Output

[Jet]

I have a writing friend who writes romance and she tells me that Harlequin authors produce at least 3 books a year. I don't believe anyone can write 3+ books a year and not skimp on quality of writing.

Would a publisher expect a writer of YA Fantasy to produce more than 1 book a year?

I'm interested in writing both category romance and YA fantasy but can't churn out stories, so the answer to this will help me decide which type of book to try.

[Toothpaste]

I think it depends. Stupid answer, but truthful. Just remember while you may find you would skimp on quality if you wrote 3 books a year, there are other authors out there who do not. Each author is an individual. However. Chances are with your genre you would be expected to write only one book a year. It seems to be the norm. Harlequin is a bit different than YA, and especially YA fantasy. Still I maintain that there are authors of every genre who write more or less than you do and the quality varies little.

[moondance]

I could write two YA books of good quality per year if I wrote full time. I'm not sure I could do more than that, but then I should imagine that Harlequin romances follow some kind of prescribed structure, so presumably after you've got the hang of it, you could pretty much keep churning them out (as long as you kept coming up with new ideas for interpreting the formula).

Also, the more you write, the more confident you become and the more settled in your way of working. Someone who was used to writing romances could write them faster than a fantasy book - and vice versa.

Three books a year doesn't sound that impossible if you're writing full time.

[Moon Daughter]

All I can say is that nothing is impossible. As Toothpaste said...it all depends, which is very true.

[giftedrhonda]

I could write 3 YAs a year...it takes me 3 months to write and edit one. And I feel pretty comfy with the quality of them.

If you do 3 pages a day, that's 90 pages a month. So two months to write the first draft, and 1 month to edit it.

Then, take a break and research for a month...and the next month, move on to the next.

[Southern_girl29]

I'm going to finish the first draft of my first YA in a little over a month. In fact, I'll have been writing for four weeks on Saturday, and I only have 15,000words to go. I don't think I'm skimping on quality at all. I write for 2 hours a night. I've gotten over 3,000 some nights, but the average is about 2,500.

[Grey Malkin]

I'm interested in writing both category romance and YA fantasy but can't churn out stories, so the answer to this will help me decide which type of book to try.

You seem to be worrying about things so far ahead of you that they are less than trivial. It's like panicking about what shoes to wear to an interview before you send the initial application.

Some writers can churn books out, some can't. Simple as that. You could write one book and never bother with a second if that's what you wish.

What you should be concentrating on right now is what kind of book you want to write, and what kind of book you will be proud to see published and give that novel 100% commitment. It would be nice to be able to write all kinds of styles, but what will most likely happen is that if your first book is published, the publisher will be interested in a similar follow up. So if your first novel is fantasy YA, your second book should really be fantasy YA, rather than than contemporary YA or "issue" YA, but if the writing is strong enough you might be able to argue that they are still in the same domain. But the chances of that publisher being interetested in a totally different target audience such as adult romance is very, very small.

Pseudonyms are one solution, but in terms of a career, it might be better to establish yourself in a specific genre and get a few books on the shelf. If they sell as a group, then any one is less likely to be cut from future print runs. If you have a horror here, a romance over there, a YA fantasy somewhere else, then readers won't be able to pinpoint what you, as the author, are about. People seem to think pigeonholing is a bad thing. If you are trying to establish an author-image, it isn't.

Grey

[Jamesaritchie]

I have a writing friend who writes romance and she tells me that Harlequin authors produce at least 3 books a year. I don't believe anyone can write 3+ books a year and not skimp on quality of writing.

Would a publisher expect a writer of YA Fantasy to produce more than 1 book a year?

I'm interested in writing both category romance and YA fantasy but can't churn out stories, so the answer to this will help me decide which type of book to try.


Three books per year is hardly superhuman writing. Nor is it "churning out" stories. Do you realize you just said that hundred of writers, many of them considered the best of all time, did not produce quality material? The number of classic writers who wrote faster than this, with a quill or fountain pen no less, is staggering.

