| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 04:14:55
I was just wondering what would happen if we got a 1000 page book in lieu of a trilogy? Would it change how the story was paced? How would the consumer react to it? If it was a "trade paperback" size book, would you buy it, if it was, say 22 dollars american, for example?
If any authors want to chime in, if you were given the same concept as some of your trilogies have had, but were told it would be a single book around 1000 pages instead of three separate books, would it alter how you viewed the overall plot and story? Would you pace things differently?
Part of why I am curious about this, and this is by no means meant as an indictment, is that many trilogies really are one large story, not three independant stories with related characters and themes. There is nothing wrong with this, since the precedence was really set in fantasy by the Lord of the Rings, which Tolkien himself said was really one long story, just broken up by his editor into three books.
I know some scribes wait to buy whole trilogies to read them, but to those that don't, would the higher price for a large trade paperback be an impediment to your getting the book.
Just some random thoughts, thanks for your time and any ideas you care to share here. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gellion |
Posted - 16 Jul 2006 : 01:55:12
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
The little books are so hard to read for me in bed. They don't have the weight to stay in the positions I want them too.. But I have big, clunky hands.. Same reason I dislike laptops. :)
Heh, I agree that little books are hard to read in bed. That is part of the reason why I set up a reading corner in my room. Another problem I have with reading in bed is that my elbow often starts to ache as I have to prop myself in a position in which I am leaning on it.
|
| Horatio |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 20:56:04
Trilogy.
For one thing it's less cumbersome, and it's more satisfying to know that theoretically you finish three books instead of one. Just my simple reasoning to why it's preferable. |
| Wandering_mage |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 22:56:49
Only history books put me to sleep. And I love history books. The genre just has some dry writers sometimes.
I read my books in bed and everywhere else!  |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 08:03:58
Hehe this thread has been officially hyjacked into the "how and where do you read your realms books." :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 06:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Hey, I understand! When I'm really tired, and getting all comfty, the most interesting books can't keep me awake.
Ditto that... And I have a sleep-inducing couch.  |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:29:53
Hey, I understand! When I'm really tired, and getting all comfty, the most interesting books can't keep me awake. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:21:51
I fell asleep reading in bed the other night. My wife was laughing at me because I was sitting straight up in bed, with my copy of Shining South open on my lap, snoring to beat all . . .
Disclaimer: The above post is mearly a recitation of a real life event, and should not be construed as a commentary as to the level of excitement generated by the particular tome mentioned, but rather was a reflection of the fact that the poster in question had only gotten four hours sleep in 48 hours.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:18:40
I sometimes get so comfortable I just fall asleep. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 03:57:29
I don't read in bed either, never can get comfortable doing it. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 03:01:59
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I guess that's one of the many differences between guys 'n gals? ;)
Heh, maybe. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 01:29:59
Ha, ha...
I know people who would claim otherwise however .
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 01:26:55
I guess that's one of the many differences between guys 'n gals? ;) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 01:22:54
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
The little books are so hard to read for me in bed. They don't have the weight to stay in the positions I want them too.. But I have big, clunky hands.. Same reason I dislike laptops. :)
Very true.
I often feel the same way. I don't regularly read FR novels while in bed, unless they're harcovers.
|
| Lameth |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 18:30:42
quote:
Originally posted by SirUrza
It wouldn't happen for the same reason you don't see Robert Jordin in supermarkets. 1,000+ novels don't fit on shelves that sell books. You can only keep 1 or 2 copies on book "racks" of a 1,000 page novel where you can fit 4, maybe even 5 of smaller novels.
Also, let's just say that WOTC takes $4 of every $7 as profit from a 250-300 page novel. Make it a 1000 pages and the novel is only 9.. let's likely $5 or $5.50. What do you think they'd rather get $4 x3 or $5 x1. Obviously these numbers aren't accruate, but you have to think from the marketing ascept of it.
A 1,000 pages also commits them to the author to publish the novel. A 300 page novel is "a lot" easier to send back to an author and say; this, this, and this need to be reworked, then a 1,000 page novel.
