What are your thoughts on authors being asked to write a book a year.

I should have that problem.

However, Dean Koontz (whose books I used to devour) seems formulaic to me now. So I can see the inherent problems.

Interesting article... if not slightly depressing. Hello world! Books are awesome!

I could do a book a year pretty easily (I think). Right now I can crank out a rough draft in two-ish months, and I hardly write full time. But I guess a book a year doesn't mean the author has the full year to write the book.

I definitely agree that the public forgets easily and quickly, if they ever pick up the book in the first place.

A book a year, when it's your day job, doesn't seem at all like a big ask to me. Book factory? I don't see many factories working at a 1 per annum rate.

Honestly, I think it's fair. It's scary, but it's fair when you look at it from only a business perspective. These authors create a product for the book-buying public, and as the article said, if that author doesn't put out a book when expected by his or her readers, those readers will turn to another author for their fix.

That being said, there's plenty of room for more authors, IMO. For avid book readers who read a book a week (rare, but I know a bunch of them), that's 50 books a year, 50 authors a year. And these readers are usually particular about the genre they read, so they may read only romance, only thrillers, only mystery, etc. They want their books! My paranormal mystery writers group are a rabid bunch of readers who are constantly recommending books to each other because they can't get enough.

Some authors won't be able to produce a book a year, and that's fair, too, from a creative perspective. If they're phenomenal bestsellers, the public will wait. But the publishers won't make the profit they'd hoped to on a new book that comes out a year after the last. Oh, well. I don't think the bestselling author has anything worry about. The midlist author probably does.

Could I write a book a year? Yep.

Shoot, last year I wrote three books.

Everyone writes at a different pace, so it's difficult to judge and say, "hell yeah, a book a year's feasible," or "OMG, the pressure!" If I only wrote a book a year, I'd never get these friggin' stories out of my head. Heck, I wanna be Gena Showalter. She has a new book come out every couple of months, and she's an awesome urban fantasy/paranormal romance author.

Going at my current pace, I think I could do one every 9 months. But I like to have about a months' breather space in between, so let's say 10 months.

But I do have some more ambitious projects in mind that will likely take me quite a bit longer.

I think that's really what you give up when you try to do something like this: flexibility. To me, that's one of the really important parts of inspiration. Yeah, I could PROBABLY do a book a year, but what if I got onto something that was really important to me, and it took two years? No way I would sacrifice that.

Anything mass produced is going to go shoddy. But people get used to cr@p, and some people will read anything. Somewhere between the name brand authors who might get the contracts to hack out cookie-cutter novels and the thousands of wannabes who fill amateur writers' sites with slush, there is a broad spectrum of very good writers who will go on busting their brain cells to put out their best and hope to sell it. So what's new.

I think that for authors who (a) write full-time and (b) don't write especially slowly, it's probably doable most of the time. I think those writers who can't work at that pace for whatever reason should resist the pressure, though; better to go slower and produce better work. OTOH, if writing that book is your number-one work priority for a year, I think most writers would be able to meet that demand.

Easy peasy. If the publisher will pay me one big fat advance per book and enough royalties to sustain me during the year, I could turn out at least one book per year, guaranteed. Possibly up to one every six months. Some of them would be better than others, but that's to be expected.

I'd love to be under that pressure!

To be honest, I"m not enjoying being under that pressure. Granted now I am no longer writing for a book deal (finished my two books), so I am a bit concerned if I will ever sell a book again, but the pressure is really on and it's tough. It's a psychological thing. Yes technically I can and have written a book in less than a year, but I still worry what will happen if I can't. Unlike some of the people here, I am not constantly writing. I feel passion for it, but I don't feel this need to write every day or whatever. In theory I could probably not write for months on end. The added pressure kind of paralises me at times. Makes it even harder to sit down and do it.

At any rate, I get why there is the pressure, and I think many authors can meet the deadline. But it is unfortunate with our instant gratification society these days that unless you are producing and producing, you'll probably get forgotten about.

For the most part, I am against it.

Now, if an author signs a contract agreeing to it- then they should certainly meet the deadlines just as people have to finish their work on time at whatever their job is. Unless they want to get majorly chewed out by their boss.

But, I don't think any author should be pressured into signing such contracts. There have been so many authors I used to like. But lately, I've noticed them churning out work so much quicker than they used to. And it definitely shows in the negative sense.

Some writers can churn many novels out and they're still great. (Christie comes to mind. she only had few clunkers out of hundreds of books). But most writers need longer time.

It's okay to ask a writer to write a book a year. Or a book a month. Or a book every twelve seconds.

It's okay for a writer to say no to any request from a publisher. Or to say yes. Or to treat the request as the start of a negotiation.

Dale

I think I'd be fine with it myself but I can see how some wouldn't. What about those who write epic first drafts and spend as long worldplanning as writing? The ones who are writing to have their story told and not necessarily (but hopefully) sold.

Didn't Australian novelist Tim Winton write a book a year for 10 years following the publication of his very successful first book?

Yes, it would be akin to a 8-6 job. I think you'd have to pay attention to becoming physically and mentally in top shape to be able to keep up this pace.

Shades of the music industry and the contracts sought by record companies of newly signed and contemporary acts. Those bands formed during the 60s - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones - weren't subject to the present day commercial pressures. Interestingly though, Elton John and Bernie Taupin very early on signed a contract for them to put out 2 albums a year. They kept this up for 5-10 years.

