So now I’m told that, in the new world of agile authoring, I must produce three books a year. Or more, if possible.
It’s possible, but is it beneficial?
Author Jonathan Kaye completed his debut novel, After the Affair, in three years. He laboured over it, perfected it. I’ve not read it yet, but I probably will. There’s something appealing about a guy willing to put in so much effort, to make his novel the very best it can be.
I know, I know, there are authors out there who seem to churn out novels as if they were some mass-produced commodity. And I’m not saying they’re bad books. They’re probably very good. But could they have been better, given a little more time and love?
I can’t imagine JRR knocking out the final draft of Lord of the Rings in four months, and still enjoying an avid readership over sixty years later. Can you?
I’m willing to bet that Rohinton Mistry’s novels take a bit longer than four months apiece as well.
So, has the artful business of novel-writing also fallen foul of the ‘must have it now‘ social-media generation?
It takes me around twelve months to finish the first and second drafts of a novel. Am I too slow? I guess I’ll make less money than the three-times-a-yearers, but then again I’m not in this exclusively for the money. Sure, it helps, but for me it’s more about the craft itself than the remuneration.
So what do you think? Are you happy to purchase a novel dashed off in a few months, or are you likely to be more discerning?
Speed, or quality? Which wins?
scott hunter 