# How to get published



## SeverinR

This site looks pretty good, sounds like the person is a literary agent and offers links to information.
I have only skimmed over the first page, so I am not saying this is a great site or not.

How to Get Published | Rachelle Gardner

Maybe this site will help answer some of the questions concerning getting published.

I think this one is important:
These help you make sure you’re dealing with reputable people: Writer Beware and Preditors & Editors.

How to write a proposal, how to write a query.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

It's worth noting that the first site has a good link to another site that lists expected word counts:
The Swivet [Colleen Lindsay]: All new & revised: On word counts and novel length

It's really depressing to read about the expectations, though.  I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to cut out a third of my sci-fi novel to meet those requirements.  Everything builds on everything else, and I know I don't have filler because I don't have the patience to write it.


----------



## Bloggsworth

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It's worth noting that the first site has a good link to another site that lists expected word counts:
> The Swivet [Colleen Lindsay]: All new & revised: On word counts and novel length
> 
> It's really depressing to read about the expectations, though.  I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to cut out a third of my sci-fi novel to meet those requirements.  Everything builds on everything else, and I know I don't have filler because I don't have the patience to write it.



That's because you wrote it. Look at it objectively, then cut and tighten, cut and tighten.


----------



## Bookkus

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It's worth noting that the first site has a good link to another site that lists expected word counts:
> The Swivet [Colleen Lindsay]: All new & revised: On word counts and novel length
> 
> It's really depressing to read about the expectations, though.  I have absolutely no idea how I'm going to cut out a third of my sci-fi novel to meet those requirements.  Everything builds on everything else, and I know I don't have filler because I don't have the patience to write it.



Check out this one: Data Driven Sales: Smash Words Blog 
Read the slide share; it says longer words counts are better for sales. I like longer novels anyway. Although that was for self-publishing... so maybe publishers aren't okay with it.


----------



## movieman

Bookkus said:


> Although that was for self-publishing... so maybe publishers aren't okay with it.



The big difference really is between paper books and e-books. Most readers won't pay enough for a 300,000 word first novel to make it profitable in print, whereas releasing it as an e-book doesn't cost that much more than releasing a 50,000 word novel (obviously some more editing time, proof-reading, etc). If you're as famous as Stephen King, then a 300,000 word novel may be financially viable.


----------



## Bookkus

True. You could always cut it up. 3 books.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

Bookkus said:


> Check out this one: Data Driven Sales: Smash Words Blog
> Read the slide share; it says longer words counts are better for sales. I like longer novels anyway. Although that was for self-publishing... so maybe publishers aren't okay with it.



Except here, "longer" means "greater than 100,000 words" (which isn't long at all).  I'm sure sales drop drastically as you get past 150,000 words.



Bookkus said:


> True. You could always cut it up. 3 books.



I've never understood this advice.  If your book is plotted properly, splitting it up would ruin the flow, wouldn't it? And if you can make it into two stories without much difficulty, why was it one in the first place?


----------



## Rustgold

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I've never understood this advice.  If your book is plotted properly, splitting it up would ruin the flow, wouldn't it? And if you can make it into two stories without much difficulty, why was it one in the first place?



Because a series sells.  A stand alone book would have to be so outstanding, it'd be something we don't see in today's writing.  I pretty much doubt the average person would be able to name a best selling standalone book written in the last 30 years.  Plus compare $60 vs 20, and you end up with a no contest.


----------



## shadowwalker

Rustgold said:


> Because a series sells.  A stand alone book would have to be so outstanding, it'd be something we don't see in today's writing.  I pretty much doubt the average person would be able to name a best selling standalone book written in the last 30 years.  Plus compare $60 vs 20, and you end up with a no contest.



But that's just splitting it for the monetary purpose - not the 'writerly' one. If you split any book into several, you'd have to do considerable rewriting - each one would have to have a proper ending, and some things alluded to may have to be removed until the next book or it would seem a loose end - and not the good kind. Each would have to have a proper beginning as well. And, as Gamer asked - if you can easily split it up, why wasn't it done so to begin with? There's more to writing a series than just chopping up an elongated book.


----------



## BubbleCow

I would suggest Mark Coker's FREE ebook called The Secrets of Ebook Publishing Success. Mark is the guy who runs Smashwords, the book is packed full of the tips he has learned from his best selling writers. ​Smashwords — The Secrets to Ebook Publishing Success &mdash; A book by Mark Coker


----------



## Skodt

I guess I hope to be an exception. I am about 23 chapters in with 76k words. If I go at about the same chapter rate it will end up about 126k words.


----------



## David B. Ramirez

On word counts, if you're going by traditional publishing, it is what it is. The longer a book, the more they risk, and they won't risk 125k words on a debut author unless the cover/query letter and writing are utterly amazing. Somewhat related is G. R. R. Martin's opinion, which is that one should master shorter projects before thinking about longer projects. 

