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

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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.

This sounds like a chicken or the egg argument. It looks like you are saying that an author can't write 3-4 books per year unless there is enough of a following, but that would mean that the author started with a lower output.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

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

And James Patterson.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This sounds like a chicken or the egg argument. It looks like you are saying that an author can't write 3-4 books per year unless there is enough of a following, but that would mean that the author started with a lower output.

I'm confused as to what your point is. The question isn't how fast books can be written, but how fast good books can be written, or alternatively what effect writing books quickly has on quality.
If an author writes a number of good books, they will build up a readership, and also be in more demand with their publishers.
Both groups will push for books to be released more quickly.
Both groups will be more tolerant of lower quality books than they would be from a new author.
Both author and publisher will probably make more money publishing a larger number of lower quality books than a smaller number if higher quality books.
An author probably can't get a contract for 3-4 books a year without having first more slowly built up their readership, but they can write at whatever pace they want.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This sounds like a chicken or the egg argument. It looks like you are saying that an author can't write 3-4 books per year unless there is enough of a following, but that would mean that the author started with a lower output.

Nah, it is more likely that the unknown author is more willing to write at a slower pace to produce better work, since one good book will get them more attention than 4 books that are just ok. Once they're popular, it is tempting for an author to increase output, often at the sake of quality, because it means more books get sold, and thus more money in their pocket.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I'm confused as to what your point is. The question isn't how fast books can be written, but how fast good books can be written, or alternatively what effect writing books quickly has on quality.
If an author writes a number of good books, they will build up a readership, and also be in more demand with their publishers.
Both groups will push for books to be released more quickly.
Both groups will be more tolerant of lower quality books than they would be from a new author.
Both author and publisher will probably make more money publishing a larger number of lower quality books than a smaller number if higher quality books.
An author probably can't get a contract for 3-4 books a year without having first more slowly built up their readership, but they can write at whatever pace they want.

Why would this be the more likely scenario? I would think that it is more likely that an author's first book would be of a lower quality, so if you are right and a slower writing speed is necessary you would have more authors starting at a lower quality, then slowing their writing speed and gaining quality than authors starting with high quality starting to write faster and losing quality.

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Nah, it is more likely that the unknown author is more willing to write at a slower pace to produce better work, since one good book will get them more attention than 4 books that are just ok. Once they're popular, it is tempting for an author to increase output, often at the sake of quality, because it means more books get sold, and thus more money in their pocket.

According to this logic an author's first book would be the best book they ever write.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why would this be the more likely scenario?

Several example have already been given of exactly this happening, and even the more extreme case of just farming your name out to other authors to increase output even more.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

According to this logic an author's first book would be the best book they ever write.

It suggests that an authors middle works, once they've learnt a bitfrom earlier failures, and are just starting to build up a following, may well be better than their later ones, once they signed the lucrative contracts and each book is a guaranteed seller.
Can you really not think of example of long series of books where towards the end it seems like each new entry is a bit more lackluster than the previous, where they sell because there is an captive audience who will buy it immediately, just to see what happens next, but which wouldn't sell well had it been the first in a series?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Several example have already been given of exactly this happening, and even the more extreme case of just farming your name out to other authors to increase output even more.

ProfCrash said "Tom Clancy and his crap books written by others", and I'm not sure how this would be relevant since the books are written by others.

orlok said James Patterson, but considering that many people choose as their favorite book by JP one of the books written after he started mass production I don't see how this example validates your claim.

Were are the several examples again?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Can you really not think of example of long series of books where towards the end it seems like each new entry is a bit more lackluster than the previous, where they sell because there is an captive audience who will buy it immediately, just to see what happens next, but which wouldn't sell well had it been the first in a series?

None that I've read. I can't think of an example where I've only liked the first books.

But I've seen this happening with TV shows, where they drag the story around and the last seasons make you hope for cancellation, but the writers for those shows have the same amount of time to write the script for each season. So the obvious explanation is not the time but the fact that they are trying to milk an already dead cow.