That`s the reason why german publisher split "The Dark Elf Trilogy" and "The Icewind Dale Trilogy" in 6 books. tztztz
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
And since I normally wait until the whole three books for a trilogy are released to read the story itself, an 1,000 page book would be ideal.
I agree. And an 1,000 page books is better to handle in bed 
|
| SirUrza |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 07:07:42
It wouldn't happen for the same reason you don't see Robert Jordin in supermarkets. 1,000+ novels don't fit on shelves that sell books. You can only keep 1 or 2 copies on book "racks" of a 1,000 page novel where you can fit 4, maybe even 5 of smaller novels.
Also, let's just say that WOTC takes $4 of every $7 as profit from a 250-300 page novel. Make it a 1000 pages and the novel is only 9.. let's likely $5 or $5.50. What do you think they'd rather get $4 x3 or $5 x1. Obviously these numbers aren't accruate, but you have to think from the marketing ascept of it.
A 1,000 pages also commits them to the author to publish the novel. A 300 page novel is "a lot" easier to send back to an author and say; this, this, and this need to be reworked, then a 1,000 page novel.
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 06:01:50
The little books are so hard to read for me in bed. They don't have the weight to stay in the positions I want them too.. But I have big, clunky hands.. Same reason I dislike laptops. :) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 05:21:09
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I typically read novels in the comfort of my bed. :)
I do that often, myself, but even then I prefer the little books. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 04:40:06
I typically read novels in the comfort of my bed. :)
I in fact <3 huge books. I just finished the hardback version of Kushiel's Scion, which was 700+ pages.. I enjoyed it very much. But, then again, I enjoy anything by Jacqueline Carey. *Runs off to continue reading Godslayer* |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 04:23:10
Well, not the elves in that book, but you make a good point.
As I said before, the only think about the "doorstopper" books is that they are more unwieldly than the little paperbacks. |
| Wandering_mage |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 03:05:41
All good points and KnighterrantJR thanks every one very much appropriately. Thanks Knight. I still have to breathe slowly because I read the forum thread and almost jumped through the ceiling with excitement. I love 1,000 page books. I have been thinking about getting the new Drizzt doorstopper books but I do have the very first books that came out for the Drizzt series. That would be hard to part with. I would love if WotC released a 1,000 page book on the final gate series. Booyah Elves rock! |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 15:58:18
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Richard has superbly put the writers' point of view in this, so let me (as an editor) add some of the publishers' views:
Publishers are in business to make a profit. For every book, they must decide press run, format (including length), and price. (With an eye to profit margin.)
Move the price point up, especially if the book seems "small" to a casual buyer, and the sales go down. Shift it too high, and sales will be to a select few. Make it too low, and some buyers will suspect the product is no good. Make the format too different from what the chain bookstores want (in terms of shelf space), and they'll refuse to carry it, chop their orders down, or you'll suffer when buyers decide. And let's face it, a bookstore can put six copies of something slim on the rack in the same space that will only hold three thick "doorstop" mass market paperbacks.
In some cases (examples: Tor Books, with the current series Charles Stross is writing and with Paul Park's first novel), publishers cut books in half regardless of authors' wishes, to get the price point they deem right.
Wizards is no different. If they put out a book that's too expensive for its size (example: the current Dragons: Worlds Aflame) the orders and sales will be low. That's a different problem from printing too many copies of something that the public just doesn't seem to want. That's one of the reasons most WotC books have a "standard" wordcount, inside a given series or line. So the 1000-pagers will tend to appear only as omnibus collections of already-successful books.
Now, if * I * was running Wizards (and how many times have you heard THAT phrase?), I'd release omnibus volumes with new covers, authors' notes, and a new short story involving (some of) the same characters and locales, or as an expanded epilogue, or the like: always including "goodies" to boost sales.
