is there a maximum pages that can be printed?

I have about an 800 pages book - can LULU print this

Comments

  • It appears 740 is the maximum. However, you can easily reduce your page count  by 60.

     

    Condense your font by .1. Reduce your margins to .5. Use Garamond, an elegant, small font. 12 or 11 point.

     A citizen of the world.

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    brennajne2 a écrit :

    I have about an 800 pages book - can LULU print this


    No. Make two volumes, each with its own ISBN.  Smiley Happy

  • One has to ask if there really is a need for an indie author to be publishing an 800 page book. Unless said author is the best thing that has happened to the world of publishing for a very long time then Maggie's suggestion makes the most sense. I doubt many people are going to buy Volumes 1 and 2 by an indie author, each weighing in at around 400 pages and costing a pretty penny. In fact, I more than doubt it; it simply will not happen.

     

    Have you looked at the cost price of a 740 page book? It is in excess of $ 16 for a 6 x 9 inch book, which means you are going to have to charge over $ 32 before you make a cent of profit. Page count does not equal quality. Most print books I've seen by indie authors have too much white space and too little text. If you have not yet achieved renown I would suggest making your book as cheap as possible by using the correct formatting. This 800 page book could probably be reduced to under 500 pages by using smaller margins, a smaller font and less line spacing.

     

    Unless you are a serious 'voice', or you are certain that your tome will sell, you probably ought to be looking at publishing books somewhere between 100 and 200 pages in length. Indie is expensive!

  • I would propose a small test:

     

    Print fifty pages from anywhere in your book without numbering them. Remove every fifth page. Ask a friend who is unfamiliar with the project to read the remaining forty pages and give an opinion.

     

    I'll wager that your friend will not say, "It seemed like every fifth page was missing."

     

    If I am correct, then whet you truly need is a brutal editor -- a retired English teacher with OCD, a surly disposition, and a passion for red ink.

     

    Now, I may be wrong, and you may have written 800 pp. of well-paced tightly-plotted English prose, in which case I apologize profusely -- but you still need a brutal editor (we all do). In that case, I suggest that you take the suggestions above one step further: Cut the story into three books and sell it as a trilogy, with three ISBNs. 

     

    This is what JRR Tolkein had to do with Lord of the Rings -- Houghton-Mifflin publishing made him chop it up, or else it would have been one unreadably huge volume. And if it's good enough for John Robert Reuel, it's probably a good idea for you as well.

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    Daniel Blue, you assume our fellow author has written a novel. Yet not all of us here are novelists. I for one mainly write didactic books. I happen to be currently trying to finish a grammar of Filipino/Tagalog in French. I naively thought 300 pages would be enough. At the present moment, it has about 616 pages - no it won't reach 666 pages Smiley LOL . I had just overlooked the fact that for a rare language, whose publications are of difficult access in French-speaking countries, I have to quote plenty of examples from printed documents, classic authors in particular, to make my book useful. Yes, it will be a thick book.

  • I first came here with a 750 paged book and was aghast at the Cost, particularly as a hardback, so as suggested above, I split it in to two volumes, but not simply to reduce the page count because I thought it was too many and that the Wizard would not allow it.

     

    But some niche publications can stand a high price, but not all can. 800 pages is a lot though.

     

    Also do not forget that Frontmatter, statutory blank pages, and having to have them divisible by four, will add even more pages if you have not already done that.


  • potetjp wrote:

    Daniel Blue, you assume our fellow author has written a novel. Yet not all of us here are novelists. I for one mainly write didactic books. I happen to be currently trying to finish a grammar of Filipino/Tagalog in French. I naively thought 300 pages would be enough. At the present moment, it has about 616 pages - no it won't reach 666 pages Smiley LOL . I had just overlooked the fact that for a rare language, whose publications are of difficult access in French-speaking countries, I have to quote plenty of examples from printed documents, classic authors in particular, to make my book useful. Yes, it will be a thick book.



    If you followed Tolkein's example, you could have Volume One, The Fellowship of Kampangan, Volume Two, The Two Ilocanos, and Volume Three, The Return to Visayan.

     

    Smiley Very Happy

     

    Okay, maybe one volume is better for your book...