Many of the best novels we have, some of them extremely long, were written in a month or less. Two of my favorite classic novels were written in fourteen days, and one was written in nine days.

Three romance length novels per year is not even very energetic writing, let along churning out stories. The average pro writer turns out about twice this much prose in a given year, even though it may be one or two really long books, rather than three or four or five shorter books.

I mean, really, get out the calculator. Writing three Harlequin length novels in a year means most writers will be working very little, and lazing around a lot. Three novels of this length per year really is a pretty lazy output.

There is no correlation between speed and quality. Some God-awful novels have been written very slowly, and some of the best novels out there were written very quickly indeed. Some writers can't produce quality material if they take ten years to write a novel, and others produce quality material every last time, even if they write a novel every other week, as some extremely good writers of the past actually did.

Never assume that others can't do something quickly and well just because you can't. All you have to do is look around a bit and you'll find hundreds of writers who do or did produce extremely high quality material at a very rapid pace. Much faster than three Harlequin length novels per year. And this almost certainly includes some of your favorite writers.

But as others have said, you're getting waaaaay ahead of yourself. First you have to write one novel that will sell, however long it takes, and most never get past this stage. If you do, then worry about how many books the publisher will want in a year.

The decision on what to write should not be based on how many novels a publisher will ask for, should you manage to write a first one that's publishable. It should be based or where your interest and talent lie, and on what you most love to read and write.

[Button]

I don't know what the average is, but I've heard of authors writing about a book a month, or more.

Two chapters a day, every day, and that's 60 chapters a month. Good enough for two books or one really long one. I can finish two chapters in the morning. (I'm still working on the polishing and editing part. ;) ) Thus why I'm not worried about production, but about making it good, which can take a bit of practice.

[Evan Kuhlman]

Your editor/publisher won't expect more than one YA fantasy title a year, or so. Romance is its own world. Write at your own pace, and unless money is an issue I'd say concentrate on quality over quantity.

Best wishes!

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't know what the average is, but I've heard of authors writing about a book a month, or more.

Two chapters a day, every day, and that's 60 chapters a month. Good enough for two books or one really long one. I can finish two chapters in the morning. (I'm still working on the polishing and editing part. ;) ) Thus why I'm not worried about production, but about making it good, which can take a bit of practice.

I think you're right. Production is just a matter of spending time with your butt in the chair. If you write a measly ten words per minute, two hours per day, five days per week, you have 312,000 words per year. This can hardly be called fast writing, it's really very slow, but it still gives you those three harlequins per year.

I suspect most who think quality writing takes a lot of time are either just slow writers, or have never actually written a novel. But if you practice BIC on anything like a regular basis, 300K per year is pretty slow.

[Soccer Mom]

My first book took me 18 mos to write. My last one took me just short of three months. And this is with kids and a day job. When I'm hot on the trail of a story, I can do 3 or 4K comfortably. Slow days are when I grind out 1K or even a measly 500 words. JAR is write when he says that the longer your stick with it, the easier it gets to put down words (and to put down good words that require less editing.).

[Jet]

James said: Writing three Harlequin length novels in a year means most writers will be working very little, and lazing around a lot. Three novels of this length per year really is a pretty lazy output.


!!!!!!!

[Toothpaste]

Seriously? After all the responses you got? All you have to say is "!!!!!!!"?

[Jet]

I'll just shut up and write.

[Jamesaritchie]

James said: Writing three Harlequin length novels in a year means most writers will be working very little, and lazing around a lot. Three novels of this length per year really is a pretty lazy output.


!!!!!!!


Seriously, it's ten words per minute, two hours per day, five days per week. This is less than half the output of the average pro writer.

Three per year? Nora Roberts has written more than 160 in twenty-eight years, just about six per year, and 124 of them have been on the The New York Times bestseller list, including twenty-nine that debuted in the number-one spot, so a lot of people must think they have some quality.

Max Brand sold some thirty million words of fiction in only 30 years. This works out to 1,000,000 words per year, or the equivalent of ten 100,000 word novels each year.

