inspired drama was an iconic part of my preteen years. I wanted to grow up to be Todd and Buzz.
But when I sat down to watch the first episode, from 1960, the stilted dialogue, sexism, and clunky tech got in the way of my enjoyment of the drama. I saw why Route 66 had been brilliant for its time, but I don’t think I’ve watched more than a few episodes.
Ditto old books I once loved. Back in the 1970s and 80s, I devoured literary works like John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman and John Barth’s The Sot-Weed Factor. I also loved a big “beach book” wallow like Judith Kranz’s Scruples and Shirley Conran’s Lace.
But I ran across an old copy of Scruples recently and couldn’t imagine how I got through all that verbiage. My editor’s hat sprouted as I wanted to cut, cut, cut.
And although John Fowles is still recognized as a great literary author, The French Lieutenant’s Woman is #2,108,841 on Amazon at this writing. His “author intrusion” style doesn’t seem to entice readers the way it did in 1970. And The Sot-Weed Factor only has two reviews. A publisher in 2017 isn’t likely to take a chance on an imitation of something from 50 years ago that isn’t selling now.
As Jane Friedman wrote on her blog last month, “Today, our problem is not finding more great things to read. It’s finding time to read the great many wonderful things that are published.”
3) A book written to pass the time on long Russian winter nights won’t fit into most 21st century lives.
The very thing that made Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky so popular in their day is what makes them a slog now. They were written to fill an empty, boring time.
The original readers loved those long passages that took them to far flung cities and exotic climes. It was the only way to escape what Masha in The Three Sisters calls a life “dull as a desert.”
Now the Internet can take you to any place on earth. Most people have too much to do rather than too little.
Yes, some people do still read long literary novels. But as Mark O’Connell wrote in the Millions (with tongue in cheek), it can be a case of Stockholm Syndrome–“whereby hostages experience a perverse devotion to their captors, interpreting any abstention from violence and cruelty, however brief or arbitrary, as acts of kindness and even love.” He said, “In order for a very long novel to get away with long, cruel sessions of boredom-torture, it has to commit, every so often, an act of kindness.” (By kindness, he means scenes of conflict and interaction.)
Most contemporary readers like shorter novels where stuff happens more than once every 100 pages.
There are some exceptions, of course. Guys with two “R’s” between their first and last names get to write very long novels and everybody buys them anyway. When brings us to the next point….
4) Some things are tough to do well. A master craftsman can carry off things that newbies can’t.
Yes, George R. R. Martin writes long novels. So did J. R. R. Tolkien. They also used prologues. Michael Cunningham likes prologues too. So does Dennis Lehane.
And they’re not having any trouble selling books.
But when newbies write prologues, they usually use them for info-dumps and lazy writing. This is why agents hate prologues.
When you’re as skilled as Martin, Cunningham and Lehane you’ll get to use them too.
That applies to many clichéd and overdone openers as well. A master writer can make a tired trope fresh again. A newbie writer probably can’t.
And yes, Martin can write big fat books, but agents and reviewers are going to tell you that a 150 thousand word novel is a no-no.
When you have the following Martin does, you can write fat books too.
5) Classic authors didn’t set out to write classics; they wrote to sell.
The only reason you’ve heard of Tolstoy or Dickens is that they sold a lot of books. They wrote what their contemporaries wanted to read. If Dickens had written for Shakespeare’s audience, he would have faded into obscurity. If Kerouac had written for 19th century Russian aristocrats, I’m pretty sure none of us would have heard of him.
The concept of “literary fiction” is fairly new. It’s a construct of academia. Most people who write it are college professors. They need that day job because literary fiction doesn’t pay the bills. If you write purely for an academic audience, you’re not going to sell a lot of books, because it’s a small demographic.
Of course some contemporary fiction deemed “literary” sells very well, but it’s generally written with a broader audience in mind.
Contemporary literary writers like Toni Morrison, Margaret Atwood, Michael Cunningham, Jonathan Franzen, etc. aren’t imitating authors from another era or trying to impress professors. They’re writing stunning contemporary fiction that the market wants.
6) Long descriptions aren’t necessary in the age of movies, TV and Google.
In the Victorian era, many people never traveled outside of their small towns. They’d never seen an elephant, or the Rocky Mountains, or a spooky old castle.
There were no airplanes or even color photographs—and a writer knew many of his readers probably didn’t have a clue what those things looked like.
Everything that was new to the reader needed long, detailed descriptions.
But in the age of instant media, descriptive passages are mostly for the authors (and our inner poets), not the readers. Everybody has an idea what an elephant, mountain, or castle looks like and if they don’t, they can Google it.
Again, there are exceptions. I realize that SciFi and Fantasy require more description, since Google maps doesn’t have street views of alternate universes or cities in the Delta Quadrant.
But imitating Henry James or Thomas Hardy by writing pages and pages of description is not likely to get you a lot of readers.
Am I saying that James and Hardy weren’t great writers? Or am I too stupid to have read them? Nope. (Although I do admit I never finished The Golden Bowl. 🙂 )
It means that readers have changed. Time’s winged chariot has hurried on.
For a great short piece on what contemporary writers need to know about writing descriptions, see Janice Hardy’s post at Fiction University: Three Things to Consider when Writing Descriptions.
7) Famous writers who already have a huge following can get away with stuff a newbie can’t.
I used to read every new book Vonnegut came out with, no matter what reviews said. Ditto Margaret Atwood. Would I buy an unknown writer’s book with the same enthusiasm?
Of course not. Nobody’s going to take your word for it that you’re brilliant. They need some proof. If they open your book and see a clichéd opener, do you think they’re going to say:
“Well this sux, but I’m going to buy it anyway because it might get better. This is a brand new author with no track record, so he must be a genius.”