Some best-selling authors are/have been factories producing brand name product with the aid of ghost writers. Back in 1969s, a 3rd person asked me if I would do it for a well known biographical novelist. My price, aside from $$$, was a guarantee that one of my novels would be published. The 3rd person could not guarantee it, so I passed and was called arrogant. That was when I learned the names of other authors who used ghosts.

On the subject of a book a year, it must indeed be a form of writer hell to meet the deadline and continually write in the same genre (when one may wish to try another) perhaps with the same characters and forced plots.

veinglory said:

A book a year, when it's your day job, doesn't seem at all like a big ask to me. Book factory? I don't see many factories working at a 1 per annum rate.

Click to expand...

I was going to say this, but you said it better than I could have said it.

During the summer, teachers attend various workshops to earn continuing education credit. I always attend as many as possible, to look good and to, well, continue my education.

Then our district made a requirement: We had to attend at least 24 hours of workshops during the summer.

I was already doing that, and more. But the moment it became a requirement, something shifted mentally, and I haven't been as happy about attending these things. What was once a pleasurable extra has become an onerous task.

I would hate for my writing to become that way. So, even though I could write a novel in a year, I would hate to have to write a novel in a year. I have also noted the decrease in quality from prolific authors.

--Q

veinglory said:

A book a year, when it's your day job, doesn't seem at all like a big ask to me. Book factory? I don't see many factories working at a 1 per annum rate.

Click to expand...

I think this is a false analogy. A factory has many different workers, and while I am not saying the job is easy (it is far from it, I know people who work in factories), they are making the same product over and over, know how to do it, and if something goes wrong typically a mechanic is called in to fix it.

Writing you are on your own. Yes eventually you have an editor, but pushing out that novel a year thing is a writer on her own. You are also producing a brand new product, from scratch each time. Writing a new book requires new research, requires new writing skills etc. Sure some writers write the same kind of novels over and over (and I like this, knowing what I am getting ahead of time), but there are others of us out there who are basically starting all over each time around. Now some authors find it super easy to write a book a year, and that's awesome. I actually am probably one of them. But there are authors out there who need more time, need the chance to really research and develop their ideas before even pen touches paper. This does not make them lesser authors just because they take maybe two years to write a book.

And no, authors are under no obligation to sign a contract that says one book a year, in fact I know of no one who has. But there is another pressure, akin to peer pressure, that if you don't, you are screwed.

I totally get, like I've already said, why it's good to do a book a year. But to claim that just because you are doing it full time you should be able to produce produce produce like a factory is a bit naive, and a tiny bit insulting. I get that there are people out there who would love to be able to write full time, but it doesn't suddenly make everything so much easier. Just like when people say, "I should be so lucky to have the problems of a published author" - just because you get what you wish for, doesn't make life sunshine and lollypops. There are stresses, trials and tribulations at every level, that are all worthy of being problems for an author.

Interesting the differences in perspective.

In the Paying Jobs section, there is an agent who posts for ghost writers to write particular types of NF books. These people have to turn around 25K-40K words in a period of up to 3 months-and less. I don't know how many of these writers can continue to do this all year round. If they're specialists in their area, then it might be plausible.

Granted, I don't know how many full-time working NF feature writer journalists are required to produce a total of 100k printed words per annum, but I believe that it is not impossible, though I would surmise this is pushing things to the limit.This translates to more than 50 pieces @1,500 words/piece, or about a piece of 1,500 words a week for nearly every week of the year.

ETA: Did I say 1,500 word features? at 1+ per week for 50 weeks? Yes-as long as the article required no research, interviews, travelling time etc.

ATP said:

In the Paying Jobs section, there is an agent who posts for ghost writers to write particular types of NF books. These people have to turn around 25K-40K words in a period of up to 3 months-and less. I don't know how many of these writers can continue to do this all year round. If they're specialists in their area, then it might be plausible.

Click to expand...

Some professional tie-in authors have to turn in books within periods of months. I've heard of contracts requiring a completed draft in six weeks. Some may scoff and say, "eh, it's tie-in work, they don't have to create the world, blah blah." I say, "OMG, 85k words in six weeks? I want to be you!"

It all depends on the writer. And the contract.

University professors are asked to publish twice a year to keep their jobs at many univerisities--or they are asked to to stay in 'good favor'. So having that requirement in a freedom-type job is hardly unique.

If an author doesn't want to write at that pace they need to either avoid the contract or evade the glares, or go with a more relaxed publisher. I just don't see it as an unreasonable ask.

Well we'll agree to disagree then.

I do think it depends a lot on the genre, too. In romance, one book a year is pretty much considered 'slow'. Publishers would like for you to have presence on the shelves at least twice a year.

When my publisher told me that they wanted a second book, I said great. My agent called 2 months later and said "How much have you written?" I said none. Turns out they wanted it within another 6 weeks.

So I wrote it in 6 weeks. I actually do work really well under a deadline, but I know other writers that absolutely crumble under one.

It all depends on genre, the pushback from your publisher, and how fast *you* are comfortable with, really. Most editors are fairly understanding about how stressful it is to write a book, even if marketing is not.

If I actually had twelve months from start of writing to finished book in the editor's hands, and if my advance was enough to pay the bills during that time, I could handle it. If "one book a year" had to allow for editing, production and distribution as well, that could take a good chunk out of the actual writing time, and I'm not so sure.