I am someone who would be a slow writer in any imaginable universe, just because that is how my brain works. But I don't think contemporary publishing's snail's pace even benefits someone like me. It was more than two full years between signing the contract for my dragon novel and it actually launching, and I was rarely in contact with my editor for much of that time -- it wasn't like I was swamped with major revisions. Imo that kind of time scale leads to dwindling enthusiasm on the publisher's side by the pub date (especially if the book was particularly timely when written) and the author often feeling pretty distant from the project by the time they have to do a ton of promotion.
PS re: “Would you rather publish a lot of books, some okay and some great, or just a couple of great books?”
Because I don’t believe more time = better writing, necessarily, I worry for the new writer who toils for 10 years, held up by some false idea about the possibility of perfection. Finish! Let go! Apply the knowledge and bravery gained to the next project.
I think your last paragraph is spot on - we're not really in control anywhere along the line. However...I can't help playing a bit of 'what-if?' What if my fantasy trilogy had been picked up by a less fastidious publisher that was happy to throw them out one a year? I might be on my third or fourth series by now, rather than waiting for my sequel to finally appear! And yes, maybe the quality would be a bit more variable, but the core wonder would still be there - and there would be so much more of it! Like you, many of my writing idols are/were crazily productive. Jack Vance called himself 'a million words a year man,' churning out short stories for magazines and pulp paperbacks. Echoing your question, I wonder if any of his wondrous worlds would have been any less wonderous if he had sat pondering them endlessly, or if his editors had sent him back for countless tweaks. I suspect, like you, that his crazy brilliance was in part fed by his wild productivity. Having said all that, I have the utmost admiration for artists who allow their art to take as long as it takes. Hayao Miyazaki, for instance. In any case, another thorough and thought-provoking essay, Lincoln, thank you!
Re the more vs less argument: as an author, I’ve never correctly predicted* which books will breakout or earn more money (including in unexpected ways, like film options) or earn awards for that matter, so putting out more is equivalent to having more lottery tickets. I’m on book six and each book has had a completely different publishing trajectory. Meanwhile, writing more has allowed me to be less attached to a specific outcome, more willing to experiment, cross genres, and take chances.
Yes I think that's very true. You can't really know what works will catch on. On a small scale, my stories that have done the best--got a lot of attention or optioned by Hollywood--were ones I thought I might never even publish. Really hard to know what people will respond to.
Funnily enough, I've been reading Samuel R. Delany's brilliant essay collection 'The Jewel-Hinged Jaw' and the opening essay deals with the ways that the sf market incentivized and relied on high productivity (he was writing this in the 70's but was refering back to his own experiences in the early 60's or so. In a later essay written later he talks about John Brunner informing him that the ways the sf book and magazine market worked was different by the 70's) and how it affected the style and content of what was published.
There's a lot in it, but the point that this reminded me of is a segment about how sf publishers low overhead meant they could pay people upfront, but it was only very little, so the working writers had to pump out tons of work to get by. He talks about a few author, I cant recall them all except Philip K. Dick, and how they all had years longer periods of writing block after forcing themselves to adhere to this work schedule. Delany relates his own experiences pushing out 3 books in his early 20s and having to check himself into a sanitarium due to the stress. He decided at that point that working at that pace wasnt worth it, and he made the active decision to start slowing down his output which also lead to him getting better advances, and he believes led to him publishing better books.
Ha, that is timely. I definitely don't think a fast pace is for everyone, but I also suppose it is also all relative. Delany still published frequently by literary fiction standards if not as his hectic early pace with sometimes multiple books a year. Even his slow decades are a good number of books.
Philip K. Dick is interesting because his ideas are awesome but the actual execution often has a rushed, early draft quality to it. I've heard the opinion that this has contributed to so many of his stories being made into films - directors are attracted to stories that feel 'unfinished' because it gives them space to innovate. So again, maybe this way the world has been gifted more great stories than if the author had over-polished the diamond..?!
