THE Group for Authors! discussion
The Craft
>
Are Slow Writers Doomed to Fail in the Digital Age?
date
newest »
newest »
What plight? Walt Whitman took pretty much a lifetime to write "Leaves of Grass". Unless one is churning out genre books that require a formula and are sold to a relatively small, but faithful audience, I can't imagine why the "speed" of one's writing is an issue. To me, one's focus should be on telling a great story and doing so with as much skill and professionalism as one can muster. Pressuring oneself to "write faster" will not serve the writing, it only adds a potentially toxic element of stress and turns what should be a powerful and gratifying creative experience into something resembling an assembly line. I have no idea if I wrote my books "slow" or "fast" but I am mostly pleased with the end result of what I have written. Whether one writes a book in 3 weeks or 3 years at a snail's pace the most important thing is to feel excited and passionate about telling the story that is uniquely yours to tell. There is, of course, potential marketing and financial benefits to having written more than just one book, but focusing on royalties rather than writing also does not serve a writer well. Do you actually believe that Harper Lee tortured herself with writing any more books after "To Kill a Mockingbird"? (Who knows? Maybe she did, but I think it is unlikely.) I was just looking at a listing of a famous author's books a few days ago and I thought, "Wow. He has written, like, 24 books?? " Only three of them were well known classics. I guess if we're lucky we might each have a greatest hit or two but most titles by most authors will remain quite obscure to all but that writer's most devoted fans, whether they were written fast or s-l-o-w.
I agree with you: the work is done when the work is done. Inspiration is not enhanced by enslavement to an hour-glass.
That was a great blog from Anne R. Allen; thanks for sharing. I recently wrote on my own blog about how the rush to publish can lead to substandard work, something that's true whether the author is self-published or traditionally published. Personally I'm a SLOW writer and I rewrite a lot. That process doesn't keep me from finishing books, and it helps me make them better but, it is S...L...O...W. Nevertheless, it is what works for me, even if it means I'll have to keep my day job forever because I won't ever have a huge catalog of books to sell.
What's always unfortunate about these "debates" is that proponents of each practice take stands and shake fists, proselytize the virtues of their approach, and vilify members of the other group. But there really is no right or wrong answer. Some authors are naturally prolific and quick writers; others aren't.
and if you write a bad book fast it will just be another obscure entry; let's be real. most of us are doomed to obscurity; our "dreams" are stoked by Hollywood and certain tawdry "self-help" books. If you aren't gonna write for the joy of writing you are gonna go nuts. tell your damn story, and if it hits, great! if not enjoy your life and write another one if so inspired
Thanks, Matt. That's a useful article and a stark reminder not to push ourselves to the limit all the time.I enjoy writing - I get into the heads of some amazing people who do adventurous things and I enjoy that world. I didn't expect to enjoy writing as much as I do.
I'm definitely a slow writer. But I'm not going to work/write 90 hours a week, neither am I going to give up on family life. So my books take two years. Historical accuracy is important to me and so there is a lot of checking going on!
I also remember who won the race - it wasn't the hare.
1. The plight of the slow writer - not an easy one. Better to write the full series and drip them out every 6 months.
2. A slow writer takes more than a year to publish a book.
3. I do feel a little pressure to write quicker but it is balanced by the desire to write something that will stand the test of time.
7. Some of the best books have taken up to ten years to write. We should name a few on here!
"Death Takes a Holiday" can't remember the writer (oh dear!!) but it was turned into a film 'Meet Joe Black".
Matt wrote: "I came across an interesting article written by Anne R. Allen on her blog:http://annerallen.com/slow-writers-do...
1) What are your thoughts on the plight of slow writers?
2) ..."
I'm a slow writer, but if you're self-publishing, a regular schedule is essential. The self-published authors I know who are making a full-time living average a novel every 3 months or so (every month for romance).
A lot of this is driven by the 30-day and 90-day cliffs on Amazon. You get maximum visibility during those time periods, and that's when the majority of your sales will come in.