The trouble with writing is that most people plan writing, plot writing, think about writing, and read about writing a great deal more than they actually sit down and write.

[Dancre]

I think you're right. Production is just a matter of spending time with your butt in the chair. If you write a measly ten words per minute, two hours per day, five days per week, you have 312,000 words per year. This can hardly be called fast writing, it's really very slow, but it still gives you those three harlequins per year.

I suspect most who think quality writing takes a lot of time are either just slow writers, or have never actually written a novel. But if you practice BIC on anything like a regular basis, 300K per year is pretty slow.

LOL!!! Well, James, that's where the problem lies. BIC. I mean, come on, What about American Idol, the stupid reality shows, then there's What not to wear, the cooking channel. I mean, come on. :D

(Of course, i'm just be silly.)

kim

[Jamesaritchie]

LOL!!! Well, James, that's where the problem lies. BIC. I mean, come on, What about American Idol, the stupid reality shows, then there's What not to wear, the cooking channel. I mean, come on. :D

(Of course, i'm just be silly.)

kim

Smart writers spend their time watching educational TV. You know, like Stargate SG1.

But I do hope Jordan wins American Idol. And The Food Channel does give me great ideas for supper. And the Travel Channel teaches me all sorts of things, like one of the national dishs of Ecuador is guinea pig. And PBS has such wonderful English programs, and great American shows like Masterpiece Theater, Frontline, American Masters, etc.

And tonight CBS has Ghost Whisperer and Numbers.

Uh, maybe I'd better get back to writing.

[Dancre]

But James!! You have to watch What Not to Wear, so when you finally get on Oprah, you'll know what not to wear!!!!

kim

[Button]

... Yeah that is pretty slow. ;) I can understand if you weren't spending any amount of time in your chair... but if you were and you're still poking about...

Speaking of having BIC and poking about... >.>

[moondance]

In this two hours a day, five days a week thing, where is the room for planning the novel, brainstorming the ideas, editing process, answering emails, doing publicity/marketing etc?

Writing isn't just about writing, strangely.

[Grey Malkin]

Seriously, it's ten words per minute, two hours per day, five days per week. This is less than half the output of the average pro writer.

You make it sound so easy. Your blog sort of contradicts this though. I'm not having a go, but as Jo just said, there is more to writing than typing. I can knock out 10,000 words in a single day if I copy them, but if I do more than 2000 my brain turns to jelly and to push for any more would be wasting my time.

[Jamesaritchie]

You make it sound so easy. Your blog sort of contradicts this though. I'm not having a go, but as Jo just said, there is more to writing than typing. I can knock out 10,000 words in a single day if I copy them, but if I do more than 2000 my brain turns to jelly and to push for any more would be wasting my time.

There's nothing easy about it. But take a look at your 2,000 words per day. With a five day week, that's 520,000 words in a year. And my blog contradicts this only because I keep coming way too close to dying. Some things do interfere with writing.

As for the mind turning to jelly, many things cause this, including long work hours away from writing. But you can often extend it by pushing. Writing is a lot like running, and you can, up to a point, gain endurance by running a bit farther each week.

And if you have the hours to use, two writing sessions per day, with several hours between, can also greatly increase endurance. The mind turns to jelly, but a few hours rest allows it to work again.

Working on more than one project at a time can also greatly increase endurance for many writers. Even when I'm at my healthiest, my mind usually turns to mush after 2,500 words on any one project, but I can rest for a couple of hours, take a walk, etc., and my mind is fresh for a very different project.

But those 2,000 words per day should give you more than three average length novels per year, even with rewriting and editing.

[Jet]

"The trouble with writing is that most people plan writing, plot writing, think about writing, and read about writing a great deal more than they actually sit down and write.

And if you have the hours to use, two writing sessions per day, with several hours between, can also greatly increase endurance. The mind turns to jelly, but a few hours rest allows it to work again.

But those 2,000 words per day should give you more than three average length novels per year, even with rewriting and editing."