Yes, but I'd also--in the fantasy scenario--prefer to write say 10 books, 3 great, 3 good, and 3 bad rather than just the 3 great ones or eve 4 great ones I suppose. Not that we can objectively measure value of course.
Right, but that's still a net positive (your 3 great books weren't LESS great) and when you consider that there's no bad press, it almost inevitably leads to more eyes on your best stuff.
The problem, I suppose, is that when this is compounded by millions of people, and there's no 33% great proportion among those millions, the slushpile of sound and fury gets overwhelming...
Yep, this is also why despite being pro-productivity here I've never bought the AI argument that it will help you produce 10X as many books. Even if that was true, who is going to publish them? Who is going to read them? We're drowning in unread books already.
“artists who creatively thrive on productivity”. This is such an interesting observation. Sometimes when people tell me I’m productive, I wonder if thats a bad thing. What you’ve written here opens the door to the idea that it isn’t, and that it might have something to do with an individual writer’s creative cadence and energies. Thank you!
That "rule" is why a prolific tradpub friend of mine was required by her publisher (DAW) to use pseudonyms. Solid midlist writer.
I'm with you on wanting to have many books in my catalog rather than one or two. There are prolific writers who write well. There are not-so-prolific writers whose work is...not that good. It all comes down to what the individual writer's ability can support. I might note that John Steinbeck wrote THE GRAPES OF WRATH in a six-month period, and that was pretty typical for him when he was drafting--regular 2000 word days.
Great piece, Lincoln. I've always envied authors with prolific output like Joe R. Lansdale, and Stephen Graham Jones, for example. But I also wonder if that frequency comes with caveats. The books/stories they put out can't all be winners, right? Or does it even matter? I compare it to the songs on an album. They can't all be hits, but at least the recording artist finished those songs and put them out there. I'm a slow writer, but trying to be faster if/when I can. I got serious about writing later in life, so I feel like my time is running out.
This is really interesting – especially about polishing diamonds into dull stones. And as a writer with so many things I want to write, I am hampered by being also a slow writer..
Have you read SLOW PRODUCTIVITY? Cal Newport is making the arguement that going slower and obsessing over the quality makes life easier to live. I’m here for that but like you tend toward the productive. So many stories, so little time.
Also, do you think part of the reason the prolific authors are less prolific now is because they’re doing all the side things? I write three novels a year’s worth of nonfiction between newsletters and blogs.
<snip> Often it is teaching or some unrelated field that eats up your time.
Some of my favourite writers (Pratchett, Steinbeck,Orwell) were prolific writers. They were either journalists or wrote weekly/ monthly columns for papers/ magazines.
They all got better the more they wrote.
As a sports coach, I have to think that repetition (plus reflection and feedback) leads to better results. So does having a deadline: it sharpens focus.
I write my substack and publish something once a week. I see people who post daily and they're often delivering clever anecdotes. I've tried to give myself some time to have a fully formed thought, and not a just a brain dump.
I have had some ideas around for a book for some time and this month I decided that I need to just get them down in some form, and right now I've got a word document that feels more like the conspiracy boards on true crime shows than a narrative. It's a brain dump but one that needs to happen or no book will ever be written.
I think to be relevant you have to publish enough that people can see and react to your work. And that your ideas hold water. Beyond that seems like luck to me.
I'd never heard of the three-year rule before, but it makes sense. Perhaps that explains why I haven't heard anything about Marlon James' third/final book in his fantasy series? Black Leopard Red Wolf was 2019, then Moon Witch Spider King was 2022. I had kind of assumed (hoped for) a shorter wait for the third one, given the concurrent nature of the narratives. But maybe I have to wait until next year.