Take heart! I published a book in 2012 and it took until late 2016 for it to reach #1 in its genre on Amazon. So don't get stressed and miss the enjoyment of writing.
Anna, your post gives me heart! I self-published my first novel in 2009 and am working on two more but I'd love to do more marketing for my first "baby." Any tips for us new authors? And what's the title of your book?
Matt wrote: "I came across an interesting article written by Anne R. Allen on her blog:http://annerallen.com/slow-writers-do...
1) What are your thoughts on the plight of slow writers?
2) ..."
I'd like to know who comes up with these rules and requirements. It took me about two years to write my first book. You have to do what's best for you and your book.
Steven wrote: "What plight? Walt Whitman took pretty much a lifetime to write "Leaves of Grass". Unless one is churning out genre books that require a formula and are sold to a relatively small, but faithful audi..."Well said!
Speed as in words per minute has little or nothing to do with writing. If by slow you mean lazy that is a completely different kettle of fish. Dedication and perseverance are the necessary requirements. Quality will always vary no matter the speed the author writes at.
Ramona wrote: "Anna, your post gives me heart! I self-published my first novel in 2009 and am working on two more but I'd love to do more marketing for my first "baby." Any tips for us new authors? And what's the..."There's some very sound advice in this thread.
To answer your question, Ramona, after you establish credibility you must establish visibility. I used to run my own company and that was something I took to heart back then and can use now.
Go through your books with a fine tooth comb and ensure they are credible, i.e. they are worthy of their genre and a good quality product. Then work very hard to make them visible. We all know how difficult that is.
took off when it got on the 'Also Boughts' of successful books of the same genre when it was on a Kindle Countdown Deal. I'd been following a thread in this group called 'Best Bang for Buck' and I think it would be worth anyone's while to read the results of 'Jack's' (and others')findings on places to advertise. It can depend on your genre.
So Ramona, don't give up, just make sure your baby is well dressed and then wheel her out to as many people as you possibly can. And know that not everyone is going to think your baby is beautiful but others will be/feel better for having read what you have slaved over to produce.
Matt wrote: "I came across an interesting article written by Anne R. Allen on her blog:4) How do you feel about the statement, “It took you a year to write a book? My grandmother can type 80 words a minute!” "
Hey, I’m a speed demon compared with Salman Rushdie, who types his MSs with two fingers on an old manual typewriter. I saw him doing it in a TV special once.
Ugggggh it really bugs me when people say that you need to publish books X amount of times a year.I can write incredibly fast, but I spent a months - close to a year - editing because I also have a full-time job and some semblance of a social life.
From a marketing point of view (where my day job is), I can understand the need to publish regularly to stay relevant in an audience's mind and more visible on Amazon. I have watched my first book go down, and down, over the last few months as I've not pushed the marketing very much (I chose to focus on book two and market more when I have more books out), and it is upsetting.
However, I am very much a quality-over-quantity kind of person. Book two deals with some serious and difficult issues including depression, anxiety, PTSD, disability, death, grief, entrepreneurship, stalking, divorce, and love, and I didn't want to rush it because I wanted to do those themes justice.
Also these people who insist we should get books out in record time likely have an editor, proofreader, cover designer, and possibly even a marketing team to help them so that they have more time to spend marketing the book. Not to mention a lot of them no longer have/need a day job. When you do everything on your own, getting a book out that quickly just isn't possible.
Well said, Kristina. Though I would insert the word 'good' into your last sentence, to read: "...getting a good book out...".Yours sounds amazing.
Writers write. I am in a zone of creativity when I write and time loses its push. I write because I am compelled to. As a result, I have my novels under the bed that are not quire finished yet. I have short stories stashed away for another day. My process with theses books and stories is an outlet. The published books are written in another vein altogether - they are out reaches for change. Thank you for suggesting this article as it caused me to evaluate my process of releasing work. To your original question, 'slow' is related to intent for the work. Of course that is my personal perception.
