Books you can Write inYou can write in the following books
Whatever number of ledgers you should be writing in a year - whatever
I have been asked not to publish four volumes a year because the bookwright ( "Lorraine Devon Wilke") claims that no simple person can produce four volumes a year and that they can be good. That has apparently acquired her some people's anger, among them writers Larry Correia, who is apart the play here and whose stance is that a) the postulate of the article sucks, and b) writers should get paid, and if four accounts a year gets you paying, then you are rocking on with your evil self.
On Correia's play, Larry and I do not agree on a number of questions that have nothing to do with the letter, but we agree quite well here, and to the degree that I summarise his points here, we do not really dissent. First, there are many authors who are quick and good at typing, for whom four novels a year with a legible, entertaining fiction is no workload.
Secondly, there is really no great connection between timing and the final work. Yeah, as Wilke remarks, it took Donna Tartt eleven years to get the Goldfink to finish it, and she got a Pulitzer, but what the hell? On the other hand, the point is that there is no great relationship between timing and the final product especially when you choose your work.
So how long does it take to compose a novel? Redshirts took me five and a half week to complete; it took me most of a year to complete The End of All Things. Composing a novel usually lasts three to four month. I' m writing the pace I' m writing, because that' s the pace I' m writing.
By nature, if I could write more quickly, they would take less work. As I am the author that I am, I suppose that the intrinsic qualities of the work would stay about the same. That which is a "novel" or "book" is a very fungi. Included in the word "novel" is a textbook like The Goldfinch, which contains almost 300,000 words, and Redshirts, which contains 55,000 words without counted codes.
My recommendation is not to send four Jerusalems in one year. This is quite feasible for a very large number of authors. They also have significant length versatility in their work. My fiction is set at about 100,000 words because it's a beautiful bookshelf piece (one of the reasons I added the codes to the Redshirts).
Self-published works can be much short, and many are. In this case, four further volumes of expert, legible fiction are not stretching. It is quite easy to make the business case for a year: write so much: It' okay to do cheeseburgers; it' okay to do the reading of the literal equivalents of cheeseburgers.
If you believe it or not, some folks will be reading both the Goldfink and a lit hezeburger! All that was said, I suppose that at least part of what Wilke was striving for was that you shouldn't be forced to publish four volumes a year just because a self-published writer (or any other kind of writer, for that matter) was reading something somewhere that said four volumes a year was what any self-published writer should or must do to make it.
Irrespective of the length, not everyone can read four worthwhile novels in a year. One thing is certain: there is more to a textbook than just the number of words. There is also what one does with words, not to speak of the general plot and organisation and, away from the pure "creative" side, the creation and marketing to which the self-published writers have to devote themselves directly (other writers get the advantage of a publishing house that deals with a great number of them).
When you are among those who do not, then it is not advantageous for you to strive for four ledgers in one year, each year. Well, if you wrote four fucking worthless ledgers. Irrespective of the publication methods, what is actually important for authors is that they all find their tempo, how they type and what they use.
An author is welcome to publish four volumes a year, in this case good for her. It will take another author years to create a script he's lucky with. Both of these authors should not try to work at each other's speed; they will both be miserable. It is also not 100% certain that the "four novels a year" author will earn more than the " one novel every few years" one.
Andi Weir, as far as I know, has only one but this one is The Martian, so it's a good assumption that he makes more than almost every "four volumes a year" of authors. These four novels per year authors have more gunshots on target, but if you hit a bull' s eye, it doesn't really make any difference.
The point is: You can make cash at any rate. This brings me to my next point: be conscious that there is more than one formula for making a living as a novelist. I' m writing a novel in an annual period of three to four month, and I have a flood of stories, so it's a fairly sure wager that I could be writing three or even four a year.
Because I do other things with my own free will, that earn me income and make me feel good. Others are more and happier to release; others are less and also completely happier. How many ledgers should you author in a year? So many as you want, and as many as you can, within your means, for the type of letter you want to do.
Type the textbooks you want to see and buy them. I think most authors will be falling between these two dots.