The Sword and Laser discussion

Terry Brooks was complaining about Lester del Rey's editing of his first few books, asking for many rewrites, but I think books are too bloated these days, and there's not enough editing, especially of very successful authors (*cough* Peter F. Hamilton). What do you think?

May I add Stephen King, George R.R. Martin, and Robert Jordan to the list of authors desperately in need of a better editor?

I noticed that The Stand got twice as big...

OMG YES!!!

It seems like very successful authors start to ramble as the the series progresses and it does not seem to further the plot or show character change. Apparently this is acceptable and no one seems to mind. For example Harry Potter I recall thinking the last two books you could have shaved at least one hundred pages.

Conversely it seems like some of the new authors do not always get the attention they are due. I hate when i read a book from a publisher and there are grammar/spelling errors or when the pace just gets really bad.

Niven & Benford's Bowl of Heaven isn't long (cliffhanger though), but apparently it has a lot of plot mistakes.

Tamahome wrote: "I noticed that The Stand got twice as big..."

I noticed that when I saw it in the library ...was it re-released? My book from like the 90's was shorter...wonder what that is about? Is the book suddenly better??

King re-released The Stand with parts that were originally cut out. I guess it's like a director's cut of a movie. An author's cut?
They did this also with Stranger in a Strange Land after Heinlein died. I don't know that it actually improves the books.

I still have the original paperback of The Stand with the blue spooky face on the cover.

I think established authors should be able to release so-called author's cuts.

I like big books, I cannot lie.

Phil wrote: "King re-released The Stand with parts that were originally cut out. I guess it's like a director's cut of a movie. An author's cut?
They did this also with Stranger in a Strange Land after Hein..."

ah that explains it

I think someone on here said that if the author's name is bigger than the title on the book, they don't get edited.

I think a lot of books released lately need better general editing as well as better copy editing and proofreading.

I like big sprawling epics to get lost in, with layers upon layers of story telling and characters and sidesteps that aren't immediately necessary for the main plot to work.

I like a lot of other types of stuff too, but the really big stuff like Jordan and Rothfuss will always be my favorite.

Honestly I get annoyed every time I see someone complaining like in this thread. If you don't like big epics, don't read them. There's plenty of other stuff around.

Kim wrote: "I think a lot of books released lately need better general editing as well as better copy editing and proofreading."

[image error]

I've never really felt like Stephen King needed another editor, Yes, they're long, but the characters and pacing is usually sufficient to keep me interested. Keep in mind, he's also written some very short work as well.

I think George R. R. Martin needs to use his editor more. If you can't write your way out of a problem in a few years, it's time to give it to your editor for a fresh perspective. Might cut down on the time between books. That said, his finished product is usually very polished. We all like the food descriptions, admit it!

As for Brooks, has anyone read Sometimes the Magic Works: Lessons from a Writing Life? He talks about del Rey in there as well. There's also a fascinating insight into what it's like to write Star Wars novels.

I blame technology. Back in the days when you had to type everything out on paper (once per draft), then you had to have a really good reason to write something that long. These days, with word processors it's way too easy to just kind of keep going and going and going and going.

Book got back?

I always use Tolkien as my inspiration, specifically The Hobbit. He managed to write one of the best fantasy adventure stories and only in a few hundred pages. I firmly believe that any one writing that today would turn it into a five part monster epic.

i agree with Joseph too about the computer, maybe you don't appreciate how big your novel is unlike in the old days where writers saw the paper stacking up. Maybe even getting concerned about the papers blowing away or getting lost - all that typing for nothing...better get it to the publisher asap.

Even better, write everything with a quill and ink.



Wait, I think Neil Stephenson does. That certainly didn't work...

I don't get the bigger is better in books philosophy. It's just meaningless. Size means nothing of substance. What is written is far more important than how much is written. I'll take a well written short story over a poorly written 1000+ page tome any day.

Kim wrote: "I don't get the bigger is better in books philosophy. It's just meaningless. Size means nothing of substance. What is written is far more important than how much is written. I'll take a well writte..."

I agree completely.