I am someone who would be a slow writer in any imaginable universe, just because that is how my brain works. But I don't think contemporary publishing's snail's pace even benefits someone like me. It was more than two full years between signing the contract for my dragon novel and it actually launching, and I was rarely in contact with my editor for much of that time -- it wasn't like I was swamped with major revisions. Imo that kind of time scale leads to dwindling enthusiasm on the publisher's side by the pub date (especially if the book was particularly timely when written) and the author often feeling pretty distant from the project by the time they have to do a ton of promotion.
PS re: “Would you rather publish a lot of books, some okay and some great, or just a couple of great books?”
Because I don’t believe more time = better writing, necessarily, I worry for the new writer who toils for 10 years, held up by some false idea about the possibility of perfection. Finish! Let go! Apply the knowledge and bravery gained to the next project.
I think your last paragraph is spot on - we're not really in control anywhere along the line. However...I can't help playing a bit of 'what-if?' What if my fantasy trilogy had been picked up by a less fastidious publisher that was happy to throw them out one a year? I might be on my third or fourth series by now, rather than waiting for my sequel to finally appear! And yes, maybe the quality would be a bit more variable, but the core wonder would still be there - and there would be so much more of it! Like you, many of my writing idols are/were crazily productive. Jack Vance called himself 'a million words a year man,' churning out short stories for magazines and pulp paperbacks. Echoing your question, I wonder if any of his wondrous worlds would have been any less wonderous if he had sat pondering them endlessly, or if his editors had sent him back for countless tweaks. I suspect, like you, that his crazy brilliance was in part fed by his wild productivity. Having said all that, I have the utmost admiration for artists who allow their art to take as long as it takes. Hayao Miyazaki, for instance. In any case, another thorough and thought-provoking essay, Lincoln, thank you!
Re the more vs less argument: as an author, I’ve never correctly predicted* which books will breakout or earn more money (including in unexpected ways, like film options) or earn awards for that matter, so putting out more is equivalent to having more lottery tickets. I’m on book six and each book has had a completely different publishing trajectory. Meanwhile, writing more has allowed me to be less attached to a specific outcome, more willing to experiment, cross genres, and take chances.
*and my agents/editors haven’t either!
Yes I think that's very true. You can't really know what works will catch on. On a small scale, my stories that have done the best--got a lot of attention or optioned by Hollywood--were ones I thought I might never even publish. Really hard to know what people will respond to.
Funnily enough, I've been reading Samuel R. Delany's brilliant essay collection 'The Jewel-Hinged Jaw' and the opening essay deals with the ways that the sf market incentivized and relied on high productivity (he was writing this in the 70's but was refering back to his own experiences in the early 60's or so. In a later essay written later he talks about John Brunner informing him that the ways the sf book and magazine market worked was different by the 70's) and how it affected the style and content of what was published.
There's a lot in it, but the point that this reminded me of is a segment about how sf publishers low overhead meant they could pay people upfront, but it was only very little, so the working writers had to pump out tons of work to get by. He talks about a few author, I cant recall them all except Philip K. Dick, and how they all had years longer periods of writing block after forcing themselves to adhere to this work schedule. Delany relates his own experiences pushing out 3 books in his early 20s and having to check himself into a sanitarium due to the stress. He decided at that point that working at that pace wasnt worth it, and he made the active decision to start slowing down his output which also lead to him getting better advances, and he believes led to him publishing better books.
Ha, that is timely. I definitely don't think a fast pace is for everyone, but I also suppose it is also all relative. Delany still published frequently by literary fiction standards if not as his hectic early pace with sometimes multiple books a year. Even his slow decades are a good number of books.
Actually, I think I was mistaken or he's underselling how much work he did, between 1962 and 1968 he published 9 books, several within the same year.
Philip K. Dick is interesting because his ideas are awesome but the actual execution often has a rushed, early draft quality to it. I've heard the opinion that this has contributed to so many of his stories being made into films - directors are attracted to stories that feel 'unfinished' because it gives them space to innovate. So again, maybe this way the world has been gifted more great stories than if the author had over-polished the diamond..?!