That post is at Kristin Nelson's Blog, which in my biased opinion is one of most informative publishing blogs out there with lots of goodies about agents, contracts, sample queries, etc.


----------



## shadowwalker

David B. Ramirez said:


> Somewhat related is G. R. R. Martin's opinion, which is that one should master shorter projects before thinking about longer projects.



I'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr Martin. If you start out with short stories, you will master short stories. When you then move to novels - you're starting from scratch. Other than grammar and basic writing skills, short stories will not prepare you for writing novels - or vice versa. The only reason I can see to start with short stories is that you have a better chance of making yourself finish them. On the other hand, if you're a novelist at heart, forcing yourself to write short stories could be a very good way of convincing yourself you have no future as a writer.


----------



## David B. Ramirez

Short stories are different enough from novels that I kind of agree with you shadowwalker, at least in terms of mastering the form. But each scene or chapter of a novel is essentially a short story, though not one with a fully encapsulated plot, so it's not totally wrong. As you say, the basic skills are the same, but that still covers a lot; dialogue, depicting consistent and memorable characters, choosing what to detail and what to leave out...

And for the rest of his opinion, there's definitely validity to saying it's not wise to start off planning for your first novel to be the first in a seven book series. All the difficulties in doing the structure for the plot of one novel are magnified in a series, particularly since once a book comes out, the author can't retcon those events (as in comics) if he later realizes that he's hamstrung the plot for book 3 because of something a character did in book 1.


----------



## Morkonan

shadowwalker said:


> I'd have to respectfully disagree with Mr  Martin. If you start out with short stories, you will master short  stories. When you then move to novels - you're starting from scratch.  Other than grammar and basic writing skills, short stories will not  prepare you for writing novels - or vice versa. The only reason I can  see to start with short stories is that you have a better chance of  making yourself finish them. On the other hand, if you're a novelist at  heart, forcing yourself to write short stories could be a very good way  of convincing yourself you have no future as a writer.



Writing  shorts can do much more than teach you how to write shorts and I think  it's disingenuous to say that such a writer would be _"starting from scratch"_  when it comes down to the skills necessary to write a novel. What's a  novel, really, except a bunch of connected scenes and a few more bits of  dialogue? Well, a couple of years of development, sometimes, is what it  is. But, during that time, you could have churned out a hundred shorts,  fully completed works, ready for sale or even for further development  into a full-length novel.

I think Bradbury said it best, and I'll try to paraphrase it accurately - _"If  you try to write a novel, you may have a whole year or more with  nothing to show for it and not much learned. But, if you first start  with short stories, you could do one a week and have fifty-two of them.  Along the way, you'll have a chance to learn by doing. And, I think I  can guarantee you that at least one of them will be worth selling."_ (Paraphrased)

In  short, writing short stories can be tremendously instructive in the  practice it provides the writer in actually completing a work, writing  scenes, writing dialogue, working out plots and fixing problems. Sure,  it is a bit different. There are different considerations and  constraints. A novel is, after all, a tremendously difficult affair. A  good one is even harder to produce. But, that's simply a genre  difference with short stories, not a difference when it comes to the  quality of instruction or the necessary use of skills. If one wrote  fifty-two short stories, one a week, like the old science-fiction and  fantasy masters had to do in order to be able to eat, wouldn't one be  forced to pick up some good habits that are directly applicable to  actually producing a decent novel? I think so. So do a lot of  science-fiction and fantasy authors. Though, not as many have the luxury  of peddling their short-stories every week in order to be able to eat.  That sort of dedication does require the necessary acquiring of certain  skills in writing.

Sure, there's a lot that goes into a novel.  Otherwise, it wouldn't normally take an average writer a whole year or  more to work out. But, it's still scenes that are joined together and  it's still just writing. Subplots, intricate storylines, a huge cast of  characters, epic narratives and expositions.. these may not be in most  shorts. But, they are no arduous hurdle that couldn't be overcome by a  competent short-story writer. A great many novelists, especially in the  science-fiction and fantasy field, started out with shorts and still  submit them to popular publications. Sometimes, they even do it under  pen-names. Besides being instructive for the learning writer, they're  fun to write. Writing doesn't always have to be an arduous undertaking.

Lastly  - Writer's write. That's what writers do. Shorts, novels, poetry,  biographies, advertisements, opinion pieces, news articles, textbooks,  the mind boggles. Where would many of the great authors be if they  hadn't written short stories or even novellas? Some of the great ones  even started out as copy editors and newsies. What if they had confined  their work to only full length novels? How many stories would be lost to  us that have since been transcribed into feature films and full-length  works? How many of the ideas that birthed truly remarkable novels  started out as short stories?