And the thing about Charles Dickens and Alexandre Dumas and guys like that is, at the time they were writing, they weren't writing books -- they were writing serialized stories for magazines, which were later collected together and published. So in a way what they were doing was almost the 19th century equivalent of writing Lost or Battlestar: Galactica where you start, you keep going until it seems time to end it and (most importantly) you generally don't have the ability to go back and modify earlier installments to reflect changes in your vision of the story.

So I guess you prefer Tad Williams's latest to his longer older books?

Sandi wrote: "Kim wrote: "I don't get the bigger is better in books philosophy. It's just meaningless. Size means nothing of substance. What is written is far more important than how much is written. I'll take a..."

Like Sandi and Kim said it is not about the size but the quality of the work. My issue with editing is about plots, pace and grammar.

I wonder if the role of editing itself is changing in the new publishing era...maybe it is my imagination but it seems like there is more emphasis on marketing a book than editing on a grand scale (i.e. reworking the plot, character or tone).

Kim wrote: "I don't get the bigger is better in books philosophy. It's just meaningless. Size means nothing of substance. What is written is far more important than how much is written. I'll take a well writte..."

This type of comparisons never made sense to me. It's just so disingenuous. So you take something good over something bad? Erh, ... congratulations?

I'll take a well written 1000+ page tome (say Sandersons tWoK or Rothfuss's tNotW) over a well written short any day.

I also think a lot of you rose-colored glasses people need to go read some older books before hiking through the snow uphill both ways and you'll notice that a lot of those are filled to the brim with flowery language and meandering plots and waxing asides that do nothing to improve their pace.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that automagically the editor is incompetent or the writer's head is to big for his own good. It might just mean that you don't like something.

KevinB wrote: "This type of comparisons never made sense to me. It's just so disingenuous. So you take something good over something bad? Erh, ... congratulations?"

It isn't disingenuous. There are people who refuse to read books unless they're a certain size or larger, who don't think a short story/book can be good. Or those who automatically think bigger equals better which is definitely not true. I'm not saying a big book is bad (I love both books you mentioned) my point is that a big book is not automatically a good one.

I think it has more to do with the quality of the story than the length of the tome, I have gone to work on a couple of hours sleep while racing through a SK book, will agree that Jordan needed better editing in some of the WoT books. But I just scan through the slow parts and get on with it. I have also attempted to read some of the "icons" and done a LEM because they were so meandering. Bottom line, size, one way or another, does not quality make. Story and characters you care about do.

When the book is too long the worst part about it is that it's also heavy.

I would like to add the Safehold series by David Weber. Each of those books could have a couple of hundred pages trimmed out.

KevinB wrote: "I also think a lot of you rose-colored glasses people need to go read some older books before hiking through the snow uphill both ways and you'll notice that a lot of those are filled to the brim with flowery language and meandering plots and waxing asides that do nothing to improve their pace."

Those guys were being paid by the word or page. The modern novelist is not. It's not length itself that's under discussion, it's length that adds nothing to the story.

Dawn wrote: I wonder if the role of editing itself is changing in the new publishing era...maybe it is my imagination but it seems like there is more emphasis on marketing a book than editing on a grand scale (i.e. reworking the plot, character or tone)..."

+1

I read Asimov's, but I much prefer longer novels to short stories, as long as the writing is relatively equal. I think good worldbuilding takes time. You can do it on a limited basis in shorts, but in order for me to slip into the fictive dream, it usually takes a chapter or two, and in a short sotry, that's when the thing is just ending. I remember picking up Dune one Saturday morning and reading until the next day. That complete loss of your surroundings when even going to the bathroom prickles on the skin, just doesn't happen for me with a short. Only a good novel can do that, and a GOOD novel can do that for 600-800 pages before I start to need a resolution.

Two reasons I believe longer works generate significant followings:

(1) Perceived value. Some folks prefer to invest their time in a banquet versus a snack, assuming the quality of the food is roughly the same.

(2) Emotional investment. I think some readers are more loathe to become attached to a tale when said story is a wham-bam-thank you ma'am experience. If one is going to turn over part of one's heart to a novel, it has to be long enough to justify such a serious and heartfelt engagement.