Right, you've convinced me. No procrastinating and 2,000 words a day will get me where I want to be. So I'll make that daily 2,000 words my goal.

James, how do you work? Do you do story outlines before you start? Character sheets? More than one draft? Go over what you did the day before? Alternate between long hand and computer? Set finished writing aside and return to edit it after a break?

[victoriastrauss]

For those who fear they can't write three novels a year: trust me, you aren't alone, nor is this kind of hyper-productivity the norm outside of category (and believe me, writers who do produce 3 books a year don't consider it to be lazing around--that kind of production is a stretch even for fast writers, especially when you factor in research, revision, and the editing process. I'm part of a writers' email loop where such things are often discussed).

In genre fiction, especially series fiction, there is pressure to produce a book every year to year-and-a-half. But there are plenty of professional writers--including genre and YA writers--who don't publish that often, and manage to maintain careers even so.

Pick some of your favorite writers, look them up on Amazon, and see how their pub dates spread out. Odds are there will be at least some who have hiatuses of two, three, or even more years between books.

Obviously you should work as hard as you can and write as quickly as you are able. But don't beat yourself up if you aren't the Energizer Bunny. Plenty of us aren't.

- Victoria

[Grey Malkin]

And my blog contradicts this only because I keep coming way too close to dying. Some things do interfere with writing.

Yeah, I could see that stemming a flow considerable. Hope you are on the mend.

But those 2,000 words per day should give you more than three average length novels per year, even with rewriting and editing.

This is true: Stephen King only knocks out 2000 words per day, but he knocks out 2000 words almost every day. I, on the other hand, knock out 2000 words on a good day. 1000 words on an average day and zero on a rotten day.

Grey

[Jamesaritchie]

For those who fear they can't write three novels a year: trust me, you aren't alone, nor is this kind of hyper-productivity the norm outside of category (and believe me, writers who do produce 3 books a year don't consider it to be lazing around--that kind of production is a stretch even for fast writers, especially when you factor in research, revision, and the editing process. I'm part of a writers' email loop where such things are often discussed).

In genre fiction, especially series fiction, there is pressure to produce a book every year to year-and-a-half. But there are plenty of professional writers--including genre and YA writers--who don't publish that often, and manage to maintain careers even so.

Pick some of your favorite writers, look them up on Amazon, and see how their pub dates spread out. Odds are there will be at least some who have hiatuses of two, three, or even more years between books.

Obviously you should work as hard as you can and write as quickly as you are able. But don't beat yourself up if you aren't the Energizer Bunny. Plenty of us aren't.

- Victoria

I think whether it's a stretch depends on the kind of novels you're writing. Three Harlequin length novels per year is not very much writing for most pro writers. There are a LOT of pro writers out there who turn out far more than this.

But while it may have changed, it used to be that the average Harlequin has around 80K, and the average YA was somewhat less. Doing three of these per year is hardly Energizer Bunny writing.

A hiatus usually means that writer isn't planting his butt on a chair and writing, and so does a stretch of three years for almost any reason. As often as not, that writer is also using pseudonyms, or writing short stories, or writing you name it, but I'd say darned few full-time pros are writing less that 300K per year. Certainly darned few who sell well.

Yes, you need research, you need revisions, and you need to edit. None of this stops a great many writers from planting butt in chair and producing well over 300K of finished, polished prose each year.

I don't think any writer needs to push to set records, and there is a pace where anyone will burn out, but 2,000 words per day, or 300K of finished, polished words per year, is simply not terribly fast writing, especially for a writer who doesn't have a demanding day job.

[Jamesaritchie]

James, how do you work? Do you do story outlines before you start? Character sheets? More than one draft? Go over what you did the day before? Alternate between long hand and computer? Set finished writing aside and return to edit it after a break?


No, no outlines. I hate them, and my mind simply does not work that way. Most of my first drafts are longhand, and the sort of second draft is written as I type the first draft into the computer. Then I go back to page one and read through, fixing/changing anything I find wrong as I go. I seldom set my writing aside to rest. I found it doesn't help, and I like to edit while everything is still fresh in my mind.