Kristina, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. And with Sherry - we write because we must. Some writers are into the formulaic genres, which certainly fills a large market, and crank out book after book, year after year. I have no quarrel with that; I won't argue with success.But for myself, especially for the book I'm currently working on, I have had to spend a lot of time thinking and working out situations, for it is a highly emotionally charged story and I've had to plumb emotional depths I have little experience with. I must do this in order to do justice to the story, and in order not to short-change my characters or my readers. (The last thing I want is characters who are pissed off at me because I messed with their story, and believe me, they would let me know, in no uncertain terms.)
Whether or not readers will flock to my book is second in importance. It would be wonderful to become a best-seller and get rich and famous, but that's not why I write, and if it happens, it's frosting on my cake.
To each his own. There's room out there for all of us. I believe our responsibility to readers is to give them the best we can. Ignore those who try to create arbitrary rules, limits, or deadlines. Who died and made them the be-all-and-end-all in the literary world? What they pose are only their opinions. Yours and mine are just as valid.
"I also remember who won the race - it wasn't the hare.""But if they'd had a rematch, would anyone have bet on the tortoise?" — Last Days of Disco.
I'm a slow writer myself, but I just love that quote.
With the occasional exception, as there always is, quality will outperform quantity. It requires little talent or ability to churn out one book after another. My late aunt was addicted to romance novels, all written by the same author.
New novels by this author would appear faster than my aunt could read them; though she tried valiantly. She would become very angry when I would visit and catch her reading. Regardless of which novel it was at the time, I would ask, "Would you like me to tell you the basic plot of that story and how it will end?" My aunt wasn't angry because I was being sarcastic. She was angry because, inevitably, I could accurately reveal the plot and ending; for that matter, so could almost anyone else.
Jim wrote: "With the occasional exception, as there always is, quality will outperform quantity. It requires little talent or ability to churn out one book after another. My late aunt was addicted to romance..."
I do the same thing when my wife binge-watches Melrose Place. Any time a new character appears I just say "They're up to no good!" and I'm always right (she takes it in good humor).
But neither anecdote proves quality will win--if anything it suggests the opposite (overlooking that being predictable isn't necessarily a mark of poor quality, particularly in genre fiction).
I'd rather stick to my own guns of writing integrity and ignore the mediocrity into which our culture continually devolves. We can acknowledge it without having to accept it as inevitable and permanent.If somebody don't uphold some kind of standards of quality, no one will recognize quality when they finally wake up and go looking for it. I suspect we'll always be in the minority, but that's a familiar place for me. It's too easy to do the same as everyone else, to be a mindless sheep. (My apologies to any sheep out there - it's an example only.)
I think those who write what might be termed future classics usually have a long time to wait unless they can make their books visible to the right kind of reader.But is it possible that there are more eager readers for the type of book Jim's late aunt reads? If so, then future classics or quality books will need their authors to work harder to find their market. And so we slow writers have a doubly difficult job to do.
Kristina, don't listen to people who say you have a timeline, please. When I started I had four books written before I realised I could not attract a traditional publisher, so then I self-published all four at once, and now three years later another three, but as I write them - no timeline.Good luck with your writing,
Mike.
Don't worry Adam, I don't. I can see their point of view because of the industry I work in, but as others have said, the readers are more likely to remember quality over quantity.I think it really depends on what motivates you to write. Many writers write for the love of it, but sadly, the ones most likely to make a living from their writing are the prolific ones who approach their writing in a more business-orientated way, even if their writing isn't that great.
I have found that because I went down the indie route, the business community is a lot more supportive than the literary one. There are some folks in the literary community who seem to think that because I bypassed the gatekeepers, my writing isn't good enough. Because the gatekeepers are, of course, motivated by quality, not sales...ahem...
I should also mention I don't listen to these people either. I write and publish my books for myself and my readers. Those that don't like what I do aren't part of my target audience.
I may be wrong, but I'd say you're far more likely to find a traditionally-published author churning books out than an indie because they're contractually obliged to publish a certain number of books.
