A little advice for me on my Greb book

700+ pages is a Harry Potter book. Bring it on. I'm ready.

 

One book is better.

Anyone interested in that depth of what I'm sure is exhaustive research is capable of reading 700 pages.

 

"My immediate thought is that it should be one volume similar in size to Adam's book on Jeffries. Every artist passionate about their art has to cut and trim to some degree ... I hope you have a good editor as you have such a vast accumulation of knowledge and are so close to the content it would be wise to have someone helping you cut and trim."

This is probably not bad advice. My initial Sam Langford book was 160,000 + words. Then I found out that most publishers thought the sweet spot for a biography was between 80,000 - 110,000 so I turned to a friend who was an avid reader and asked him if he'd be willing to read my manuscript and highlight anything that he thought I could cut out. I couldn't bear to cut everything out but I managed to reduce it to 113,000 words. As that, it ended up being 429 pages long.

There might be a few things I've had some second thoughts about cutting but overall I don't think it really hurt to cut most of what I did.

I did just purchase a 700+ book about Parson Davies that I plan to read in the near future. I'll be interested to see how I do with it.

 

I'm not sure what publishers will or won't do anymore. 700 pages is fine with me, but would a publisher shy away from it? Or would they shy away more readily at a two-volume publishing deal? I'm just not sure.

Do whichever way gets your book out there the most expeditiously. I like one volume, but won't cry if it's two.

BTW...if you need a proof reader for any reason let me know. Roy tells me I'm pretty good :smoke

 

klompton.....ACTIVELY trying to change history.

700 pages of lies. how can you write a book about old time fighters, when you call most of them LIARS???

how can you use newspaper reports when you also call them LIARS??

you can never use jack dempseys quotes as youve called him a liar. gregluland has a list of the greats of the past whom you have called liars. how will that effect your book?? when the author sites his witnesses as liars??

you are a grub. you have no right to touch history.

 

1 book. Cut whatever seems unnecessary so the book has a decent balance of details and flow. A hardcore fan might not mind but an easier read goes a long way. Even biographies can't be too dry and lifeless. Just my 2 cents.

 

So it's not just a biography as much as it's a book about the life and times of Greb (And his opponents)?

 

Oh shut the **** up you muppet.

 

If you get lost in your own reading that's a good sign that it's well written. I usually hate my own writing, or at least am very critical of it. Since you're focused on that the length shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.

 

well klompton. how do you figure to write something historical, when youve called other authors liars, and many of grebs contempories liars also? you flat out, blatantly called jack dempsey a liar whose word cant be believed. so dare you print any quote of his?

 

Did he say that Dempsey was outright a liar? Or did he just say that Dempsey may have been reiterating what he had heard on an event he did not actually witness some 30 years later.

Anyway, I don't think klompton's research is based on Dempsey's opinion.