Publication: How often?
Aug. 25th, 2004 11:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msagaraElsewhere on LJ a question came up. It's one that I've thought about a lot over the past years (unlike, say, http protocol, but I digress). How fast can one write? How fast should one write? The answer to this question is about as varied as the answer to the question "How do you write a novel?" as applied to novelists.
And, as LJ seems intent on not actually letting me post anything like a reply to any of the comments, I thought I'd answer with a couple of versions, which are all, oddly enough, mine.
I had worked in bookstores for 9 years when I started writing my first novel. I understood two things: One, that cover was important and two, that timing was important. I had no say in the cover, and my instant response to it was a buyer response. Which is to say, I looked at it, and I knew I'd order lower on the title because of the cover. The whole "don't judge a book by its cover" thing? Not, sadly, true. It's not fair to the book inside, but the cover -- as I've said elsewhere -- is what will attract most people who are standing and staring at a bunch of books, many of which they know nothing about. If you've established a name for yourself, it's not as important, but if you haven't -- and this was my first book -- it's important.
So, I had no say in the cover, and didn't love it. I did have some say in the timing of the books, or rather, the publishing interval between the novels, and the say was entirely in the writing. I wanted the books to come out six months apart. Why? Because at six months, the new book could in theory keep the backlist alive, and at six months, I had some chance of gaining some name recognition. Not so much by sales, but just by the actual familiarity of the name itself. My then-agent agreed with this very strongly. And the first two books did come out six months apart. The third, however, came out a year after the second. Why?
Because I had to throw it out and start it over again. I had it finished, but it wasn't good. The agent thought it wasn't bad, but in my opinion, what it needed in order to work was a complete rewrite -- and that would take it out of the December slot, and push it ahead to the whenever slot. I could have done what I consider band-aid work, but it would have tormented me endlessly, because by that time I realized that the book would be out there with my name on it, and all errors, all infelicities, would be static. So I lost the slot, and rewrote the book.
The fourth book came out about a year after the third.
The fifth novel was sold to Del Rey when the third novel went out of print; the third novel was out of print just as the fourth novel was being published. It wasn't reprinted, and this -- although being out of print was a fact of life -- drove me crazy. In the end, we pulled the book and sold it to DAW instead, and that book was HUNTER'S OATH. I have never managed to make a six month interval since the first two books, with the exception of RIVEN SHIELD/SUN SWORD, and that, largely because the book was split (1132 manuscript pages for the first 'half', and 1648 for the second, and yes, I realize those are way, way too long).
A year per book was still considered acceptable, and I managed that until SEA OF SORROWS, which was published two years after SHINING COURT. That two year gap almost gave me ulcers. The two year gap between SoS and RS also gave me hives. Why?
Because the frontlist does drive the backlist. You can watch it in your royalty statements; every time a new book is published, the backlist numbers go up. They go up for the period in which the book was published, because people order the first books in the series to coincide with the release of the new one. After that, they dwindle again. The longer between new books, the lower the numbers go, and it doesn't matter who you are as a writer, or what level of sales you've achieved; this is almost always true.
To keep a book in print when it's not a bestseller is tricky enough. When a new book is coming, it's much easier to justify the warehouse work; when it isn't, and you're not entirely sure when the new one is going to be published, it's harder. No, you don't have any say in this. I don't, either. Writing a long series that's a midlist series, when there are gaps between books that are greater than a year becomes trickier in other ways as well. Demand can change, reading tastes can change, the early books can become unavailable, and if they can't be found, there's no momentum and no incentive for the sales force to push the next one. If the books sell steadily, and the series is long, it also delays things like hardcover publication, if the series started as a paperback series. When I started publishing with DAW, DAW was publishing maybe two hardcovers a year; they're now publishing one a month (or more). Because, as I've mentioned, the industry does constantly evolve.
