Dear Editors, Please Ditch Genre Word Counts

If you’ve read any of my content before, you know I’m not a fan of writers using daily word counts. I feel they put pressure on writers that’s not especially great for the creative process. But there’s another word count issue that needs to be addressed, too. Most traditional agents and publishing houses consider word counts for what they accept. A romance novel, for instance, is usually 70,000-90,000 words, while a science fiction book is usually 90,000-125,000.

I’m just gonna say it.

This is the stupidest practice ever.

Now, I understand the rationale behind using word counts. Word counts influence how a book looks on a shelf and, subsequently, whether it sells. Then there are printing costs. If a publisher has standards about length, it’s easier to calculate a budget. Publishers, as businesses, absolutely need to do that.

But from the creative side of things, word counts can be a disaster.

Why genre word counts are a problem

Storytellers long have held the mantra that a story takes as long as it takes. If that’s 50,000 words, well, then it’s 50,000. If it’s 500,000, well, it’s 500,000.

But in real-life practice, the story has become a slave to those who own the presses. Word count expectations can cause writers to chop or pad content. As writers try to write and edit with the word count in mind, they can end up dramatically shifting plot elements away from the original concepts that they had.

Admittedly, sometimes, this can improve the manuscript. But it often has the opposite influence. Writers end up pulling their hair out to make sure their story “fits,” just so agents will give it a shot. Many times, I’ve scrolled through social media (mainly X, formerly Twitter) and seen writers lamenting about how they still needed to cut or add a specific number of words to make their books “ready.” So, I fear that readers never will get to experience the story as the writer originally meant it to be, solely because the writer is trying to get past the industry gatekeepers.

Traditional publishing is still a great option, but independent publishing frees writers to any length

I admittedly don’t have a great solution to the issue of how books look on a shelf. I don’t know how to negate the need for publishers to set clear budgets, either. Even so, with the rise of independent publishing, writers have an option for allowing the story to appear as they intended. This doesn’t mean that writers shouldn’t utilize great developmental editors. Those experts can work with the writers in a truly collaborative way to create something the writers are thrilled about. But independent publishing does mean that authors can decide for themselves what’s appropriate for what they have to tell. Readers can confirm that decision by purchasing the wider variety of books that subsequently will become available. And in the age of digital publishing, it’s easier than ever to get that confirmation with an ebook before financially committing to print.

Traditional publishing absolutely will be the right choice for some authors. But writers shouldn’t feel as though they cannot write the way their gut guides them. If, at the end of the writing process that includes alpha and beta feedback, they do not feel like any words are superfluous or left unsaid, that’s success.