I enjoy writing and would still write even if the opportunity of going it alone, rather than a traditional route hadn't become the norm. I tend to write two novels a year, although I can do one in three months. That's if it's a one off. What slows me down is my series titles. In one series thirteen books with the same girl as the lead character makes it very hard to keep coming up with new scenarios. Yet those are the ones that sell and have a good following.
My most recent title was a one off and a dip in the water for a crime story rather than my usual international crime. It's doing alright, but nothing like a series title, that would have trebled sales by now.
Would I advise somebody to do one offs, or series? To create an income it must be a series. My first book in one of my series came out in 2009. It still sells every month. The real value comes with at least eighty percent of readers going on to the second and third books, most readers have read all thirteen.
As for quality? I like to think I give good value for money. After all, people are investing their time and money with me and I value that.
Would I go traditional? No. At the book fair an agent looked at my work and told me my overall sales were exceeding most of the traditionally published books. They could do no more for me.
Kudos! That's heartening news! I'm always pleased to hear of another's hard-won success.
Kristina wrote: "Don't worry Adam, I don't. I can see their point of view because of the industry I work in, but as others have said, the readers are more likely to remember quality over quantity.I think it reall..."
I take umbrage to your comment that the writing of the more prolific authors is not that great. Has it not occurred to you that the natural born storyteller cannot stop telling stories? I've written over fifty books for a number of well known publishers plus writing a newspaper column and for television. I can't help it! A former HC editor who is now copy editor for some of the most famous names in the world of authorship put it succinctly when we met up a couple of weeks ago. There are many competent writers, but the natural born storyteller is just that; the kind of people who can tell a yarn over a glass of wine (or beer) whichever happens to be your poison. I'm not talking about the likes of James Patterson who employs an army of 'ghosts' to write his stories then appends his name, I'm talking about the likes of Anthony Horowitz who is far more prolific than I am. Be in no doubt established publishers expect results and the prolific are not just expected to be competent, they have to sparkle.
Quality vs quantity? I don't see it as a binary choice. For that matter "quality" is a slippery concept when it comes to writing. It's hard to pin down exactly what it means. I am sure we can all point to a poorly written book which sells by the bucket-load. There have been a couple of posters here who have insisted that quality is important, but then gone on to say that they know someone who adores "low quality" writing or television.
So what does "quality" mean? The so-called "low quality" writers must be doing something right if they are getting so many readers. I suspect that what these writers are doing is creating compelling plots and characters even if their basic word skills aren't up to much.
I remember talking to a non-writer friend about a book that we'd both read. I hadn't liked it because the writing was clunky. She said "well, I wouldn't know about that but I loved the part where ...."
And maybe that's the point. Writing is about giving the customer what they want. That doesn't mean that quality always beats quantity or vice versa. It's about finding an appropriate level (and type) of quantity and ditto for quality.
I do think that the digital age is putting more emphasis on quantity. The way we consume media is changing. Readers are looking for the written equivalent of box sets. They are less interested in stand-alone books or movies. Series do seem to sell better than stand alone books, particularly to the young.
That doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't follow this formula is doomed. But it pays to keep our eyes and ears open and appreciate the changing trends, and not to be dogmatic and insist that there is only one right way to do this.
Well said, Will. It's a hard enough game without drawing battle lines and whatever path you take to be successful takes 'blood, sweat and tears.' As also applies to film makers, make the film - now market. Distribution is the Holy Grail and I will fully admit it's harder for the self published than for those with the might of a publisher doing the marketing and publicity for them.
Matt wrote: "I came across an interesting article written by Anne R. Allen on her blog:http://annerallen.com/slow-writers-do...
1) What are your thoughts on the plight of slow writers?
2) ..."
Sally wrote: "Kudos! That's heartening news! I'm always pleased to hear of another's hard-won success."
Lizzie wrote: "Kristina wrote: "Don't worry Adam, I don't. I can see their point of view because of the industry I work in, but as others have said, the readers are more likely to remember quality over quantity.
..."