However, as Ed Greenwood always says, it's probably a very good thing I'm not running Wizards. 
love to all,
THO
And thank you THO for the other, other side of the picture. Also, as a fan of "deleted scenes" on DVD and director's commentary and the like, I would indeed like it if some of the major trilogies, if rereleased as omnibus editions, had some extras to them. For example, I really liked the annotated Chronicles and Legends in the DragonLance line. |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 15:40:50
Doesn't bother me if it is trilogy form or large book form. I read epic novels (600+ pages usually) in addition to sci-fi/fantasy, history non-fiction, historical fic, etc. My personal favorite is the "trilogy" by Sienkiewicz, written in the late 1800's. I am finishing up re-reading the second book, the Deluge, which was broken into two books (the second book has two books!) of 587 and 673 pages in length respectively.
Mkhaiwati |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 15:36:00
Richard has superbly put the writers' point of view in this, so let me (as an editor) add some of the publishers' views:
Publishers are in business to make a profit. For every book, they must decide press run, format (including length), and price. (With an eye to profit margin.)
Move the price point up, especially if the book seems "small" to a casual buyer, and the sales go down. Shift it too high, and sales will be to a select few. Make it too low, and some buyers will suspect the product is no good. Make the format too different from what the chain bookstores want (in terms of shelf space), and they'll refuse to carry it, chop their orders down, or you'll suffer when buyers decide. And let's face it, a bookstore can put six copies of something slim on the rack in the same space that will only hold three thick "doorstop" mass market paperbacks.
In some cases (examples: Tor Books, with the current series Charles Stross is writing and with Paul Park's first novel), publishers cut books in half regardless of authors' wishes, to get the price point they deem right.
Wizards is no different. If they put out a book that's too expensive for its size (example: the current Dragons: Worlds Aflame) the orders and sales will be low. That's a different problem from printing too many copies of something that the public just doesn't seem to want. That's one of the reasons most WotC books have a "standard" wordcount, inside a given series or line. So the 1000-pagers will tend to appear only as omnibus collections of already-successful books.
Now, if * I * was running Wizards (and how many times have you heard THAT phrase?), I'd release omnibus volumes with new covers, authors' notes, and a new short story involving (some of) the same characters and locales, or as an expanded epilogue, or the like: always including "goodies" to boost sales.
However, as Ed Greenwood always says, it's probably a very good thing I'm not running Wizards.
love to all,
THO |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 15:12:52
I read the FR books unsually on the road. So I do prefer smaller books over hardcover large 1000-pages books. Just a personal opinion...... |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 15:04:51
river: WotC does do stand-alone FR novels, as well as series that run longer than three volumes, so it's not like everything's a trilogy.
You're unquestionably correct that most fantasy epics. FR or otherwise, could be condensed. They're gemerally somewhat episodic in structure, and they've got subplots. Lose some of the obstacles the characters need to overcome, dump a subplot or two, and presto: shorter epic. But is this automatically a good thing? If you're trimming stuff that's boring or redundant, then obviously, it's the correct choice. But if you're hacking out stuff that's entertaining, that doesn't necessarily improve the work.
And the tricky part of making this evaluation is, what strikes one reader as repetiive or pointless may please another. The point is often made that you can cut Tom Bombadil from Lord of the Rings (as Peter Jackson did) and the overall plot of the story works just fine without him. But there are plenty of readers who enjoy this part of the novel. |
| riverc0il |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 12:26:21
i would love to have a single story condensed into a single tomb. i don't think tolkien's lord of the rings started this whole triology thing. lotr is actually six books, but is currently sold as a trilogy with two "books" to each release. tolkien sure didn't start off thinking, "i want to break this up into three books and sell it as a trilogy." and when you read lotr, it shows as there isn't any typical wrap up or cliff hanger between books or a "refresher" at the beginning of the next. it was just a logical place to cut the story up at.
as for FR, the trilogy seems like an institutional standard at this point. and unfortunately, i think stories suffer for it. it seems like WoTC mandate three 327 page books in each trilogy with only special events or special subject matter getting special one volume releases (evermeet). i would liken it to trying to write specific form poetry: the masters do it really well, other wise, most people are limited in getting the message across by trying to fit the form.
i suppose it does give the author more time to write out all three books so they can be released one year at a time. it also makes it so WoTC can release many titles a year, instead of a few big ones. it also fits the consumer pocket and consumer thinking that its only $7 per book instead of $20 for one book (which would be cheaper!).