Probably not? Yeah, they’re more likely to pick up something by an author they know, even if that author has done something unusual.
That means established authors can get away with a lot of stuff you can’t.
Why?
Trust.
The famous author has built trust in readers that they’re going to be rewarded with a great story or brilliant prose.
You haven’t done that. Yet.
8) Tolstoy, Chandler and Kerouac weren’t competing with Netflix. Or your smartphone. Or cats riding Roombas.
Even a lot of contemporary writers like Tom Clancy, Janet Evanovich, Stephen King, and James Patterson started their careers before the electronic age. They only had to compete with newspapers and radio and three TV channels. If somebody was waiting for a train or plane or sitting in a doctor’s office, they were stuck with reading or staring at the wall.
Now everybody has a movie in their pocket and we have a 24/7 news cycle that dominates everybody’s conversation.
Also, pretty much every book ever written is now available for immediate download. No waiting.
James Patterson knows this, which is why his new short fiction for electronic devices is so popular. His “Bookshots” are under 150 pages and available for any device. (One of the reasons why he sells more than the other five top selling authors combined.)
The 21st century has brought us good things and bad. You may hate it and think everybody who uses tech is a brain-dead “snowflake,” but you can’t turn back the clock.
Especially by shooting the messenger. We’re trying to help here.
Nobody says you have to write for publication. There are lots of happy amateurs out there. Or maybe you can write for the voracious readers on Tralfamadore.
But if you want to sell books to 21st century earthlings, you have to write the books 21st century earthlings are buying.
That isn’t going to be War and Peace. (Although, as someone is likely to remind me, taking one scene from War and Peace and turning it into a Broadway musical can get 12 Tony nominations. 🙂 )
Old Dogs Need to learn New Tricks
Even this one.
I’ve been invited to write for a new phone app called Radish, which provides serialized novels in the form of short, cliff-hanger chapters of 2000 words or less. The first three are free.
I’m now rewriting my comic mystery Sherwood Ltd, which was first published in 2011, for this new format and technology. It’s a little harder than I first thought, but it’s also fun.
And I’m learning a lot. Learning keeps us young. And makes us less afraid of the contemporary world.
by Anne R. Allen (@annerallen) July 2, 2017
What about you, scriveners? Have you ever tried to justify a cliche or long description by quoting the masters? How did you learn to write for a contemporary audience? Which of today’s writers do you turn to for writing inspiration? Have you ever written for a phone app?
NOTE: I apologize if anybody’s having trouble making comments. I’m having them myself. We seem to be under attack with “malicious log-ins”. If your comment doesn’t go through, you can email me, or wait a bit. Usually the malicious robots go away after a while.
BOOK OF THE WEEK
The first book in the Camilla comedy-mystery series
The always-polite Camilla Randall meets murder, mayhem and Mr. Wrong at a dodgy writers’ conference in the California wine-and cowboy town of Santa Ynez.
FREE at iTunes, Kobo, Inktera, Scribd and NOOK.
And it’s only 99c or the equivalent all the Amazons internationally.
Also available at Google Play.
It’s also in paper at Amazon , Barnes and Noble and Walmart
I love this post, Anne.
Long descriptions annoy me, as do countless pages of purple prose without action. MFAs need to pay attention to your words of wisdom,
“6) Long descriptions aren’t necessary in the age of movies, TV and Google.” … and YouTube. I’ve seen kids and adults sit for hours giggling or ooooing over YT videos.
Novellas? Yes! My favorite reading treat.
Kathy–I’m glad you agree. 🙂 The first reaction I had to this was a Tweet telling me that Tolstoy created great characters. He did indeed. But that.has nothing to do with this post. Sigh.
We aren’t just writing for bored 19th century Russian aristocrats these days. We need to think about the READER, not our own need to show off.
I just read a fun novella by Melodie Campbell. A small paperback that actually fit in a pocket. Perfect to take to the beach. I love the smaller format for so many reasons.
Heh heh. The comment probably came from someone with an MFA.
Do you remember the size of the paperback?
Melodie’s paperback of the Bootlegger’s Goddaughter was about a 1/4 inch bigger than a mass market paperback in height and width, but about half the thickness.
Thanks!
Terrific post!
Yet another observation about length: in the olden days of pulp, publishers had to put out new books and magazines every month and writers used to get paid by the word. Ergo, the more words, the more the writer got paid. Even after the pulp era ended, the long word count continued to rule since readers by then had come to expect lengthy stories as in bestsellers like Scruples and the Jackie Susann epics.
How long is the average romance these days? The mystery or thriller?
Ruth–Thanks! Zach Obront, who did the analysis of the NYT bestsellers said that the average hardcover NYT bestselling novel in 2011 was about 500 pages. In 2017, it’s under 300. He didn’t give wordcount, but that’s a lot of pages.
I think the average mystery has gone down from 80K words to about 60K. But I can’t find the stats on that right now.
You’re right that paying writers by the word would mean wordiness was a built-in part of pulp fiction. Now, we can do without it.
You are so right about wordiness. JRR Tolkien could get away with it but I still skip over the long poems and songs when reading Lord of the Rings. (I did sing a few, however, when I was reading aloud to the family… but not all the verses.)
Alison–Tolkien was writing 60-70 years ago and he came from a Classics background. I think he got away with all that because it was brand new and his ideas were so compelling. But if he were writing now, I’m sure he’d get some serious editing.
Are you kidding? Long descriptions bore me. I’ve skimmed more pages of Tolkien than I really should admit.
I’m on that line between Boomer and Generation X and I certainly don’t want to write classics. Or read them. Since what I write tends to be on the short side anyway, I’m happy to hear that is the style now.
Alex–Admit away! Tolkien’s descriptions bogged me down so much I never did finish the trilogy.
