As a decently prolific *reader* it drives me a little bananas when writers are ultra-productive. With them, I'm left feeling I just can't keep up, as much as I'd like to. In the genre space, authors like Adrian Tchaikovsky and Seanan McGuire have routinely published three to five books a year, and it seems they rely on relationships with multiple different publishers to make that happen. I also recently read a piece by an indie writer who argued that indie publishing allows prolific writers to circumvent the three (or one) book a year rule imposed by publishers. "Indie" + "ultra-productive" don't to me sound like a recipe for high quality writing, though, and I avoid it.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Yall blinding yourselves. Open your eyes or you will be left behind. Fiction is more than just putting words on a page. It’s evolving as I type this on my phone 📱
As a decently prolific *reader* it drives me a little bananas when writers are ultra-productive. With them, I'm left feeling I just can't keep up, as much as I'd like to. In the genre space, authors like Adrian Tchaikovsky and Seanan McGuire have routinely published three to five books a year, and it seems they rely on relationships with multiple different publishers to make that happen. I also recently read a piece by an indie writer who argued that indie publishing allows prolific writers to circumvent the three (or one) book a year rule imposed by publishers. "Indie" + "ultra-productive" don't to me sound like a recipe for high quality writing, though, and I avoid it.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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)
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.
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.
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.
No need to thank me for the traffic boost!
Yall blinding yourselves. Open your eyes or you will be left behind. Fiction is more than just putting words on a page. It’s evolving as I type this on my phone 📱
Adapt or die, oldheads! 🪦