Writing a novel is an art that kind of parallels a painting on canvas, wood, or concrete. Each is done at the speed ability of the artist. Writing a novel for me requires an idea to ideas, a chapter outline that puts the ideas in order, and then the manuscript. The quality of my writing is portrayed in the way I communicate the story. Some days I write more than others. I don’t push myself to write two novels in a year. I agree with Matt: The work is done when it’s done.
Will wrote: "Quality vs quantity? I don't see it as a binary choice. For that matter "quality" is a slippery concept..."Good point, Will. In some respects, this idea of one or the other is like comparing apples to bicycle tires.
I agree quality really has nothing to do with satisfying readers appetites with plots and characters that appeal to them. I love good books no matter what. It is important that as authors we write to appeal to a mass audience not good or bad books just ones that find homes with out any trouble.
It's "different horses for different courses." Your first book doesn't matter because (I think most people, anyway) don't know how long it's going to take to write their book and so don't make any publishing plans until it's done. Your next book, well that depends. If you're writing novels in a series (and, to a lesser extent, other books in a series)--yes, you have to get the next book out before people forget about it. If you've got a personal development book that you're lecturing about, you may not have material or a reason to write another book for years. In fact, the only "genres" that would have to worry about production are "pulp" fictions (like romance, where people gobble them up and then forget about them), or non-fiction addressing easily-outdated material, like computer software or collectibles price guides. Or if you're taking a scattershot approach to making money off your books, hoping that the more books you have available, the more likely one will strike a chord with an audience.
Matt wrote: "I came across an interesting article written by Anne R. Allen on her blog:http://annerallen.com/slow-writers-do...
1) What are your thoughts on the plight of slow writers?
2) ..."
Since I do not depend on writing for a living (I am retired), I write at whatever pace suits me. Stephen King's advice is to spend 3 to 6 hours per day either writing or reading, and when I'm in the thick of a book I probably do that, but sometimes I take time off, or I only spend an hour per day for a week or so. Really, who should care? The chances of commercial success are pretty slim with millions of books published every year, so write at whatever pace produces a good book—don't rush it. Putting a poorly written and poorly edited book out quickly only hurts your reputation—and the reputation of independent publishers.
I write at my own pace. I am always constantly reading on being a self published author and learning how to edit my manuscripts myself. I take my time. Also I do not have the finances to put out books a lot so I put out a book when I have the money.
Blaque wrote: "I write at my own pace. I am always constantly reading on being a self published author and learning how to edit my manuscripts myself. I take my time. Also I do not have the finances to put out books a lot so I put out a book when I have the money..."I think you have a lot of company. And I think that a thoughtful writer wants to write at a pace appropriate to the book. Some of it depends on the story itself.
You might find it useful to check out Joan Dempsey's "Revise With Confidence." Among other things, she offers a three-week program of exercises that help writers learn to revise and edit, by opening their eyes to problem areas or habits. The great things about the course are that 1) it's affordable, 2) it's great fun, 3) you can do the exercises at your own pace, not necessarily the same day they are sent to you, 4) you can get back into the program anytime, 24/7, until you complete the exercises, 5) you can revisit the program anytime forever, 6) the comments and questions of others in the program are posted on the site, and you get emails announcing this, so you can see how others fared in the exercises (I have learned TONS of stuff from others' comments - on their own, they are almost worth the price of admission), and 7) Joan responds to the posted questions and comments every day, and often supplies links to relevant articles. Whatever level of writer you are - beginner, somewhere in the middle with a couple of books under your belt, or seasoned with many publications - you are welcome in this course and cannot fail to gain much from it.
This is good stuff!
http://annerallen.com/slow-writers-do...
1) What are your thoughts on the plight of slow writers?
2) What do you consider a "slow writer"?
3) Do you feel "pressure" to write fast? If so, how do you cope?
4) How do you feel about the statement, “It took you a year to write a book? My grandmother can type 80 words a minute!”
5) Does creating new stuff really take time?
6) Donald Maass or Dean Wesley Smith?
7) Do you believe in the POWER of SLOW?
My thoughts on the subject matter: The work is done when the work is done!