The fact your books do so well shows you’re right in the groove there with the right length scifi novel.
Anne, a super post. My first draft was 800 pages (of which 2/3 got cut when I had an attack of reality.) Now I’ve been invited to write for the Radish app as well and am very curious to see how the platform will fare.
The concept of serials isn’t new–Alexander MacCall Smith’s 44 Scotland Street originated as a serial in The Scotsman, Charles Dickens wrote most of his novels as serials, and Jack London’s The Call of the Wild was first a serial in The Saturday Evening Post–yet seems very much in tune with today’s inclination to consume content in bite-sized pieces.
Who knows, we might even prevail over Candy Crush. Books are entertainment, in competition with cat videos and the like. If we want to reach a popular audience, it behooves us to know what that audience’s consumption habits are.
Carmen–“An attack of reality”–great expression! 800 pages is an editing nightmare.
We’ll have to compare notes on Radish. I like serials too. My very first novel was published as a serial in an entertainment weekly. Each chapter had to be 1000 words long and it had to fit on the other side of the astrology column. 🙂
“Unfortunately, our TARDIS is in the shop.”
Best line all week! I’ll remember that one. Thanks again, Anne, for reminding us that what we grew up with is not what readers want now. I have endless students wanting to rewrite “Are you there, God? It’s me, Margaret.” Or “On the Road.” Or (any 1960s book here). Maybe even Fitzgerald. Never, Dickens, thankfully. But usually some author they fell in love with while in college.
When people ask me about ebooks, I always say, “Ebooks aren’t killing authors. That’s just another delivery method. What kills reading is the great stuff on Neflix etc that you can get any minute you like on your smartphone. No waiting.” You said it really well in this piece.
Melodie–Kerouac and Brautigan and those other 1960s icons have a lot to answer for. When I was editing, I ran into so many quirky, stream of consciousness alternative-culture manuscripts from Boomers that are never ever going to find a readership. (or a plot.) I felt so sad for them. Often they’d worked on them for years. Telling people they need a plot can devastate them.
You’re so right about ebooks. It’s not ebooks, it’s Netflix. I fall into that myself. I have to set aside a “no TV night” so I can get to my TBR list.
Anne, I love the comparison of readers of long, boring classic novels to the Stockholm Syndrome. Very funny. I have suffered thru some classic lit of late and have to admit I couldn’t get beyond 300 pages; just about the average length of today’s novels and best sellers. Whodathunk? Great post as always. Paul
Paul–I loved the Stockholm Syndrome comparison too. It’s one of the things that inspired me to write this post. So you have trouble with big books these days,too? I’m so amazed at myself, but I simply don’t finish as many books as I used to.
The history of narrative is one of my interests left over from graduate school in literary analysis. Many writers are stunned when I tell them that they shouldn’t emulate classic writers. Heck, you shouldn’t emulate a writer from ten years ago because narrative has changed since then.
You also shouldn’t emulate current bestselling authors like Nora Roberts because they can do things like headhop because they are Nora Roberts, and some haven’t changed their styles in many years.
Something else to consider is what genre you are writing. What works for romance rarely works for science fiction, etc.
Narrative methods are like cars which change as the years progress, and driving a Model T when others are in a Prius just doesn’t work.
M Byerly–I love your Prius/Model T analogy. That’s exactly it. Nobody is disparaging the Model T, but it’s not going to be terribly practical on today’s roads.
Love what you said about Nora Roberts. She’s been writing a long time. What fans accept as “traditional” from her, they won’t accept from others.
And you’re absolutely right about genre. The rules for genres are so very different. Fantasy needs maps. Sci-Fi may need a glossary, Romance needs a HEA. We need to learn this stuff in order to be professionals.
Wow, Anne. Especially number 3 and number 8, all day long (they’re almost flip-sides of the same phenomenon). It’s all true, and it’s all bitter dregs for someone like me (you HAD to go mention how GRRM can break all the rules, major ouch there, and yet it’s all still true).
But where would anyone get off yelling at you and Ruth about this? That’s the part I can’t understand though I bet you’re not even exaggerating. People need to calm down and just reflect on whether the writing itself is making them happy. How much money would they need if the answer was no?
Thanks again, Anne. I’ve been stuck with a long form in classic epic fantasy, but my recent tales have been novellas and my publisher even breaks up the novels into shorter bites. Hope springs eternal!
Will–It’s got so I dread opening my email every morning. Between strangers demanding favors and newbies who think we invented reality just to dash their dreams, it can be an hour of misery.
Breaking epics into novellas is the answer with big fantasy books like yours. It sounds as if your publisher is really on the ball.
“Tolstoy, Chandler and Kerouac weren’t competing with Netflix. Or your smartphone. Or cats riding Roombas.” Ha! Ain’t that the truth. Thanks for another fine post. Now it’s time for this old dog to go out & learn some new tricks.
C. S. You’ve got some new tricks to teach a lot of us next week. We’re all really looking forward to your post on audiobooks!
Can’t count how many times I pointed at the screen while reading this post and squealed: “Exactly!!”
Especially at the end — it’s so important that every writer be aware of general trends — and to remain flexible in their writing.
I remember seeing ‘flash fiction’ for the first time and thinking it could be addictive — having little stories to disappear into for minutes, not hours.
There is a lot of ‘dead’ time in people’s lives now it seems, the train ride, stuck in traffic in your car, waiting in the doctor’s office (come in 15 min. early – then wait 30 min.), etc. I love audio books for such times, but would really like little stories — and little books! Love the idea of a paperback I can pop into my tiny purse or a pocket, or leave a few in the glove box.
I don’t like using video-type distractions for these dead times, as it uses a different part of my brain that I need for other stuff, like safety, driving, being aware of my surroundings, etc.