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    Skoob_Ym a écrit :
    If you followed Tolkein's example, you could have Volume One, The Fellowship of Kampangan, Volume Two, The Two Ilocanos, and Volume Three, The Return to Visayan.

     

    Smiley Very Happy

     

    Okay, maybe one volume is better for your book...


    Writing on Tagalog / Filipino is quite a lot of work. Authors who write about several Philippine languages generally know very little of each. At an Austronesian conference, I was shocked to learn none of them had never read a novel in the languages they were talking about!

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

     I was shocked to learn none of them had never read a novel in the languages they were talking about!

     

    Why would they? I am sure historians do not read novels in Latin or Cuneiform.   Smiley Very Happy

  • But Tagalog, Kampangan, Ilocano, Visayan, and dozens of other local languages in the RPI are not dead languages.

     

    And Roman historians DO read works in Latin, including the Aeneid ... Arma virumque cano -- Of Arms, and the Man, I sing...

     

     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Why? They were translated 100s of years ago.

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    Skoob_Ym a écrit :

    But Tagalog, Kampangan, Ilocano, Visayan, and dozens of other local languages in the RPI are not dead languages.

     

    And Roman historians DO read works in Latin, including the Aeneid ... Arma virumque cano -- Of Arms, and the Man, I sing...

     

     


    Isn't it arma virumque cantoSmiley Happy

    Yes, I agree these are living languages, and Tagalog has a literature. So?

    Oh, I see, why use texts? For the simple reason that the linguist can analyse a text without interfering with the author. The same can be said about the analysis of recordings, films, etc.

    The problem in linguistics is that if you work with informants, many tend to adjust their linguistic behaviour to the demands of the linguist. In the Philippines, as they are educated in English, they tend to make calques of English, and the way some speak is definitely sub-standard. This is the reason why, having worked with informants, I now only trust good writers. As far as I know, I am the only linguist working on a Philippine language to do so. All the others I am acquainted with use informants.

    The problem is universal in scientific research, the instrument you are using to probe has to be as little intrusive as possible because its very presence will modify the state of the item observed.

     

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Everything evolves over time, even languages, and if one does not or cannot go back to the original source then it will never be 'pure'.

     

    The Old Testament is a good example. Translated many times. Often words being substituted or misinterpreted, or some writer simply passing it on in their own words. It's only since some original texts were discovered and slowly transcribed has that been discovered. The New Testament was never immune to that either. Virgin, for just one tiny example, was a misinterpretation of a word simply meaning unmarried.

     

    "The problem is universal in scientific research, the instrument you are using to probe has to be as little intrusive as possible because its very presence will modify the state of the item observed."

     

    That's only true is some circumstances, mainly when dealing with living beings that know they are being watched. Watching a stone does not change it.  Smiley Happy

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    kevinlomas a écrit :

     

    "The problem is universal in scientific research, the instrument you are using to probe has to be as little intrusive as possible because its very presence will modify the state of the item observed."

     

    That's only true is some circumstances, mainly when dealing with living beings that know they are being watched. Watching a stone does not change it.  Smiley Happy


    Observing stones. Smiley Happy

    I was talking of a well-known universal problem that has different aspects, each depending on the object of the observation, and how fine your observation has to be.The presence of the researcher or their instrument in the field of observation is a parameter to be taken into account in the assessment of the observation, the measurement, etc.  For instance, to observe bacteria under a microscope, it is necessary to shed light on them to see them, You've got to enter the effect of this light to correct your observation. If no artificial light is needed, then, in most cases, no correction is necessary. Ask scientists. They'll give you plenty of examples better than mine. 

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    I am trained in observation. The concept also happens with humans.  Smiley Happy

     

    Thankfully, words are not bacteria. Looking at words does not change them, but what they say to a reader may not be the same as they say to another reader.

  • Watching light changes it.

     

    Double-slit_experiment

     

    So how do you know that watching a stone does not change it?

     

    JP, my copy reads "Cano" for "I sing." But I have reason to believe it is not the best edition.

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile
    I am not very good at Latin. "Cano" is either a misprint or an irregular form.
  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    kevinlomas a écrit :

    Looking at words does not change them, but what they say to a reader may not be the same as they say to another reader.


    Indeed, but this is nearly irrelevant for linguists. What matters for us are standard constructions. We do not deal with style, etc. Rhetoric, stylistics, poetics, etc. are beyond our concern.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Watching light changes it.