So. For purely practical, career and business reasons, it's best to have a gap of no more than one year between books; if you're starting out in paperback, six months is ideal. If you're not writing a series, the answer to this is different. I haven't told a single book story in my career, so much of my commentary is based on series. If you've got eight books written, publishing them at a faster rate is sometimes a bit tricky because readers have odd reactions to books when they know very little about the publication or writing process; they'll think you wrote them in two months, and there is a strong reader sense that speed of writing and quality of work are inversely proportional. So in that case, I'd still recommend six months.
How much can I write? In a given month, I expect to be able to write 80-100 novel pages a month; I don't have to pace myself for short pieces because if I can do them at all, it doesn't matter if I do them and burn out on that story because, well, it's done. This would, in theory, be a book a year, and not a short book either. But there are months when the writing is tossed to one side for any number of real life reasons, and there are months when the writing is tossed to the side because face it, it just sucks, and in the end? The answer isn't as clear. RIVEN SHIELD and SUN SWORD were actually faster than earlier novels because they were the last one(s) and endings for me are always clearer; I've pushed the stone up the hill, and it's careening down at a speed I can barely keep up with. To continue with this analogy, it doesn't meant that it doesn't hit bumps, that it doesn't veer, that it doesn't become something entirely different -- it just means that the story has killer momentum for me.
Knowing the ideal, why is it that I, with bookstore experience and a sense of the business, had these two year gaps? Life. And the books themselves. At some point -- at least for me -- I had to make a choice. Everything the head knew, the heart couldn't always follow. I found writing harder with later books than I had with the early ones. Partly, this is because I knew more about writing, and had a much more bitchy internal editor. I don't think this is likely to change, though. Hard doesn't matter, if you can still make deadlines. Which, demonstrably, I stalled on.
If I continue to work at my current pace, there's some chance that I'll finish HOUSE WAR by the end of this year. Which means publication sometime in 2005. Or, about two years after SUN SWORD. This is in part because I started BLACK GAUNTLET first, and then couldn't finish it without writing HOUSE WAR -- for my own internal sense of the universe as an organic place, where things could happen, and the story grow in any direction as a response to events that were taking place.
I thought I could do this; I couldn't. This is part of the learning process (at least mine; I think I had an enormous arrogance, or if we're being kind, self-confidence about things I could do when I was younger, and all of learning has been the humbling and enlightening process of realiziing that there are some things that are just too costly in too many ways for me to be able to do. It's particularly important that everyone realize that the me in this case is, well me <wry g> I'm sure that we all gain experience in as varied a way as we write, and not all of us need to jam our hands into the fire to figure out the whole burning thing. Digressing. Everyone act surprised <g>. In 1986, I could have done this. I could have finished BG, but I think it would have gutted HW. When all things are equal, it makes sense to go with a sound business model; when all things aren't equal, it makes sense to go with the book. To me. But that's probably because it's the only way I've found, with experience, I can go.
Because as it gets harder, I've found that I really have to finish the story that I'm working on now; that my heart has to be right there, up front, and without distractions and anxiety, inasmuch as that's possible. I could have started something entirely different; that wouldn't hurt or change my sense of continuity. There are whole worlds I look forward to writing about. But they aren't now, and as someone else said elsewhere, the only way to get there from here is to finish the books I need to write now.
And, as LJ seems intent on not actually letting me post anything like a reply to any of the comments, I thought I'd answer with a couple of versions, which are all, oddly enough, mine.
I had worked in bookstores for 9 years when I started writing my first novel. I understood two things: One, that cover was important and two, that timing was important. I had no say in the cover, and my instant response to it was a buyer response. Which is to say, I looked at it, and I knew I'd order lower on the title because of the cover. The whole "don't judge a book by its cover" thing? Not, sadly, true. It's not fair to the book inside, but the cover -- as I've said elsewhere -- is what will attract most people who are standing and staring at a bunch of books, many of which they know nothing about. If you've established a name for yourself, it's not as important, but if you haven't -- and this was my first book -- it's important.