Swinging to the right: The processes of validation of education can be nearly crippling. Having come from a heavily-laden academic family, I saw gaggles of doctorate-earners gather and validate the importance of their degree — and the time spent earning it. I’ve also noticed over the past 3 decades that people with higher degrees tend to judge the author first, and then the actual book/story.
Keep up the good work — of course, your insidious link to the Tralfamadore readers caused me to wonder through the post at the end of the link, then go to my ‘book room’ and find the book involved, then read my notes on the front page, then get an iced tea and flop onto the couch — then remember I was reading your post… :o) It’s all okay though – found my sunglasses on this trip.
Thanks!!
Maria D’Marco
good grief — that should be ‘wander’, which is obviously what my mind was doing…
Maria–Haha! I’m so glad you found your sunglasses!
I come from a super-academic background too. (Both my parents were college professors with PhDs and pretty much all my relatives are academics.) It’s a rarified, judgmental atmosphere that can be hard to escape from.
I have always liked to travel with short stories. I still keep some old New Yorkers in my car in case I’m stuck somewhere, waiting for AAA, and I’ll have a story or two to read.
I think you’re right that reading leaves a part of your mind open to your surroundings that film doesn’t
There is a place for long tomes, even long contemporary fiction. I’m nearly finished reading Joyce Carol Oates’ Mudwoman. Not one of your “unput-downable” books, if only because of its 750 pages but also because it violates a lot of “shoulds” in writing contemporary fiction. And, yes, Ms. Oates is an academic professor (Princeton). And, yes, I have an academic background; you may say, I’m not the type of reader most current authors write for. But, like others of my “kind,” I do read fiction, both short and long ones. So, it hurts that it feels like we’re getting a little bashing here.
Evy–I have an academic background, too. (Bryn Mawr and Harvard) and both my parents had PhD’s (Bryn Mawr and Stanford) and taught at prestigious universities (Yale, U. Conn,) so I’m not attacking you.
Of course I know who Joyce Carol Oates is. And she could probably support herself with her writing without the chair at Princeton. But a beginning writer starting out writing academic fiction could not support him/herself without having that kind of academic job.
You might want to read my points #4 and #7. JCO is famous and well respected, so she can get away with things that new writers can’t. And as a “master” she can do things well that newbies can’t.
These are tips for writers who want to make a living writing. If you don’t care about that, you don’t have to pay attention to the market.
Art for art’s sake is still a thing.
This is GREAT! I love the way you describe the changes to the publishing scene and what people are reading today and how that impacts our writing. I totally get it! It’s important to know! Though we should not write to the market and change what we’re writing to fit the popular genre, we have to be aware that what was really cool in 1892 is not cool today!
Patricia–Technological changes are altering our culture in so many ways–and fast! It’s hard to keep up. But as you said, what was cool yesterday, is not going to be cool today and we have to keep up, even if it drives us a little batty. 🙂
Hey Anne,
OMG, the beginning of this post had me cracking up because recently I shared one of your posts to a writer’s FB group. I believe it was the one about how not to start your novel (where you discussed the 6 or 7 cliched openings). You’d think I had suggested that they boil their children in oil by posting the link to the article. Those “rules are meant to be broken’ folks went crazy. After a while I got tired of telling them the post wasn’t written from the view of it being hard and fast rules and left them to rant on their own. They were happy to reassure everyone that they could pull off all of those cliches and the readers would love them for it. It was an interesting lesson in how writers can convince themselves that they are more important than their readers they are supposedly writing for.
I have a low tolerance for over description in fiction, and will skip over large swaths of description in books (even by favorite authors) because you know “I get it” no need to hit me over the head with it. So as a writer I try very hard to keep my descriptions pithy and hopefully fresh.
Yes, I’m sure that cliches slip into the prose, despite my best efforts, but thankfully I have very alert beta readers and a software program called ‘cliche cleaner’ which does help.
I like the idea of shorter fiction because maybe that means you can turn out more books in less time – and that always seems to be the battle. On the other hand, I don’t think you should short change a book either. Sometimes, it’s going to go over that 65 – 85K mark – and that should be okay, if it’s really needed.
As to writing for a phone app – I wish. Personally, I’ll try to write anything at least once. So sure, put me on the speed dial – I’m there for you. LOL.
Good post.
Thanks!
Annie
Annie–Sorry you got some of that flak. You should have seen my inbox! I’ve never been called a “snowflake” so many times in one day. (What does it even mean?)
Some people just love them some cliches and they’re going to cling to them no matter what. And you know, they’ll always be new to somebody, so why not? And cliches can be comfy to some people.
We all have to use cliches in dialogue because that’s how people talk. My mom wrote a character in one of her books who spoke entirely in old sayings like “A stitch in time saves nine” and it was hilarious. Thanks!
I know that snowflake is an insult, but I thought it inferred that you were super sensitive and fragile. How that would correspond to your advice about writing cliches is a kind of a head scratcher to me. You could just look at it this way, snowflakes are all unique – so maybe it was a backhanded compliment. 😉 hehe
Annie–I think they must mean “whippersnapper” because I don’t like the time-honored cliches of the classics. Everybody who uses tech seems to be a “snowflake.” But at age 70, I’m perfectly happy to be called a “whippersnapper.” or a “snowflake.” Haha.:-)
LOL, Anne! You ol’ whippersnapper, you. That’s hilarious!