Writer's write and a competent  writer of short stories will find no overwhelming hurdles in writing a  novel. Sure, it may take awhile to become a great novelist, but they'll  have half the field beaten before they ever start the race and own a  library of more finished work. That being said, it is by no means a  necessity to start out with short stories. But, it surely is not such a  terrible thing to do.


----------



## shadowwalker

Writing 52 short stories gets you in the habit of writing. But someone who can write 52 short stories in a year may not be able to write an even halfway decent novel in that time. Or longer. The basic writing skills and habits are the same. Being able to condense the characters, plot, etc into a short story is a very specific skill. Being able to include subplots, deep character development, and maintain a reader's interest for several hundred pages of a novel is a very specific and _different _skill.


----------



## DaveinJapan

BubbleCow said:


> I would suggest Mark Coker's FREE ebook called The Secrets of Ebook Publishing Success. Mark is the guy who runs Smashwords, the book is packed full of the tips he has learned from his best selling writers. ​Smashwords — The Secrets to Ebook Publishing Success &mdash; A book by Mark Coker



Very cool resource, and free to boot! Thanks for the link!


----------



## Sam

Writing short stories will never properly prepare you for writing a novel, anymore than walking 1K every day will prepare you for a marathon.


----------



## moderan

I dunno about that, Sam. Learning to string shorts together, like on a clothesline, is to my mind a good way to learn novel construction. Scenes become shorts become novels...


----------



## Sam

I went and did the thing I always abhor others doing, didn't I? I made a definitive statement. 

What I should have said was: "I don't believe writing shorts will prepare you for writing an novel, but writing is still writing".


----------



## moderan

Novels are shorts with starch.


----------



## shadowwalker

I agree with Sam - learning how to write short stories will not guarantee one is prepared to write a novel. Basic writing is the same, but otherwise... A novel is not just stringing a bunch of short stories together, since short stories have to have a beginning, middle, and end - unlike chapters to a novel, which follow and interlock with each other. Plus there's a different skill set needed to get the essence of the story into a brief ms versus keeping the readers' interest throughout a lengthy one, dealing with subplots, etc. They're just not the same. Some writers can write one or the other but not both; other writers can switch gears quite well.


----------



## moderan

Nobody said "guarantee". There are no absolutes. But I do both, and learned how to from stringing short stories together and then dealing with the missing parts. I still prefer linked stories to novels, both for reading and for writing, and that may be why.


----------



## Caragula

I have had no ideas for short stories, at least, not that were sitting there begging to be told like the novel ideas swimming about in my head  I think if you have a story you want to tell, get on with it regardless of the length of the end piece.


----------



## Staff Deployment

I think short stories are good practice for novels. Not as good practice, nor any substitute, for actually writing a novel but short stories are very valuable because they teach the basics of tone, style, voice, dialogue, plotting, editing, characterization, setting, genre-specific requirements, grammar, trade-offs between exposition and action, and basic overall structure. Just as novels have beginnings, middles, and ends, so do short stories - merely condensed.


----------



## moderan

I don't think novels are superior to short stories and reject the idea that short stories are "practice". I think they're fine on their own. But I also think that novels are just longer short stories. I don't treat them any differently than short works and regard them as equal creations.
People may think me mad, and they're very likely right, but perhaps not about that particular subject. Sanity does not equal intelligence.


----------



## Sam

If anything, short stories are harder to write than novels. You only have a set amount of words to introduce characters, goals, and resolutions. I've never really gotten the notion that novels are harder. They're certainly more time-consuming, but that's inevitable. As for writing them, once you've written one or two they're a cake-walk.


----------



## Staff Deployment

Staff Deployment said:


> Short stories are very valuable because they teach the basics of tone, style, voice, dialogue, plotting, editing, characterization, setting, genre-specific requirements, grammar, trade-offs between exposition and action, and basic overall structure. Just as novels have beginnings, middles, and ends, so do short stories - merely condensed.



Just an appendixed note, this argument equally applies going from novels to short stories.


----------



## shadowwalker

Sam said:


> If anything, short stories are harder to write than novels. You only have a set amount of words to introduce characters, goals, and resolutions.



Definitely agree.


----------



## dale

Sam said:


> If anything, short stories are harder to write than novels. You only have a set amount of words to introduce characters, goals, and resolutions. I've never really gotten the notion that novels are harder. They're certainly more time-consuming, but that's inevitable. As for writing them, once you've written one or two they're a cake-walk.



i'll agree with this, too. it's something a writer doesn't realize until he makes the transition from writing short stories to longer works, though.
the novel gives us the freedom to ramble. rambling is easy.


----------



## Rustgold

If you put one person who's written some short stories against a similar person who hadn't, and asked them to write a novel, I'd bet you the short story writer would have the better novel.  Now of course the short story writer probably wouldn't beat an experienced novel writer, however to say a short story writer would be starting from scratch is false.

Or in sport's terms, a footballer would probably run the mile faster than the guy sitting on the couch.


----------