So, I had no say in the cover, and didn't love it. I did have some say in the timing of the books, or rather, the publishing interval between the novels, and the say was entirely in the writing. I wanted the books to come out six months apart. Why? Because at six months, the new book could in theory keep the backlist alive, and at six months, I had some chance of gaining some name recognition. Not so much by sales, but just by the actual familiarity of the name itself. My then-agent agreed with this very strongly. And the first two books did come out six months apart. The third, however, came out a year after the second. Why?
Because I had to throw it out and start it over again. I had it finished, but it wasn't good. The agent thought it wasn't bad, but in my opinion, what it needed in order to work was a complete rewrite -- and that would take it out of the December slot, and push it ahead to the whenever slot. I could have done what I consider band-aid work, but it would have tormented me endlessly, because by that time I realized that the book would be out there with my name on it, and all errors, all infelicities, would be static. So I lost the slot, and rewrote the book.
The fourth book came out about a year after the third.
The fifth novel was sold to Del Rey when the third novel went out of print; the third novel was out of print just as the fourth novel was being published. It wasn't reprinted, and this -- although being out of print was a fact of life -- drove me crazy. In the end, we pulled the book and sold it to DAW instead, and that book was HUNTER'S OATH. I have never managed to make a six month interval since the first two books, with the exception of RIVEN SHIELD/SUN SWORD, and that, largely because the book was split (1132 manuscript pages for the first 'half', and 1648 for the second, and yes, I realize those are way, way too long).
A year per book was still considered acceptable, and I managed that until SEA OF SORROWS, which was published two years after SHINING COURT. That two year gap almost gave me ulcers. The two year gap between SoS and RS also gave me hives. Why?
Because the frontlist does drive the backlist. You can watch it in your royalty statements; every time a new book is published, the backlist numbers go up. They go up for the period in which the book was published, because people order the first books in the series to coincide with the release of the new one. After that, they dwindle again. The longer between new books, the lower the numbers go, and it doesn't matter who you are as a writer, or what level of sales you've achieved; this is almost always true.
To keep a book in print when it's not a bestseller is tricky enough. When a new book is coming, it's much easier to justify the warehouse work; when it isn't, and you're not entirely sure when the new one is going to be published, it's harder. No, you don't have any say in this. I don't, either. Writing a long series that's a midlist series, when there are gaps between books that are greater than a year becomes trickier in other ways as well. Demand can change, reading tastes can change, the early books can become unavailable, and if they can't be found, there's no momentum and no incentive for the sales force to push the next one. If the books sell steadily, and the series is long, it also delays things like hardcover publication, if the series started as a paperback series. When I started publishing with DAW, DAW was publishing maybe two hardcovers a year; they're now publishing one a month (or more). Because, as I've mentioned, the industry does constantly evolve.
So. For purely practical, career and business reasons, it's best to have a gap of no more than one year between books; if you're starting out in paperback, six months is ideal. If you're not writing a series, the answer to this is different. I haven't told a single book story in my career, so much of my commentary is based on series. If you've got eight books written, publishing them at a faster rate is sometimes a bit tricky because readers have odd reactions to books when they know very little about the publication or writing process; they'll think you wrote them in two months, and there is a strong reader sense that speed of writing and quality of work are inversely proportional. So in that case, I'd still recommend six months.
How much can I write? In a given month, I expect to be able to write 80-100 novel pages a month; I don't have to pace myself for short pieces because if I can do them at all, it doesn't matter if I do them and burn out on that story because, well, it's done. This would, in theory, be a book a year, and not a short book either. But there are months when the writing is tossed to one side for any number of real life reasons, and there are months when the writing is tossed to the side because face it, it just sucks, and in the end? The answer isn't as clear. RIVEN SHIELD and SUN SWORD were actually faster than earlier novels because they were the last one(s) and endings for me are always clearer; I've pushed the stone up the hill, and it's careening down at a speed I can barely keep up with. To continue with this analogy, it doesn't meant that it doesn't hit bumps, that it doesn't veer, that it doesn't become something entirely different -- it just means that the story has killer momentum for me.