[BeccaPrice]

Well, as I've said before, I'm a Nora Roberts fan. The Witness, her latest stand-alone is as good or better than anything else she's written, and it's her 200th book. I'm addicted to her In Death series, written as JD Robb. Some are better than others, but the later books are better than the early books, and there are something like 35 or 40 books in that series. So - as in everything else - it all depends on the author.

While I love Miles Vorkosigan, I'm glad that Lois Bujold has pretty much ended that series. I'm not sure she would have anything new to say about Miles. Cryoburn was a fun romp, but (except for the last few pages), didn't hold up to Memory. Diplomatic Immunity was pretty lackluster, for a Bujold.

[ProfCrash]

Clancy and Patterson supposidly write outlines for others to use to write the book. The book is then advertised as a Tom Clancy book with the co-author in small print.

It is clearly a way of selling books on Clancy's name even though he has little to do with the book. I have not read any of these books but I suspect that they are no where near as good as Hunt for Red October and other novels actually written by Clancy. Looking at Wikipedia, he has not written a book on his own since 2003. He started doing this in the mid 1990's.

My point? People become so enthralled with an author that they continue buying a series because they are invested in it or buy everything written by a particular author. Clancy and Patterson have taken it to a new level by putting their names on books written by other authors to encourage his fans to read the books. And some folks buy into it.

Personally, I think that is what happened with Wheel of Time. Robert Jodan was allowed to write books that did not advance the plot line because he and his Publisher knew that he had an audience that wanted to see the series finished and would buy the books no matter what. I think that is happening with GRR Martin. There are people hoping that he returns to the form of the the first few books and just have to know what happens in the world that he built. So they put up with the delays and the longer books with less substance. I think that is happening with Dresden and Sookie Stackhouse. People are invested in the series and want to see it end.

That is not to say that there are not people who love everythign written by a particular author and will buy it no matter what. I am sure that there are plenty of folks who enjoy every book in the above mentioned series and think I am nuts. Then I read the reviews at Amazon and see that the average score is dropping off and that there are more and more people saying the same thing that I am and I feel like I am not alone. That does not mean that the people who love Martin, Jordan, and Butcher are wrong to like them. It means they have different tastes then I do and a different tolerance level then I do.

When it comes to writing a series there is a balance between how quickly you publish, how long the story is, and how invested the public is. It seems to me that if you develop a strong enough fan base, they will excuse just about anything you do.

This is not only the case with authors, it happens in all the fields of entertainment.

I just read that the next book in the Dresden series is going to be released soon. I will not be buying it.

Heck, book 12 in the Sookie Stackhouse series was released this month and I was clueless.

[covingtoncat73]

Right you are. I abandoned Dresden, Sookie, and ice and fire. Suzanne Collins and JK Rowlings know how to wrap up a series.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

While I love Miles Vorkosigan, I'm glad that Lois Bujold has pretty much ended that series. I'm not sure she would have anything new to say about Miles. Cryoburn was a fun romp, but (except for the last few pages), didn't hold up to Memory. Diplomatic Immunity was pretty lackluster, for a Bujold.

Actually, there's a new book in the Vorkosigan series coming out in November.

It's not about Miles though, it's about Ivan

Cryoburn spoiler

Spoiler:

I doubt you'll see more from Miles' viewpoint though. Ever notice that you see nothing from Cordelias view after she becomes Countess? I expect the same will happen to Miles after becoming Count.

Though I admit I'd like to also see a sequel to Falling Free, that book ended on a cliffhanger.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Actually, there's a new book in the Vorkosigan series coming out in November.

It's not about Miles though, it's about Ivan

Exactly. Lois has said that she's said everything she wants to say about Miles. I think the Ivan wrapup is only because fans felt Ivan deserved a happy ending, too.

I have no idea where Lois' muse is going to take her next (it's been pointed out that there are currently only 3 books in the 5 gods universe, but I don't know whether she's going to revisit that world or do something totally different next.) whatever it is, I'm going to read it.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Right you are. I abandoned Dresden, Sookie, and ice and fire. Suzanne Collins and JK Rowlings know how to wrap up a series.

Butcher knows how to wrap upa series. Codex Alera was great and only 6 books. For some reason he has not done the same with Dresden.