     

    It does not, but it may be seen differently by differently people. The colourblind for instance.

     

    Double-slit_experiment

     

    That would happen even if no one was watching it. Just like how a falling tree makes a sound waves even if there's no one there to hear it.

     

    So how do you know that watching a stone does not change it?

     

    Because it does not. How can it? Superman laser vision?

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Indeed, but this is nearly irrelevant for linguists. What matters for us are standard constructions. We do not deal with style, etc. Rhetoric, stylistics, poetics, etc. are beyond our concern.

     

    But that's exactly what they also do.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

     

    They are not to be confused with polyglots.

     

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polyglot

  • Observing the double slit experiment makes a wave appear as particles or particles as waves.

     

    It's a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics.

     

    That's where Schrodinger came up with the Cat experiment -- no actual cats were hamed, of course. But the state of the cat is in flux, and only becomes fixed when we observe it. Some read from this that to observe the cat causes a rift in our universe, creating a second universe in which the state of the cat is fixed the opposite way. Hence the "Many worlds" theory.

     

    But even among humans, one behaves differently when one is being watched. Try taking a photo of a group of children "behaving normally." Of course they won't; they'll clown for the camera. Or they'll be self-conscious and act stiff.

     

    Jean-Paul is telling us here that it is the same when one tries to learn a language from a native speaker. In fact, there are native speakers who will go out of their way to teach a foreigner incorrectly. If you do not believe it, say "Arigato domo-so" to a Japanese man and watch his reaction. He'll be repulsed, and he may even take you aside to explain why you, being a man, should not say that. But unsuspecting men visiting Japan are taught it all too often.

     

    But the phenomena that I believe he is describing here is the tendency to "dress up" the language. We don't want to teach the foreigner to say "Fancy a pint down the boozer, what?" when we know he wants to learn to say, "Shall we adjourn to the pub for some liquid refreshments?" so we teach him the latter instead of the former.

     

    For example, I've had occasion to converse in both English and Spanish with gentlemen from Mexico and Points South. When asking them some fine point of language -- for example, why one "esta" loco but "tengo" hambre -- one *is* crazy, but one *has* hunger* -- they will without exception point out to me that in Mexico (Or El Salvador, what have you) they do not speak Castillian Spanish.

     

    (I've even had occasion to chat with two gentlemen who, though from Mexico, learned Spanish as a second language and English as a third; they grew up speaking Zapateco. But that is beside our point).

     

    So I find it entirely plausible when Jean-Paul tells us that to truly learn the fine points of languages, one must read the literature and prefer it to live conversation.

     

    * C'est la meme en Franc,ais, naturellement; On *est* fou mais on *a* faim. Seullement en Anglais, je pense, c'est possible *etre* faim. Mais un ami Salvadoren~o a dites moi  -dites suellement, 'Estoi con hambre.' Alors, c'est bon.

     

    Also, one young lady from Mexicali told me, with a smile, that if you say, "Estoi loco pero tengo hambre," the listener will probably not feed you.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    Watching light changes it.

     

    It does not, but it may be seen differently by differently people. The colourblind for instance.

     

    It does, I'm afraid. You can know the position or the velocity of a light photon, but not both. The harder you look at one, the more you decrease the probability of the other.

     

    Double-slit_experiment

     

    That would happen even if no one was watching it. Just like how a falling tree makes a sound waves even if there's no one there to hear it.

     

    The act of observation has always had an effect on the results of the experiment. It's only very recently that scientists have claimed to have found a way of running the experiment and observing it with minimal side effects (note: not 'no effects').

     

    So how do you know that watching a stone does not change it?

     

    Because it does not. How can it? Superman laser vision?

     

    Philosophically it changes it. Practically it doesn't. It changes it on a sub-atomic level, according to quantum mechanics. To look at the rock you have to shine a light on it. To shine a light on it you have to bounce photons off it. The electrons in the rock will absorb some of the photons and gain energy and jump into different electron orbits, and then they'll emit photons and jump down into lower orbits.


     

  • potetjppotetjp Bibliophile

    I am impressed and I completely agree with you Skoob_Yim. Thanks to your explanation enriched with relevant examples, my point should now be crystal clear.

