In the E-Reader Era, a Book a Year Is Slacking

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Asimov had in incredible mind, and could produce good books at an amazing rate; not just fiction, but non-fiction on an impressive array of subjects. Not everyone can be as prolific as Asimov. If an author must write at a slower pace than Asimov to produce quality work, there's no shame in that.

Yes, but we get authors that write at a slower pace and produce low quality work.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Yes, but we get authors that write at a slower pace and produce low quality work.

That may be true, but it is beside the point. If an author write books at a prodigious pace and still produce good books, then they should write at that pace. If an author must write more slowly to produce good work, then they probably should write more slowly. That there are authors who write slowly and still produce poor books means little; no one claimed that writing slowly was a guarantee of quality work.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If an author must write more slowly to produce good work, then they probably should write more slowly.

Why "must"?

[ProfCrash]

Different styles. It took me a year longer than the average to finish my dissertation because of how I work. ADHD made that time in my life very challenging. Even with meds, it was hard to stay focused on one project for such a long period of time.

I am sure if I ever wanted to write professionally, I would have that same problem. I produce good stuff but it takes longer and requires editing (8 learning disabilities) to fix grammatical mistakes and help me better tie together my thoughts. What I write tends to follow my thought process, and most people with ADHD can follow my writing and conversations pretty easily. Most people without ADHD tend to find my writing disjointed. I cannot see that, I process information the way I process information, so I need additional time for review.

Again, I don't have a problem with things taking longer then a year. I have a problem with people who blow off deadlines and who do not acknowledge the need for a good editor to help them stay on time and on task. Take three years or five years, just be honest with me as to how long it is going to take. Don't put out a publication date and then change it and change it again and change it again all the while posting on your web page about these other projects you have started and trips you are taking.

I left Academia because I knew my style would not produce the results needed to get me tenure. You could be writing the worlds greatest series ever but if you keep screwing with the schedule and do it in a way that gives the appearence of not caring you are going to anger folks.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why "must"?

It's simple enough. Some authors can write very rapidly and still produce work. Others can't, if they write too fast, the quality of their writing suffers. Thus, if they want to write quality work, they must not write too fast.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why "must"?

because the alternative is that they start going faster than they can really handle, and produce crap work. He's just saying it is best to go at what ever rate gives you the best quality for the highest output

[tompe]

If Asimov had taken more time to write his fiction maybe his fiction books would have been more readable. They are very flat and read kind like non-fiction. More effort spent on characterisation and language style would have made the books more readable today.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

If Asimov had taken more time to write his fiction maybe his fiction books would have been more readable. They are very flat and read kind like non-fiction. More effort spent on characterisation and language style would have made the books more readable today.

You may not like his fiction books, but a vast number of people have found them quite readable.

[ProfCrash]

You are welcome to dislike Asimov, I know that there are many people that Martin is great and are fine with what he has been doing with his series.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

One of my favorite authors (Lois Bujold) turns out maybe a book every two years (she's had health problems, which may have affected this thoug). I'd hate to have her feel rushed to get out more books faster, because her writing is so rich it's worth the wait.

Bujold was one of the authors I was thinking of too, she's awesome even though not the fastest

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You may not like his fiction books, but a vast number of people have found them quite readable.

I liked them when I read them but writing books very fast can have consequences and I feel that was the case for Asimov. So i find the argument strange here that people take Asimov as an example were you can write very good fiction very fast.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

I liked them when I read them but writing books very fast can have consequences and I feel that was the case for Asimov. So i find the argument strange here that people take Asimov as an example were you can write very good fiction very fast.

There's nothing strange about it. Asimov was an incredibly prolific writer who wrote books that people wanted to read.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It's simple enough. Some authors can write very rapidly and still produce work. Others can't, if they write too fast, the quality of their writing suffers. Thus, if they want to write quality work, they must not write too fast.

Can you give an example of someone who wrote 3 -4 books per year which ended up being mediocre, then switched to 1 book per year and it was quality work?

Originally Posted by Hellmark

because the alternative is that they start going faster than they can really handle, and produce crap work. He's just saying it is best to go at what ever rate gives you the best quality for the highest output

That would make sense if they actually test to get to their best rate.

Originally Posted by tompe

If Asimov had taken more time to write his fiction maybe his fiction books would have been more readable. They are very flat and read kind like non-fiction. More effort spent on characterisation and language style would have made the books more readable today.

It's science fiction. Have you read science non-fiction?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Can you give an example of someone who wrote 3 -4 books per year which ended up being mediocre, then switched to 1 book per year and it was quality work?

I suspect the examples are more likely to be the other way around.
Once you've built up enough of a following to be contracted for 3-4 titles a year, that many mediocre books will probably make you more money that one good book.

[ProfCrash]

Tom Clancy and his crap books written by others are a good example of the other side of argument.