"I believe the novella is the perfect form of prose fiction. It is the beautiful daughter of a rambling, bloated ill-shaven giant (but a giant who’s a genius on his best days)."

Nice!

I hated The Stand, thought it was pure bloat and waffle, and just never go to the point. Put me off from ever picking up another Stephen King book.

Rothfuss has written large books, but they are also heavily edited and would be even more 'bloated' without extensive rewriting and trimming. The finished product is 100 pounds of well marbled beef instead of a ton of raw animal.

Spelling and grammar errors are basically unexcusable, unless they are intentional. Personally, I find them very disjointing and they interrupt the spell of the narrative. Rambling descriptions can add to worldbuilding and fit in some circumstances, but the key thing is knowing what is enough to achieve the point, anything extra is just filling and takes away from the whole.

It's like a turkey feast. If you have enough to be sated, it can be a delicious meal, but if you eat too fast and have too much, it can sit poorly in your belly and diminish the pleasure of everything else that came before.

Tim wrote: "I hated The Stand, thought it was pure bloat and waffle, and just never go to the point. Put me off from ever picking up another Stephen King book."

I read the original version of The Stand and thought it had some tour de force passages. I wouldn't want to read the new 2x version though.

As someone who is accustomed to multi volume fantasy series, the individual books of which rival telephone directories, I found The Stand a somewhat anemic tome.

Seriously though, compared to a series by Erikson or Martin, it's a pretty short epic. And it is an epic, there's very little horror in it. By the time all the people of the earth are whittled down to the Chosen of God, and the Servants of the Beast, where in epic fantasy country.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect in the conversation. For those seeing this as an attack on long fiction, it simply isn't. It's a discussion about the seemingly waning influence of editors. People who's jobs are to look at writings and make them better.

One of the reasons that that Rothfuss's novels are so excellent is that he sends out drafts to beta readers and continually fine tunes his work. He stated that he has around 200 betas giving feedback.

Making stories better doesn't necessarily mean making them shorter. It's simply easiest to point out the filler that does not pertain to plot, character development, etc. than it is to see where there are holes that should have been filled.

Stephen King, who wrote that 1200 page "The Stand"(at least when I read the hardback), has often been quoted as saying "Kill your darlings." He's talking about all the prose, characters, scenes and fluff that detracts from the work.

A huge part of an editor's job is to point out the "darling's" that the writer missed.

As a side note, I love the Wheel of Time, but it could have lost 2 or 3 books worth of content (not 2-3 individual books) and it would have been better for it. Not because it was shorter, but because there was a great deal of content that did not serve the story.

Just as a note my Mom is an editor, primarily for Indi Writers, and I just asked her what she does more take things out or put them in. She says that it tends to be pretty balanced between the two.

Thought you guys might find her perspective interesting.

Evgeny wrote: "May I add Stephen King, George R.R. Martin, and Robert Jordan to the list of authors desperately in need of a better editor?"

Yes. And David Weber. The fifth entry into his Safehold series had almost nothing happen in it.

Edit: Oops, should've read farther down.

AndrewP wrote: "I would like to add the Safehold series by David Weber. Each of those books could have a couple of hundred pages trimmed out."

KevinB wrote: "I also think a lot of you rose-colored glasses people need to go read some older books before hiking through the snow uphill both ways and you'll notice that a lot of those are filled to the brim with flowery language and meandering plots and waxing asides that do nothing to improve their pace."

This is exactly why I've always disliked Dickens and Hawthorne. Why say what you mean in 7 words when you can use 70? Argh.

Julia wrote: "Just as a note my Mom is an editor, primarily for Indi Writers, and I just asked her what she does more take things out or put them in. She says that it tends to be pretty balanced between the ..."

That is interesting. I wonder how someone goes about getting into the editing world.

John Green posted a vlogbrothers video, primarily dedicated to the role of editors in writing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLwJT-...

Kim wrote: "There are people who refuse to read books unless they're a certain size or larger, who don't think a short story/book can be good. Or those who automatically think bigger equals better which is definitely not true."