I agree with your commentary on novels becoming shorter, and I tend to appreciate this trend. There are, of course, successful exceptions, Donna Tartt being one. Normally, I wouldn’t even pick up a book as lengthy as The Goldfinch, except for the character of Theo, a 13-y-o New Yorker, who is similar to one of my characters. But I’m reading it and getting increasingly frustrated by its petty and repetitive description, which seems to milk dry an otherwise tense scene. Rather than grow shorter over the two decades of her writing, her work contradicts that trend: 1st novel=592pp; 2nd=640pp; 3rd=976pp in the version I’m reading, AND gaining a Pulitzer Prize. This comment is not meant to undermine your point about length of story, only to show an odd exception.
A literary academic friend insisted I read The Goldfinch. I thought it was a decent 300 page novel stretched out to 800+ interminable pages. Not going to trust recommendations from that friend or Pulitzer again.
I always enjoy your posts, Anne, and admire your no BS style. You have the wisdom of age, but you’re willing to try new paths like Radish.
I wrote short stories about 25-30 years ago, when the so-called little magazines were shriveling up. For one story I sold, I was paid with a $5 check…that bounced! I always liked the form, but thank goodness I didn’t depend on it to eat.
Glad to hear shorts are making a comeback.
Debbie–“A decent 300 page novel stretched out to 800+ interminable pages” is pretty much what the critics said. She had the academic credentials to get away with all that, but think of how brilliant the book would have been if an editor had dared to stand up to her the way Raymond Carver’s editor did. I got a rubber check for a poetry contest win once, too! Yeah, those litmags survived on a shoestring. Now we have so many more venues for our writing.
Short stories are making much more money now than they did back then!
SK–I think The Secret History is one of the best mystery novels ever written, and I think Donna Tartt probably won that Pulitzer for The Goldfinch because she really deserved it for The Secret History, but mysteries don’t get Pulitzers.
I do think that Theo has something in common with Jacob. But your novel is better. 🙂
Also, remember that Donna Tartt is the product of that rarified MFA program-NYC elite education. She can get away with stuff that none of the rest of us can even dream of.
Great post. My two latest novels are much shorter so they fit with what you have said here. On a side note, I once had the great good fortune to attend a week long workshop with Robert J. Sawyer. Among other sage advice, he said (in reference to prologues), “Start where the story starts.”
Darlene–“Start where the story starts” is fantastic advice. Vonnegut said “Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.” The important thing is to keep the reader in mind.
I love writing novellas! All three of my books are 30,000-40,000 words long. The stories just don’t need more words to be told and I’m not padding them out with fluff just to make them into ‘bigger’ books. This is, I think, the advantage of the Kindle. You have no physical clue how long the book is, leaving you free to decide if it’s any good or not.
Icy–The e-reader has a whole lot to do with the shortening of books. The fact that the shrinkage started in 2011 is significant, because that’s when the “Kindle Revolution” really exploded.
There may have been a kind of prestige in reading big, fat books that is now gone, since people can’t tell how big your book is when you’re reading it on an electronic device. 🙂
Any MFA writer who imitates the styles of Tolstoy or Joyce or James, or any of the classic writers in an attempt to write something great is missing the whole point of the MFA degree, in my opinion. Writers should study the greats through time, but always with caution. Joyce and Tolstoy and Hemingway were part of an avant-garde in their day Tolkien too was doing things that never had been done before, but we are the avante-garde of today. Even fiction ten your old is not too old to imitate, because so much has been done since then. We read and we study to appreciate derivative lines, because we don’t want to fall into the trap of imitating imitators.
I like Stephen King’s advice to “write with the door open, revise with the door closed.” Publishing is about writer to one degree, but it’s about story and its audience too. Who will be reading this book? A good question for every writer to ask as they revise, revise, revise, revise, (and revise again) until their book is ready to connect.
I write long, but my rule is, more or less, every 500-1500 words, give the reader a treat, something that makes their enjoyment of what they’re reading that much greater, and make sure every single advancement moves the story forward and builds. How do I know what are the right choices to make, that I’m not giving an outdated gift to the wrong audience? Keeping my ears open helps — reading a lot, and all over the place, blog posts like this for instance.
Good luck with that opportunity to write short for Radish. And thanks for the advice on shorter novella forms, you’ve got me percolating!
John–I always say “The first draft is for the writer and the final draft is for the reader.” We need to let our muses roam when we’re first getting our ideas on paper. We’re essentially telling ourselves the story.. But we need to keep the reader in mind as we edit.
Yes, Radish is a good experiment for me. I’ve been writing shorter chapters because my editor is a major fan of short, Patterson-style chapters, but I’m not as good at keeping my book word count down. They always come out around 80K words.
Dominic Dunne and Jacqui Susann were my go-to authors in the 80’s. Along with all those historical romances with Fabio on the cover. I guess that’s where I learned my purple prose. Description description description. I’ve gotten better at “less is more” but even my alphas and betas sometimes complain there’s not enough. Who’s right, who’s wrong? I guess the reader when they pen their reviews.
I’ve written short stories, readers want them longer. I write long stories, they say they’re over blown. I guess there’s no such thing as the “perfect” book length any more. When I started publishing my Regency romances (2011), anything less than 85K words was taboo. Now, they say 65k is too long. I can’t win.
And as I read through the comments on this post I saw that you said you were 70 (in reference to being called a whippersnapper). I thought we were around the same age. I’m 55 and thanks for stopping by my blog to wish me HB.
Anne–Great to see you!! I hope you had a great birthday! Yeah, I’m a geezerette now. I’ve never admitted my age on the blog before, but I guess I’m feeling my age these days. Burning my candle at both ends isn’t an option anymore. 🙂
Romances really have lost 20K words in the last five years. It’s kind of amazing how fast the change has been. Since romance readers are voracious and they’re a major segment of the book-buying population, they tend to drive the whole market.
I know some authors are re-editing their backlists to make their older books fit with the trends. I don’t know if I’m up to that task, but they tell me it works. Sigh. Just in case we didn’t have enough to do. 🙂
Thanks for this. Lots to think about. I love reading the classics, but realize times have changed — but I didn’t realize how fast in the last few years.