    Even the study of a spoken language should be done on recordings made of people chatting among themselves unaware they are being recorded. These are not easy to get. The next best thing is commercial movies such as Tagalog films obviously shot for Filipino audiences not for the convenience of linguists. TV talk shows are good, too, particularly when people start losing their temper.

    Sermons written in Tagalog by gifted Spanish priests in the 17th century are a particular case of literary pieces because they were meant to be read to a congregation and were first tried on trusted learned native acolytes. San Joseph's and Oliver's were collected and published some time ago. I have them. Barring the religious intent, which is not the linguist's concern, they are a precious source on the state of the language in their time, because they were meant to be understood by everybody although in a noble style.

    I wish we had court records in Tagalog as the ones that have survived in Medieval French.

    I have the report of an inquisition by the Dominicans of the Pontifical University of Santo Tomas, Manila. But it's useless for Tagalog studies because the answers of the natives in their own language are not reproduced. The pieces of information drawn from them are stated in Spanish reported speech. A big disappointment.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Observing the double slit experiment makes a wave appear as particles or particles as waves.

     

    That's how humans see it. A bee may see something else, but neither is changing what is there. One could argue the Zen way that nothing exists until we look at it ...

     

    It's a fundamental problem in quantum mechanics.

     

    Light is both waves and particles, but it's not a problem, it just is.

     

    That's where Schrodinger came up with the Cat experiment -- no actual cats were hamed, of course. But the state of the cat is in flux, and only becomes fixed when we observe it. Some read from this that to observe the cat causes a rift in our universe, creating a second universe in which the state of the cat is fixed the opposite way. Hence the "Many worlds" theory.

     

    That's just a bit of philosophy to inform people not to take things for granted. He never actually did it, if he had the cat would have obviously died. Which in reality makes it a stupid bit of philosophy. Philosophy is not the same as science.

     

    But even among humans, one behaves differently when one is being watched. Try taking a photo of a group of children "behaving normally." Of course they won't; they'll clown for the camera. Or they'll be self-conscious and act stiff.

     

    Indeed, but I will go back to my example of that stone ...

     

    Jean-Paul is telling us here that it is the same when one tries to learn a language from a native speaker. In fact, there are native speakers who will go out of their way to teach a foreigner incorrectly.

     

    Then one would ask a person one trusts?

     

     If you do not believe it, say "Arigato domo-so" to a Japanese man and watch his reaction. He'll be repulsed, and he may even take you aside to explain why you, being a man, should not say that. But unsuspecting men visiting Japan are taught it all too often.

     

    Thank you dimethyl sulfoxide?

     

    But the phenomena that I believe he is describing here is the tendency to "dress up" the language. We don't want to teach the foreigner to say "Fancy a pint down the boozer, what?" when we know he wants to learn to say, "Shall we adjourn to the pub for some liquid refreshments?" so we teach him the latter instead of the former.

     

    For example, I've had occasion to converse in both English and Spanish with gentlemen from Mexico and Points South. When asking them some fine point of language -- for example, why one "esta" loco but "tengo" hambre -- one *is* crazy, but one *has* hunger* -- they will without exception point out to me that in Mexico (Or El Salvador, what have you) they do not speak Castillian Spanish.

     

    (I've even had occasion to chat with two gentlemen who, though from Mexico, learned Spanish as a second language and English as a third; they grew up speaking Zapateco. But that is beside our point).

     

    So I find it entirely plausible when Jean-Paul tells us that to truly learn the fine points of languages, one must read the literature and prefer it to live conversation.

     

    * C'est la meme en Franc,ais, naturellement; On *est* fou mais on *a* faim. Seullement en Anglais, je pense, c'est possible *etre* faim. Mais un ami Salvadoren~o a dites moi  -dites suellement, 'Estoi con hambre.' Alors, c'est bon.

     

    Also, one young lady from Mexicali told me, with a smile, that if you say, "Estoi loco pero tengo hambre," the listener will probably not feed you.

     

    Why not? It only means I'm crazy but I'm hungry. The word loco is now used in many languages to mean crazy, so wy would someone say that? Unless they are crazy. We have often wondered why Americans called steam trains crazymotives. Then again in Latin it means many other things.

     

    But I have no idea what it has to do with a cat in a box and my previous replies.

Sign In or Register to comment.