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

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I remember on the TV show Castle, he was at his regular authors poker game, and guys like James Patterson were giving him crap because he was only writing a book a year, and how he needs to stop slacking. I'm sorry, but, Patterson is a poster child for being overly published. From 1976 to 1999, so over 23 years, Patterson wrote 17 books. from 2000 to 2004 he wrote 3 books a year. In 2011, he published his 89th book, and he has 13 books scheduled for release in 2012. At that high of a rate, how can you expect any level of quality?

All but three of them seem to be 'written with...'. It seems like he still writes the Maximum Ride and Alex Cross books himself.
IOW he isn't actually writing most of the books, but has become a franchise, in the way that Tom Clancy and Clive Cussler have, making money by adding his name to books written by a stable of other authors.
You write a basic outline and farm it out to someone else to write.

[ProfCrash]

I really dislike the written with stuff. It is a way for a bog name author to make money off of an idea that they outline and let someone else write. Bleeech

[BeccaPrice]

I've heard James Patterson described as the Thomas Kincaid of the written word. I stopped reading him years ago, when he went franchise. There are other authors who have the same kind of "writing shops" that I won't buy either.

Nora Roberts is different. She's well-known for her productivity and her strong work ethic - she writes her own stuff. And while her own stuff is pretty uneven (the Inn Boonsboro books bore me silly, ditto the Brides quartet), but when she's good (The Witness, her 200th book), she's very, very good.

[GA Russell]

I see that today Charlie Rutledge has posted a book by Hugh Seymour Walpole.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=178475

Charlie's blurb calls Walpole a prolific writer and a best seller during the 20s and 30s, whose works have been neglected since his death.

I suspect that seventy-five years from now the same thing will be said of today's popular authors who produce more than a book a year.

[Blue Tyson]

The same thing will be said of 99.999999% of all authors now in 75 years including the pathetically slow ones.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Crossroad Press

one book a year is a ridiculously low output.

-DNW

You are the publisher, and I'm just a reader, and one should never make too much of a soundbite like this -- but it doesn't sound like you competing to be the next Maxwell Perkins in terms of kindness to your authors. Or is tough love what you think they need?

I want to learn from what I read, even fiction. So the author has to do research. The one series where I look forward to the new book each fall is by police procedural author Archer Mayor, who generally acknowledges a boatload of law enforcement people. Plus he has had a series of volunteer and/or part time law enforcement jobs. I couldn't trust him to explain modern detective work if he sat at home grinding out a couple thousand words a day.

[vulcan_girl]

I'd rather a favorite author release one great book each year that I re-read many times than 2-5 books that I read once and forget about.

[xg4bx]

i think it depends on the author. there are several authors i love who put out several books each year and i'm thoroughly satisfied by each one. formatting, editing and all that are pretty consistent.

however some others also put out a few books each year and its obvious which ones were churned out close to deadline.

i think its entirely possible but you have to want it and know your limitations because it'll become obvious to your readers what your limitations are.


going back to one of the 1st posts about WoT. i think theres a middle ground. on one hand you should be able to just let the story go where it takes you, whether its 5 books or 50. however you NEED and editor to let you know when you're rambling. i don't think people would mind long series if each book was tightly plotted and actually contained momentum.

i think somebody like brandon sanderson should know his own limitations. i haven't read his work but does anybody think that his (planned) 10 part way of kings series (book 1 being 1300 pages), on top of finishing WoT and whatever he writes in between, will be finished in their lifetime?

[Ekaros]

One book for full-time writer seems low if he isn't involved with lot of other projects. Still, for part-time I don't see issue. Quality is questionable if they get lot of works out in short time-span. It pretty much comes to author and how he/she takes writing...

[Latinandgreek]

While I love seeing new books from my favourite authors, I have no problem with the fact that many of them take as much time as they think they need to write a fantastic book. Jeffrey Eugenides has a span of 9 years between the publication of each of his three books. If it takes him 9 years to write a book, so be it; the end result is fantastic.

[ProfCrash]

Sanderson is planning a 10 book series. It has taken him longer to get the second book out because of finishing WoT. The first book was very good and he has already finished a four book series that I thought was excellent, The Mistborn. Looking at his website, he has a few other series that are completed.

The first two WoT books we released in a year. The final ok has taken three years. I have a feeling that it is not his fault based on his release schedule for his own novels and the othe WoT novels.

[speakingtohe]

While I love many series, I think that each book should stand alone. For example reading book 10 first should not spoil books 1-9. And each book should not leave you waiting for the next book to see the ending.

I would love it if my favorite authors wrote a book a week, but I do not expect them to write any more than they want to. Not like I am their boss and paying them in advance although their publisher may be.

They have lives, priorities and desires of their own. Some suffer from lack of time, writer`s block, desire for change, personal problems, ilness, or even drop dead. (I hate it when that happens).

If I enjoy a book I am grateful even if that is the only book the author ever writes.

Helen

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I want to learn from what I read, even fiction. So the author has to do research. The one series where I look forward to the new book each fall is by police procedural author Archer Mayor, who generally acknowledges a boatload of law enforcement people. Plus he has had a series of volunteer and/or part time law enforcement jobs. I couldn't trust him to explain modern detective work if he sat at home grinding out a couple thousand words a day.

oh, i love procedurals i'll look into this author ;p

there are some indie authors that I've read who regularly correspond with their fans on GR. Unfortunately, some keep giving in to fans who hanker for more adventures of a certain set of characters, and they end up botching the whole thing up. Did that make any sense?

[haydnfan]

I think that a book a year is not unreasonable. Those that are talking about words per day are missing the bigger picture. You have to not only write it but revise it several times. It must be submitted to an editor for markup and then even more revisions. It must be carefully typeset, cover art must be designed, the book needs to be marketed.

My experience is that authors who publish more frequently have a drop in quality as compared to slower writers. I think that a 300-500 page book-- once a year is fine. Those 1,000 page tomes-- give 'em a year and a half to two years. Those involved fantasy epics need to also carefully maintain continuity in many plot threads and characters and the author needs to map out how to transform them into what they need to be in subsequent volumes. With that kind of work I think that 2-3 years per volume is reasonable.

Since the fantasy epic is under discussion, I think that Robert Jordan's series was overly long and really sagged in the middle, but his publication pacing was fine. Erikson's series is rushed with a tome every year, and Martin's series is too slow.

Erikson did have the right approach to the epic though-- he had a resolution to the conflict of that novel, but continued on other aspects of the story from volume to volume. I think the worst approach is Jordan's who has beginnings and endings of volumes with no closure, they just meander along without any sense of tight pacing.

[Kirtai]

I'm surprised that so many seem to think that all authors should write at the same speed. Some just take longer than others for whatever reason. I'd hate to see them write faster just to appease these people and produce junk.

I'm also surprised that so many dump on the Dresden series for not knowing when to end when Jim Butcher has explicitly stated how long it is and that the overarching plot is already laid out for the whole thing. He's even given the names of the last three books