i think one big book could potentially be a LOT shorter. second and third parts of a trilogy usually need to do some "refresher." in a year's time, i forget about characters and plot (which is why i normally wait until just before a third book in a trilogy is going to be released before buying the first two). also, second books generally suffer from "bridge" syndrome in which they really don't do anything or go anywhere, they just setup the third book in the series.
compared to multiple book series' like orson scott card's ender series, it shows a difference in maturaty of reasons for breaking up a series. each book in the ender quartet virtually stands on its own with exception of a few linger questions. most of the questions are answered, but you wonder what the characters will do next... what their next "adventure" would be, for lack of better words. serious science fiction like this is not affraid to release massive 600-700 page (or more) books. and i think if FR got rid of the middle book and condensed three books into one tomb, most books could really be told in 700-800 pages.
i guess this is a minor pet peeve of mine and one of numerous things that make me feel that FR is getting stale by falling into patterns. everything is getting predictable and it seems like many things in the novel world are done not with best artist intention in mind, but really what will drive sales. i suppose WoTC needs to make money to continue selling product, especially under their current parent company, but the format of FR and FR stories seems tired. i would love to see things mixed up with single volume long novels instead of trilogies. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 06:59:51
Thanks for the reply Richard. I always appreciate your insight into the way you write, and you definately have a good perspective on this what with just finishing up one major trilogy and moving into another one now.
Its funny, I knew the timeline was moving forward, obviously, but until you mentioned it, I didn't pick up on exactly how much it was moving forward at a time, but it makes perfect sense now that you point that out. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 06:56:11
When I write a trilogy, I try to give a sense of closure or at least movement at the end of the first two books. On a certain level, I want you to feel that I told you a complete story, or, failing that, I at least want you to come away feeling that the plot of the overall saga advanced significantly.
At the same time, of course, I want you to be eager to know what happens next, so paradoxically, I'm also going for a sense of non-closure. There's a balance I'm trying to strike between satisfaction and suspense.
I'm not sure I'm being clear here, but maybe an example will make things clearer. In The Year of Rogue Dragons
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
Book One asks and answers the questions, why is the Rage happening and why is it so bad this time around? Book Two asks and answers the question, how do we stop the Rage? Book Three asks and answers the questions, where do the characters need to go to try the remedy they've devised, can they get there, and will the fix work if they do? So you see, each book resolves elements of the plot and (I hope) makes you feel you got closer to the finish line, but still, you need to finish the whole trilogy to see the big, fundmanetal issues resolved.
I guess that if I'd done the story as a single jumbo volume, maybe I wouldn't have been so intent on structuring it this way (in discrete thirds.) But still, it might not have been so very different, because I still would have plotted it the way most long-ish adventure stories are plotted: the characters overcome obstacles to progress toward their goal, but there are always even more daunting obstacles waiting and the stakes are always going up until you get to the climax.
I think that in a way, knowing you're telling your long story in three volumes can help you pace and structure it. With YoRD, because of the three-book format, I made up my mind early on that each novel would cover four months and each would have its particular questions to raise and resolve. Deciding just that much was a big step forward in terms of shaping the plot. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 06:32:24
I got my Fafhrd and Mouser books grouped into three different books from the SFBC back when I was in High School . . . unfortunately I lost them in my various moves, and I have never been able to find a copy of The Knight and Knave of Swords since then . . . and sadness ensues (I love Fafhrd and Mouser). At any rate, I myself would have no problems with a 1000 page book of FR goodness (I have the Dark Elf Trilogy, Icewindale Trilogy, and the Cleric Quintet in that format, though I read them initially in paperback form). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Jul 2006 : 06:28:19
If a trilogy or series is available in a single, reasonably priced volume, I'll likely buy it and read it that way. That's how I reread The Lord of the Rings, and also how I read the Narnia books... And if the Fafhrd and Gray Mouser books had been available in a single volume, it would have been a lot easier for me to find and read them all! |
|
|