Coreena–I’ve been surprised by the rapid shrinkage of the novel, too. It was my editor who clued me in.
I feel more fulfilled reading the classics and today’s literary fiction than I would be trying to read contemporary fiction that pares down language so as not to bore readers who prefer escape to self-reflection. I’m not a writer, so I can afford to abide by my own tastes. I think your points are well-taken, but they exemplify sad realities.
Anthony–No need to be sad. This is the golden age for readers of the classics!
If you want to immerse yourself in the work of Walter Scott, or Theodore Dreiser, or Anthony Trollope–not only can you get most of their works with the click of a mouse, but most of them are FREE, thanks to Google Books, which has scanned over a million classic books in the public domain and offers them free. .
As big a fan as I am of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, this is very sage advice 🙂 They were writing in their times, we need to write in ours.
Sarah–Exactly. I’m not questioning their greatness, and I expect they’ll be read a long, long time. But I’m telling writers we have to write for the audience we have now.
Readers–I’m sorry if you’re having trouble commenting. I am too. The WordPress elves seem to resent having to work today. I just had to moderate my own comment!
I love it when my writing is ‘in style’, lol. I suppose my reading habits have changed with the times along with others. I love reading books and my time is so limited that I want to devour more books than time allows, this has me shying away from bigger books. (I’m still looking at my big book awaiting my attention from Donna Tarte’s – Goldfinch). I just checked out Radish after reading your post. The ‘about’ page wasn’t too informative. How do we load our work on there, and better yet, how do we get paid? Thanks Anne. As always your posts are always full of such great information. 🙂
Wow, Anne, another great post.
It looks like more than a dozen of your respondents agree with every word, and only a few replies say that yeah, contemporary fiction is getting shorter and shorter and perhaps that’s not a good thing. But still, they agree that’s the reality.
Nevertheless, I have to say I strenuously disagree with the unnamed agent: “Nobody’s looking for ‘War and Peace.’ ”
Er. Um. I am.
I read it when I was in college, and I’ve reread it at least 6 times. Yes. Reread it. Not all 1000+ pages, of course. Never can get through those long digressions on old Kutuzov’s Russian genius defeating the Great Man Napoleon. I also regularly reread “Anna Karenina” (800+ pages in the Volokhonsky and Pevear translation, and please don’t read any other version!). There too, I skip around, but with both books, I always find at least one part that I previously skimmed, sometimes for years, that has sudden resonance.
So I am looking for the next “War and Peace.” And a few other readers might be as well. Not a lot, of course. And not necessarily looking for imitations of 19th century Russian novels.
But consider, sci-fi and fantasy readers routinely gobble up epics like Rothfuss’s Kingkiller Chronicles, clocking in at 700+ pages for the first installment, 1000 pages for the second, and his fans (and I) are frothing at the mouth for the third. (Interesting note that while we’re waiting, Rothfuss wrote an experimental, genre-busting novella filling in backstory of a minor but key character in the first two volumes.) Some scoff at the genre, but I find writers like Rothfuss, Guy Gavriel Kay, and N.K. Jemison write solid, even ‘literary’ prose and tell great stories. Speaking of ‘literary’, Erdrich’s latest, “LaRose”, clocks in at around 400 pages (which seems to have been her standard length for years). Or just the other day, I picked up Russell Banks’ “Cloudsplitter” (ok agreed, came out around 2000 so could Banks have gotten away with 780 pages today is far from certain), an utterly fascinating read told by abolitionist John Brown’s son. I hate to go to work this morning, I’m so caught up!
Which reminds me, I loved every word of Tartt’s “The Goldfinch.” In fact, when it came out and someone gave me a copy for Christmas, I called in sick to work to finish it. To me, nothing compares to the bliss of finding a book that can take me away and make me forget time for hours and hours on end.
There’s lots of good advice in the post, but consider the line: “If you want to sell books in the 21st century, you need to write books for the 21st century reader.” The numbers may be small, but some of those readers have a long attention span. In the end, of course a writer needs to know the rules of craft, genre, should find a great editor, know about marketing, and so forth. But even with all that, in the end, to paraphrase Toni Morrison, you must write the book you want to read. Whether or not it’s going to sell.
Shelley–Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
When the agent said “nobody” I’m sure she meant “nobody in the industry.” This is a publishing industry blog, so we keep up with news in the business.
But, as I said to another commenter, Art for Art’s sake is still a thing. And now, with self-publishing, you can write for any niche you like, no matter how tiny.
I used to say–meaning it as a joke–that “self publishing means you can translate the Epic of Gilgamesh into Klingon and write it in wingdings. Nobody’s going to stop you. And you just may find a niche audience.”
Then a commenter informed me that somebody HAS published a translation of Gilgamesh into Klingon! 🙂
If you’re not writing for a living, you can publish anything you want, and not worry about readership at all.
The advice we give here is for people who want to write professionally, but we don’t mean to discourage amateurs who want to go their own way. Some of the most innovative artistic breakthroughs come from ‘happy amateurs.”
But what if it really is a Dark and Stormy Night? Seriously, I love this post. You can’t set out to write a classic. It makes perfect sense that classics were popular reading at the time. Just as we must live in the present, we must write for the present time—even if we’re writing historical fiction.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Tammy–Haha! Yeah. It’s kind of sad to hear newbie writers who have set such an impossible bar for themselves. When I hear somebody say they’re writing “for the ages.” I know they’re really new to writing. Anybody who has actually written something knows that creating another War and Peace or Great Gatsby isn’t that easy, even if there were a market for it.