Sounds to me like this is a coded way of saying you aspire to writing lots of great books :)
That it's not Either / Or (unless you're writing books like Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake)
Yes, but I'd also--in the fantasy scenario--prefer to write say 10 books, 3 great, 3 good, and 3 bad rather than just the 3 great ones or eve 4 great ones I suppose. Not that we can objectively measure value of course.
Right, but that's still a net positive (your 3 great books weren't LESS great) and when you consider that there's no bad press, it almost inevitably leads to more eyes on your best stuff.
The problem, I suppose, is that when this is compounded by millions of people, and there's no 33% great proportion among those millions, the slushpile of sound and fury gets overwhelming...
Yep, this is also why despite being pro-productivity here I've never bought the AI argument that it will help you produce 10X as many books. Even if that was true, who is going to publish them? Who is going to read them? We're drowning in unread books already.
amen
Here's one reason why authors who are academics have a hard time writing much. https://open.substack.com/pub/musgrave/p/what-do-professors-do?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
“artists who creatively thrive on productivity”. This is such an interesting observation. Sometimes when people tell me I’m productive, I wonder if thats a bad thing. What you’ve written here opens the door to the idea that it isn’t, and that it might have something to do with an individual writer’s creative cadence and energies. Thank you!
Always enjoy your perspective, Lincoln. Thanks for this.
Thank you!
That "rule" is why a prolific tradpub friend of mine was required by her publisher (DAW) to use pseudonyms. Solid midlist writer.
I'm with you on wanting to have many books in my catalog rather than one or two. There are prolific writers who write well. There are not-so-prolific writers whose work is...not that good. It all comes down to what the individual writer's ability can support. I might note that John Steinbeck wrote THE GRAPES OF WRATH in a six-month period, and that was pretty typical for him when he was drafting--regular 2000 word days.
Great piece, Lincoln. I've always envied authors with prolific output like Joe R. Lansdale, and Stephen Graham Jones, for example. But I also wonder if that frequency comes with caveats. The books/stories they put out can't all be winners, right? Or does it even matter? I compare it to the songs on an album. They can't all be hits, but at least the recording artist finished those songs and put them out there. I'm a slow writer, but trying to be faster if/when I can. I got serious about writing later in life, so I feel like my time is running out.
This is really interesting – especially about polishing diamonds into dull stones. And as a writer with so many things I want to write, I am hampered by being also a slow writer..
Have you read SLOW PRODUCTIVITY? Cal Newport is making the arguement that going slower and obsessing over the quality makes life easier to live. I’m here for that but like you tend toward the productive. So many stories, so little time.
Also, do you think part of the reason the prolific authors are less prolific now is because they’re doing all the side things? I write three novels a year’s worth of nonfiction between newsletters and blogs.
<snip> Often it is teaching or some unrelated field that eats up your time.
Some of my favourite writers (Pratchett, Steinbeck,Orwell) were prolific writers. They were either journalists or wrote weekly/ monthly columns for papers/ magazines.
They all got better the more they wrote.
As a sports coach, I have to think that repetition (plus reflection and feedback) leads to better results. So does having a deadline: it sharpens focus.
I write my substack and publish something once a week. I see people who post daily and they're often delivering clever anecdotes. I've tried to give myself some time to have a fully formed thought, and not a just a brain dump.
I have had some ideas around for a book for some time and this month I decided that I need to just get them down in some form, and right now I've got a word document that feels more like the conspiracy boards on true crime shows than a narrative. It's a brain dump but one that needs to happen or no book will ever be written.
I think to be relevant you have to publish enough that people can see and react to your work. And that your ideas hold water. Beyond that seems like luck to me.
I'd never heard of the three-year rule before, but it makes sense. Perhaps that explains why I haven't heard anything about Marlon James' third/final book in his fantasy series? Black Leopard Red Wolf was 2019, then Moon Witch Spider King was 2022. I had kind of assumed (hoped for) a shorter wait for the third one, given the concurrent nature of the narratives. But maybe I have to wait until next year.