Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Why am I not? With "often" I thought you meant "most book" but maybe that was not what you meant. Because I do not believe that it is true that most book that have survived took a lifetime to write.
|
It sounds as if there's a communication issue, because that's not what I said. Look at my examples. The lifetime aspect can have to do with working up to that book, writing the books that make that one great book possible, or simply having the extra time that one doesn't factor in if one only marks the dates of initiation and completion.
Quote:
|
No science fiction book that has survived in that way took a lifetime to write. And authors like Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, Conan Doyle, and soo on did not spend a liftime writing one book.
|
Ah, but Jane Austen, like the Brontes, would have had the luxury of time intially whether her books proved successful or not.
And the series of books she wrote is effectively a single book, if you consider that the time she spent writing them all is cumulative.
Consider the number of symphonies, quartets, concertos, choral pieces and operas by Mozart. Now consider the effect that not being paid might have had on his output (Mozart the strudel packer). Would you really be willing to sacrifice any of his music to the idea he would have been just as good if he'd had a day job? Which masses and symphonies would you want to do without?