I’ve been a professional writer for 20 years. I’ve had one book published and am working on a second. That sounds like something I would say, and I’m proud of it. If you’re writing for the 20 cent bargain bin in a few months, or the latest app, then go for it. But I am writing for the ages. I may not get there, in fact, I probably won’t. But I’d rather try than churn out a bunch of instantly forgettable pap. Call me crazy! 🙂
I absolutely love classics and still read mostly classics only. I tried in vain to find a modern writer who combines the lush prose, psychological incisiveness, clever dialogue, fleshed out characters, ambiance, and humor of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Oscar Wilde or the Brontes. Alas, I am either the only person in the world who still desires not to have a cat video reflected in my literature, or there are too many “gatekeepers” telling people not to imitate the classics. I get offended and bored when I get the sense that the writer can’t be bothered to WRITE, to spend hours finding that perfect word, that startling turn of phrase, that sharp psychoanalysis. There are a few writers who do it, Annie Proulx for one. I did find Emma Cline took it too far with The Girls and didn’t concentrate enough on plot. While I’m not a huge fan of Gone Girl, this is a book that combined thoughtful writing with high concept plot (as it used to regularly be done!) The masters knew how to do it. So I guess I’ll keep buying their books and ignoring the EL Jameses of the world.
Kensi–I read the classics, too, which you’d know if you’d read this post. I make no mention of EL James.
But I do mention Toni Morrison, Margaret Atwood, Michael Cunningham, Jonathan Franzen, and other great contemporary literary writers. You might try reading them sometime.
You do prove what all these people are saying: nobody reads all the words anymore. They just skim.
Might try reading them sometime? Wow. I never insulted you, and you come back with something like that? I said I enjoyed classics and would hope there are people out there who are aspirational enough to try to reach those heights. Definitely won’t be reading this blog again.
Kensi–You said the only contemporary fiction you’ve read is by Annie Proulx, Emma Cline and Gillian Flynn. I suggested some others I’d mentioned in the post..
But his is the golden age for readers of the classics!
If you want to immerse yourself in the work of Walter Scott, or Theodore Dreiser, or Anthony Trollope–not only can you get most of their works with the click of a mouse, but most of them are FREE, thanks to Google Books, which has scanned over a million classic books in the public domain and offers them free!
Anne, I recommend your blog to all my writers at http://AgileWriters.com – we help beginning writers to create a first draft in 6 months. This advice about writing for a contemporary audience is write-on [sic]! The first thing I have my writers do is identify their audience. Continued Success!
Greg–Thanks! It’s amazing how many people are filled with rage at the idea they should think about anything but themselves and their need to show off when they write.
But audience is so important. You could be the best opera singer in the world, but if you try to sing “Nessun Dorma” in a country roadhouse, you’re going to get booed off the stage. Same with a great bluegrass band at the Met. We need to think about who we’re writing for.
Thanks for this timely and helpful information, Anne. 🙂 — Suzanne
Suzanne–Thanks for stopping by!
I consider myself a 21st century human. I also love War and Peace. I’ve never felt tempted to skim ahead, but then I don’t watch television and mostly use the internet for information. I’m a Gen X person who, after many tries, doesn’t really enjoy contemporary fiction.
Most of us authors aren’t going to be the next Tolstoy or Atwood(a writer I find tedious in her constant need to express an agenda). It’s true that agents want an easy and quick winner. It’s their job to make money. I don’t have a problem with that at all. I don’t have a problem with authors who write in hopes of making a fortune. But I’d never follow a trend if it went against my artistic vision either.
We should all be humble enough to learn from others, but I disagree with giving advice to “newbies” as if they are not as 21st century as others. Of course I get that this post is about finding some success financially and some authors may find that they’ve jumped on a trending wave just in time, but many seem to get bogged down with advice and chasing trends.
The most important thing for a writer, in my opinion, is finding your voice. There are plenty of smaller niches around for when the big agents pass you by.
Adrienne–This is a publishing industry blog and we report publishing industry news for people who are interested in being professional writers. But we live in the age of self-publishing, so authors have more options than ever before.
You can translate the entire works of Amanda Mckittrick Ross into Klingon and publish it in wingdings. And who’s to say you won’t be a phenomenal success? Who would have thought that putting zombies in to Pride and Prejudice would take off? Anything is possible!
But telling me not to report the news because you don’t approve of it is kind of silly.
Oh, the tone when blogging can be so misconstrued. I agreed with almost everything you said but wanted to add that there are quite a few exceptions to the rules and that sometimes it’s the ignorant newbie who stumbles upon something original and great. I also wanted to point out there are a few of us who still enjoy a good long book–even if you’re not one of them. 😉
Sorry if you took offense.
Yes. That is what I said here: “Yes, some people do still read long literary novels.”
And here:
“Yes, George R. R. Martin writes long novels. So did J. R. R. Tolkien. They also used prologues. Michael Cunningham likes prologues too. So does Dennis Lehane. And they’re not having any trouble selling books.”
I’m sorry this post was too long for you to read in its entirety.
Interestingly, a number of people have commented that one reason why they enjoy my poetry stems from most of it being short. Many of my poems are under a page in length. Poetry isn’t fiction (to state the obvious), but perhaps we will see a resurgence of this art form, in the digital age, particularly shorter form poems. Having said that, I love Dickens, Tolstoy and Emily Bronte and I deplore the low attention spans demonstrated by some (but by no means all) modern readers.
Drew–There is a powerful link between poetry and fiction and I agree 100%. In fact I think writing poetry is a great exercise for anybody who wants to write good contemporary fiction. It’s all about learning to pack as much meaning into as few words as possible.
What doesn’t fly in today’s world is pompous, self-indulgent verbiage. Readers want us to do the editing so they don’t have to.