Knowing the ideal, why is it that I, with bookstore experience and a sense of the business, had these two year gaps? Life. And the books themselves. At some point -- at least for me -- I had to make a choice. Everything the head knew, the heart couldn't always follow. I found writing harder with later books than I had with the early ones. Partly, this is because I knew more about writing, and had a much more bitchy internal editor. I don't think this is likely to change, though. Hard doesn't matter, if you can still make deadlines. Which, demonstrably, I stalled on.
If I continue to work at my current pace, there's some chance that I'll finish HOUSE WAR by the end of this year. Which means publication sometime in 2005. Or, about two years after SUN SWORD. This is in part because I started BLACK GAUNTLET first, and then couldn't finish it without writing HOUSE WAR -- for my own internal sense of the universe as an organic place, where things could happen, and the story grow in any direction as a response to events that were taking place.
I thought I could do this; I couldn't. This is part of the learning process (at least mine; I think I had an enormous arrogance, or if we're being kind, self-confidence about things I could do when I was younger, and all of learning has been the humbling and enlightening process of realiziing that there are some things that are just too costly in too many ways for me to be able to do. It's particularly important that everyone realize that the me in this case is, well me <wry g> I'm sure that we all gain experience in as varied a way as we write, and not all of us need to jam our hands into the fire to figure out the whole burning thing. Digressing. Everyone act surprised <g>. In 1986, I could have done this. I could have finished BG, but I think it would have gutted HW. When all things are equal, it makes sense to go with a sound business model; when all things aren't equal, it makes sense to go with the book. To me. But that's probably because it's the only way I've found, with experience, I can go.
Because as it gets harder, I've found that I really have to finish the story that I'm working on now; that my heart has to be right there, up front, and without distractions and anxiety, inasmuch as that's possible. I could have started something entirely different; that wouldn't hurt or change my sense of continuity. There are whole worlds I look forward to writing about. But they aren't now, and as someone else said elsewhere, the only way to get there from here is to finish the books I need to write now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 11:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 04:07 pm (UTC)And artists generally have a better sense of how to add to an already strong book than a writer might think. They're professionals, too, and for a picture book, collaborators as well. When creating picture books, the story really is only half the writer's.
But from what I've seen (I've only had short stories and older book covers illustrated, which is a very different thing), it's a lot of fun, when it works, to see what happens when the artist's vision is added to one's own.
Thinking about it, all of the writer/illustrators I've known have been illustrators first, writers second. Unless your sister is as good or better an illustrator than writer, I'd recommend just sending out the stories.
And yes, I realize this means writing picture books is very much not for anyone who needs full control over the resulting work. I find the thought of collaborating with an illustrator exciting, but have talked to a lot of folks who find the idea a bit uneasy-making.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 06:09 pm (UTC)It occurs to me that what it actually is is a comic book for very young children - say, 1-2 grade.
Does this change anything from what you said above?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-25 06:20 pm (UTC)If it were a chapter book with occasional illustrations on the inside pages, it wouldn't change anything. For a comic, I really don't know.
Once can stick occasional stage directions in brackets in the text for a picture book if one absolutely has to--but my take (from my limited attempts at the form) is that it's best to keep those to a minimum--including them not because one fears the artist will have a different interpretation, but because one fears the story won't make sense at all without a bit of background knowledge.
Basically, it's okay for the artist to have a different interpretation so long as it's still a compelling one.
But comics--that's a whole different world, and I'm not sure how it works.
I do know some YA publishers seem to be actively looking for graphic novels these days; don't know about younger readers, though certainly they would enjoy them if they were available.
Kids' books...
Date: 2004-08-25 12:48 pm (UTC)Re: Kids' books...
Date: 2004-08-25 04:09 pm (UTC)