Concern over manuscript length

So, I finished up the revisions on Foxy Lady, and the manuscript was at 127,000 words. I’d combed through it so many times, looking for things to take out. I deleted all kinds of excess verbiage, and scenes that weren’t necessary. But everything that’s left…. it all contributes, whether directly to the plot, or even if not crucial to the plot, it contributes to the flow, the balance, the emotional weight of the story. So, since I’ve gotten used to asking Claude (like ChatGPT but a different company) about all kinds of things, I decided to consult Claude on this. Below is the transcript of that conversation.

I just finished editing/revising my current manuscript for a paranormal romance, Foxy Lady. The problem is, it’s about 127k… way longer than my longest book so far, which is just 120k. I’ve previously attempted (not always successfully) to cap it at 110k… but I have a several between 110-117k, then the one at 120k. Out of 7 books. 127k is about 512 print pages, as opposed to 480 pages for the 120k book. I’ve gone through obsessively and taken out all excessive verbiage and partial scenes that weren’t essential to the story. There are a few scenes I could scrap, but… while not essential to the story, they do add to the flow, and even with those gone I’d still probably be at 124-125k. Should I cull some of those not-crucial scenes, or just publish the book? I’m self-published.

This is an interesting dilemma that many authors face. Since you’re self-published, you have more flexibility with word count than traditionally published authors, who often have to meet strict publisher guidelines.

From what you’ve described, it sounds like you’ve already done the critical editing work – removing excess verbiage and evaluating each scene’s contribution. The fact that you’re finding the remaining “not crucial” scenes still add to the flow is significant. Sometimes these character moments or “breathing room” scenes, while not plot-essential, contribute significantly to pacing and reader engagement.

Given that: 1. You’ve already thoroughly edited for efficiency 2. The length isn’t dramatically different from your 120k book 3. The scenes in question add value to the reading experience 4. You’re self-published and have control over these decisions 5. The difference in page count (32 pages) isn’t likely to significantly impact printing costs or reader experience

I’d suggest publishing at the current length of 127k. If readers have enjoyed your previous books ranging from 110-120k, they’re unlikely to be put off by this slightly longer work. In fact, for paranormal romance readers who are invested in your world and characters, a longer book often represents better value.

What concerns do you have about the longer length specifically? Are you worried about reader reaction or production costs?

Neither, really? Just a kind of vague idea that a book should be 100k words, and I’m already going over that by aiming for 110k. but nothing actually concrete.

Ah, I see – it sounds like you might be working from an internalized “rule” about word count that may not actually apply to your situation. The 100k guideline is more relevant for traditional publishing, particularly for debut authors, where printing costs and market expectations play a bigger role.

For self-published paranormal romance, there’s actually quite a bit of flexibility. Readers in this genre often enjoy longer books that let them fully immerse in the world and relationships. If your previous books at 110-120k have been well-received, that suggests your natural storytelling style works well at these lengths.

Given that you don’t have specific concerns about costs or reader response, and you’ve already done the careful editing work to ensure the story is tight, I’d say go ahead and publish at 127k. The story seems to be naturally finding its optimal length, and forcing cuts to meet an arbitrary word count might do more harm than good.

Sometimes the best writing “rules” to follow are the ones that emerge from your own body of work and reader response, rather than general guidelines.

Yes, I am happy with what I have. And my beta readers, 7 of them, who read it through already once, never said a word about the length! Although, they did give me some feedback about the flow, which had me rearranging some scenes to improve the flow, but not a word about the book length.

That’s really valuable feedback from your beta readers! The fact that they focused on story flow rather than length is telling – readers typically notice and comment when a book feels too long or drags, but they didn’t raise that concern at all. Instead, they engaged with the actual content and provided constructive feedback about pacing and scene arrangement.

It sounds like you’ve found your natural storytelling length, which happens to be in the 110-127k range. Since your readers are already comfortable with your longer books (the 120k one), and this one is only slightly longer, there’s no real reason to force cuts that might compromise the story you want to tell.

Trust your instincts and your beta readers on this one. If the story feels complete and well-paced at 127k, that’s what it should be.

Honestly? I think of it more as storytelling in novel form, than writing novels. Even though they’re kind of one and the same, to me, it feels like there’s a difference

That’s a fascinating perspective! The distinction you’re making between “storytelling in novel form” versus “writing novels” actually says a lot about your approach. It suggests you’re prioritizing the natural flow and completion of the story itself, rather than trying to fit the story into predetermined novel-writing conventions.

This approach likely contributes to why your books find their own natural length – you’re letting the story dictate what it needs rather than forcing it into a prescribed format. While novels are indeed a form of storytelling, thinking of yourself primarily as a storyteller who happens to use the novel format might give you more creative freedom and authenticity in your work.

It reminds me a bit of how oral storytellers traditionally worked – they didn’t cut their tales to fit a specific time limit, but rather took whatever space was needed to tell the story properly. You’re doing something similar in written form.

Tweet