This is a GREAT post! I’m not a fiction writer, but much of what you say here is appropriate for nonfiction and business writing. Always remember what your audience wants. Understand the reader’s environment. Don’t waste your reader’s time. Be CLEAR. Don’t fall into the same old routine.
I suggest any writer take the time to tutor a young person or teach a course. It is amazing how they will knock you right off your academic pedestal and back to earth. They’ll help you realize who your audience really is.
AIC–I’m so glad to hear from a nonfiction writer. And yes, all this is true no matter what you’re writing. If you write for publication, you need write for your reader, not just yourself.
Writing is great for contemplation, but that should be done in your journal–the one with the lock on it.
When you’re writing for publication, you need to think of the public you’re writing for. 🙂 Academic pedestals have their place–in academia. But when you become a pro, you have to think of someone besides yourself and that prof you want to impress. Thanks for weighing in!
From a reader:
Do not understimate your reader’s intelligence and their need to be absorbed in your novel to really enjoy it. To achieve that, do not write too short novels. It is hardly worth letting myself get sucked into a story, when a story is only about 240 pages long.
Write GOOD novels. Novels that do not make all those rookie mistakes (boring dialogue, no suspense, illogical behaviour of your hero or the villain, infodumping). Write subtle descriptions while you write an active scene.
When your heroes cross a certain kind of landscape do not wax lyrical about the landscape, make the landscape known in a more original way. Active. DO – let the hero experience the landscape – use more than the eyes for that.
DON’T: Let the hero take a break at the sideline while you go on descriptive side-trail to show off you have read about those kind of landscapes or have thought about it in depths if it is a Fantasy/SF-setting … Your readers will KNOW you have been diligent when you make them vicariously experience the landscape. And the story goes on, too, while the hero ploughs through a moor (don’t write treacherous here – cliché) or gallops over a muddy plain with frontal rain trying to wash him off the horse.
Acknowledge that your readers are not dumb. Do not try to dumb down your texts to reach even the 10 year olds – when you aim for a grown up audience. You will NEVER reach 7 billion readers. You do not need to please everybody.
Do avoid filler scenes. Sex-scenes are often NOT crucial to a storyline. Then leave them out. Your readers know how sex is done … when you do not write for teenagers. And teenagers – should learn about the essentials from other sources than your books.
When are sex scenes crucial? When they describe the person in a way you cannot describe them with something else. When the way of raping of the heroine is the reason for her or the hero’s actions (do not go into more detail than absolutely necessary, some of your readers like my goodself might be women, we usually do not enjoy witnessing a rape, not even a fictional one. Do not forget, you make your world our reality for a few hours!)
It is not crucial when you want to fill just another three pages! You can hint on bedroom action without going into graphic detail in so many ways, make sex-scenes the exception, not the norm. Unless you write for Mills and Boon, of course.
Having said all this – which should enable you to save on pages: If your plot demands space, give it space.
A fantasy reader is used to read huge volumes, a SF-reader is not averse to the bigger books. A detective novel is hardly ever that big – nor are romances. So yes, genre is important.
Of course, YOU are the new literary elite and write only non-genre-literature, destined for awards and later on the Nobel Prize. Then you cannot expect to achieve mass-literature status anyway – the elite is small. Write elitist and expect poverty.
Do NOT just write a short novel because somebody tells you “only short novels sell”. That is rubbish. The mass-business is found in maximum 500 pages novels, with an average of 300. Your novel will find interested readers if you write good enough. Or, as you can see from the 50 shades success – even badly written volumes sell …
In the end: Surprise your readers, take them on a (short or long) ride let them have the time of their lives, hurt them, shock them, comfort them, surprise them – and then rinse and repeat – and it won’t really matter how huge your volume is.
Successful books, published after 2000 with more than 500 pages:
The swarm, 2004. 912 pages
Wolf hall, 2009, 604 pages
(from the Goodread list of best horror books 2016:)
winner: The FiremanHardcover, 2016, 752 pages
(from the Goodread list of best historical fiction 2016:)
third place: America’s first daughter, 2016, 580 pages
You see, you have an audience even with a larger book. Do not write Mills and Boon just because there is a mass market there.
Fran–Thanks for taking the time to write such a long blogpost. All your writing tips are great, and they are things I say often.
Too bad you weren’t able to take the time to read my post past the first paragraph.
This is not a post about writing short books. It is a post about paying attention to your READER..
But I do realize that most people don’t read long form anymore. Like you, they only read the first three lines, then skim.
Ouch! That’s short form for ouchomatic.
I love the comparison of readers of long, boring classic novels to the Stockholm Syndrome. Very funny.
หนังฝรั่ง
Koi–I thought it was hilarious. I know what he was talking about. I’ve been “held hostage” by books many times. Several novels by Henry James come to mind.
I think one of the best ways to write contemporary literary fiction is to listen to contemporary people. Their dialogue, how they speak, and what they are speaking about are authentic examples of how modern, believable fictional characters should speak and act. I love Shakespeare, but I’d never try to write like him.
Robert–Authentic dialogue is always important. You don’t want your contemporary mystery characters to sound like the 1930s characters of Raymond Chandler.
On the other hand, I’ve thrown historical novels across the room when somebody says “get your act together” in the court of Henry VIII. Getting dialogue right in historicals is tough. You can’t be totally authentic, because the language would be incomprehensible, but you don’t want all your characters to sound like they’re on Gossip Girl. And you want contemporary pacing and storytelling, even though it’s set in Shakespeare’s era.
I’ve never written anything that takes place in the distant past, but I wrote a short story that takes place in 1964, and I knew I’d have to avoid modern idioms.
As far as dialogue goes I wish I could write the snappy banter written by Ernest Lehman and Clifford Odets for Sweet Smell of Success (plus uncredited writing by Alexander Mackendrick).