Obviously, these people had a good experience with a really long book, and lacking any reliable recommendation system (or unwilling to talk to knowledgeable booksellers) decided that large page counts indicate a work worth their time. I wonder if these people are really the drivers behind the trend, and if it will last with the advent of recommendation systems like Amazon's and Goodreads'.

I agree that some successful authors tend to let their books get a bit bloated, especially at the end of a series, but I had no complaints about the length of To Green Angle Tower (last 'book' in Tad Williams's Memory Sorrow and Thorn trilogy).

I do wonder how fans might have reacted if Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows had been trimmed to the length of Philosophers/Sorcerer's Stone, even if it was her best writing and wrapped everything up.

A few comments...

1) Dickens, Trollope and others were paid by the word in those novels that were serialized first. One reason their works were long is that it literally paid them to write that way.

2) Some people like to wallow in the world created by an author. Some, perhaps much, of the pleasure they get from reading is to feel immersed in an alternate reality. They don't care as much if a chapter or section moves the story along as long as it immerses them in a world that they love. It's pure escapism and there's nothing wrong with that. However...

3) Some people want the story to move along not because they want pace or shorter works but because they don't want to simply spend time in the fictional world...they want to feel carried along by the story and its characters.

The people who mostly fit in bucket 2 love long works whether or not they are tightly edited. The people who fit in bucket 3 are usually fine with long works IF the length is required by the story.

I'm a #3 person. I can read a long book or series but can't stand aimless wandering or fluff chapters. That said, I can't deal with fluff even in shorter works - drives me up the wall. It's the same with movies. Some longer movies are tightly plotted and things keep happening so you get to the end and think "wow, that was almost 3 hours?" Other 2 hour movies have fluff in them and I end up looking at my watch.

Rick wrote: "A few comments...

1) Dickens, Trollope and others were paid by the word in those novels that were serialized first. One reason their works were long is that it literally paid them to write that w..."

I'm definitely a 2. My favorite part of Lord of the Rings is the second half of Book I. Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Downs, the Old Forest. None of it has anything to do with the larger story, but it's beautiful world building. While many people complain about the Interludes in Way of Kings, they were my favorite part, because you got to see more of the world that was not immediate to the story.

Ironically, my own fiction is very immediate, with very little that is not directly related to character, story or plot.

Leesa wrote: "I think established authors should be able to release so-called author's cuts.

I like big books, I cannot lie."

:)

I'm probably a 2 and a half on that scale. I like the immersive detailed world building, but I like the story to move along too :)

The a fore mentioned To Green Angel Tower and The Way of Kings both do this very well in my opinion.

Andrew - I suspect most of us are a mix. Like most hard and fast categories, these are meant as touchstones for conversation rather than absolutes. I think the people who love really long, meandering novels even if they're not moving along are a significant force in fantasy though and contribute to the tendency for novels to bit incredibly long and series to grow from 3-4 books to 9-12.

Much as I like Sanderson's work the Stormlight series holds no interest for me since he seems to have decided that it will be 10 volumes. What if he gets into it and finds that the story naturally would fit in fewer pages? Too often it seems to me that authors write in a universe because they know it will sell vs because they have more to say.

Rick wrote: "Much as I like Sanderson's work the Stormlight series holds no interest for me since he seems to have decided that it will be 10 volumes. What if he gets into it and finds that the story naturally would fit in fewer pages? "

I have seen him say that too, but I always took that as a SWAG (or maybe it's WAG since there is no science involved?) on his part.

Simply a statement that he wanted to write a long ~10 book series. It could end up being 8 books or maybe 12 as he goes along. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Edit

So I went and I did some searching. This is what he said when he announced it on his blog

"KINGS stands at 425,000 words right now. I'll be trimming that down to (hopefully) 380-390k when I do the next draft. (Which will be the final draft.) That will put it at roughly double the length of MISTBORN or ELANTRIS.

The series is called the Stormlight Archive, and Tor purchased four books from me. I'm not planning that to be the end, though I'm cautious at locking myself into a certain number of books. (Though I do have the entire series plotted, and am fairly certain I know exactly how many books it will be.) For now, let me just say that it won't be as long as the Wheel of Time, but will be longer than anything I've attempted so far."