I think I'm a good example of a slow writer who produces quickly. Sometimes slow gets more work done, certainly more finished work, than fast. On a good day, I write from 12-14 words per minute. But I think hard about these words before I put them down, and I think about the story and characters before I put them down, and if I notice they read poorly when I put them down, I change them. So my first drafts are clean, tight, to length, and usually need very little work to turn into a polished, final draft.

And I write five hours per day, broken into two sessions so my minds heals itself. I try to never write less than 2,500 words per day, and this is an easy number to hit in five hours. Most often, it doesn't take this long, and five hours produces from 3,500-4000 words, even writing slowly as I do.

Honestly, I sort of cheat on research. My research time is almost exclusively my reading time. I read for pleasure, but at least half the books I read are also for research. I don't know whether I can say this in a way that makes sense, but I tend to write books based on what I've already learned, rather that trying to learn what I need to know based on the book I'm writing.

For instance, if I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Bloody Friday Off Guadalcanal, and a couple of other books set during the time period for pleasure, I'm not going to need much research time when I later write a story based on that time period. Certainly none that slows down the writing.

But the thing is this. I think fast or slow is largely a matter of pleasure, not of being energetic or lazy. There are quite a few writers, even some pretty good pro writers, who do not like, or may even hate, the actual process of sitting down and writing. No crime in this at all, but I think it does mean that writer is not likely to be very prolific, and probably won't understand those who are.

A writer who loves the process of writing, who can't wait to get to the legal pad/keyboard, whose life revolves around finding ways to get out of doing other things in order to sit down and do the thing he most wants to do, will, I think, always be fast and prolific.

I started writing for money, but I only continued writing because I found I loved it. Attitude partly, I believe. When I was born, the doctors sent me home to die, telling my parents I would only live a couple of weeks, at most. My grandmother didn't believe this, and instead of being fed breast milk, she shoved a bottle of thin oatmeal in my mouth, which probably should have killed me by itself, but my weight went from three pound up to normal in record time, and the other health problems i had disappeared.

A few years later, I had a nasty virus, and the doctors thought it might have damaged my heart severely. They said I wouldn't live to be twenty-one. They were wrong, but I didn't know it at the time. And then family tragedy struck, and I was on my own at fourteen. I spent the next ten years doing all sorts of things I didn't want to do, and working for people I didn't like.

I decided this was not how things should be, and determined, within obvious bounds of family demands and legal concerns, to spend the rest of my life doing whatever it was I really loved doing.

Which means I spend five hours writing each day because there is no other possibility open to me that I would rather do more. I never, ever think, "Well, I guess it's time to go write." I never sigh and say, "I'd better get to the writing, even if it is a lovely day." I never think, "Dang, I'd really rather go play basketball, go to the movies, hang out with friends, but I'd better go work on my novel instead."

Just a personal philosophy, but I firmly believe that if you'd rather be doing something else, then you should go do whatever that something else is. Life is way too short to spend it doing things you'd rather not be doing.

I think Dean Koontz is a good example. He spend from sixty to seventy hours per week writing, but it isn't because he's energetic,, it's because there is noting else on earth he'd rather be doing with those hours.

Isaac Asimov is another good example. He wrote hundreds of books, most of which required tremendous research, but he didn't do it because he was energetic, or because he had any other trait the average person lacks. He did it because he loved sitting down and writing above all else. When asked what he would do if he had only six months to live, he replied "Type Faster."

I remember an editor, one who has bought many books from some top literary writers, once saying, "I know these writers, and I know how each of them works. When you hear about a literary writer taking three years to write a book, it almost always means he procrastinated for two and a half years, and then wrote the book in six months."

In plain point of fact, if you actually love the process of sitting down and writing, if there's nothing else on earth you'd rather be doing than sitting down and writing, you may not match Dean Koontz or Nora Roberts, but I don't think it's possible to be anything other than prolific when compared to those who do not actually enjoy the process.

[Shady Lane]

Hmm...well, I appear to be in the minority here...but I can write them pretty quickly. My schedule for the past year and a half looks like this:

June-September 2005--1st book
October-February 2005/6--2nd book
March-May 2006--3rd book (the one that's being published)
July-December 2006--4th book
January 2007-present--5th book

And I am in school and everything...I don't know. But I never feel like I'm rushed. If I need extra time, I'll take it--like with the 4th, but so far the ones I've written in some of the shortest amounts of time--like the 3rd and the one I'm writing now--are my strongest.

[Toothpaste]

I guess also it matters what your word count is, and while I am totally agreeing with what James has been going on about, there is a difference between writing 40 000 words and 120 000, one could say it would take 3 times as long to write that. Still I maintain what I said at the very start. It depends. On the author. The genre. And a bunch of other outside factors.

[Shady Lane]

I guess also it matters what your word count is, and while I am totally agreeing with what James has been going on about, there is a difference between writing 40 000 words and 120 000, one could say it would take 3 times as long to write that. Still I maintain what I said at the very start. It depends. On the author. The genre. And a bunch of other outside factors.

Absolutely. Everything I write always errs on the side of too short, I'm not gonna lie.

[Grey Malkin]

And I am in school and everything...I don't know. But I never feel like I'm rushed.

Which reflects what James said about writing being a pleasure not a chore. I'm well proud of myself today: I've had the three kids to look after, plus their friends (whoo-hooo - holiday time again :rant: ) made play-dough for the kids, real dough for me - for two loafs of bread to go with the lunch - then lunch, washed up, did a pile of ironing, went shopping, bought two books (Book Thief and The Boy With The Striped Pyjamas) prepared and made Sunday dinner (evening, because my wife was at work today) and washed all the dishes and... (drum roll...) knocked out 2,300 words :hooray: .

I'm bloody knackered now, but that's all part of family fun.

Grey

[Shady Lane]

Ahh, I'm afraid you lost me at homemade play-doh....that stuff is incredible.

[Button]

I'm a big procrastinator, but I realize that's something I need to work on. I screwed up when I wrote my first two (unpublished) novels in six weeks. (For both books)

Now I 'know' what I can do. I'm just not doing it lately. It sucks but April is my month baby! :)

So now the two new books I'm working on, which I've procrastinated on since last November... drives me crazy.

[victoriastrauss]

I think whether it's a stretch depends on the kind of novels you're writing. Three Harlequin length novels per year is not very much writing for most pro writers.I know pro writers who produce 3 novels a year. According to them, that level of production is hard to maintain on an ongoing basis. Sure, there are exceptions, but even for prolific writers this is a difficult schedule. It isn't just the writing--there's research, revision, and the editing process, in which the ms. may come back to the writer more than once. Then there's promotional activities, which take up yet more time. If you were sitting in an attic turning out novels, and you were a prolific writer, three a year might well be feasible. But professional writers don't live in attics, and there is much more to maintaining a writing career than simply setting down the words.
A hiatus usually means that writer isn't planting his butt on a chair and writing, and so does a stretch of three years for almost any reason. As often as not, that writer is also using pseudonyms, or writing short stories, or writing you name it, but I'd say darned few full-time pros are writing less that 300K per year. Certainly darned few who sell well.With respect, these kinds of sweeping generalizations simply are not helpful. It's unfair, not to mention insulting, to imply that writers--professional or otherwise--with a slower pace of production are slacking off. There are just people who don't write as fast as others; this does not mean they aren't working on a regular basis. Saying that "few" professional writers write less than 300,000 words a year--where on earth does that kind of generalization come from? I know plenty of professional writers who don't have anything like that rate of production, and have perfectly respectable careers.

And you know what? Writing often IS a chore. Where does this idea come from that it has to be perfume and flowers, that you have to love, love, love it every minute? Writing is freakin' hard work. Sometimes you'd rather do anything in the world rather than sit down and write. That's the way it is with anything worth doing to the utmost of your ability--sometimes it's simply gonna suck.

- Victoria