We’ve all seen those writers who push out books almost every month, it seems. How do they DO that?
Much of that is focus, time management, and responding to reader demand, but still, even if you’ve got all that down, it's still a LOT, right?
It also seems to be what the romance industry is demanding so that books in a series don’t have too much lag time in between instalments for fear that readers will forget about upcoming books in an oversaturated market. There’s maybe some truth to that, but is it putting too high a tax on you, the romance writer, to churn out two to three books a year? Or 10, or 12? (HOW??)
So let’s go through the pros and cons of publishing three or so books year.
Pros:
You stay top of mind with readers if you have new stuff for them on a fairly regular schedule. Most writers aren’t sending out newsletters unless they have something to promote (I have thoughts about that, but for another time, perhaps), so if you can regularly get into readers’ inboxes and tell them about new releases and sales, etc., you set an expectation for them to get ready for your latest and buy it!
Along with that, you’ll make more money with a backlist that you can use as incentive to new readers to go back to.
Malcolm Gladwell says it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert. You write three or more books a year, you’ll hit that pretty quickly, AND you'll sharpen your skills in the meantime.
You’ll have a much clearer sense of what your brand is and how to develop it. What are the themes, the tropes, the kinds of stories you like to write? With more books under your belt, you’ll be able to figure this out quickly.
Nora Roberts writes a book a month. I mean, she’s Nora Roberts, and the rest of us are mere mortals, but her advice to people who want to do what she does is essentially “butt in seat” – no distractions, just sit down and write. You’ll develop grit and perseverance if you can stick to this kind of schedule.
Cons:
Seriously, who’s got the time?? If you’ve got a day job, school, a family, an active social life, other commitments, and/or any combination of these, finding just an hour in your day to get some good concentrated writing in is already tough. If your book requires tons of research, you’ll have to factor in that time too. You also simply might not be a fast writer. I agonize over every. single. word. so unless I’m really in the zone, I am very slow. For you, there might just not be enough hours in the day to realistically get a book done in a year. (Which, by the way, is TOTALLY fine.)
If we set up an expectation of putting out three books a year, where does it stop? If everyone’s doing it, then will the expectation soon be four books a year? Five? Should we capitulate to these standards? Most people will burn out that way, and quality will suffer.
Everyone is different, and your brain might just need more time for ideas to percolate or for inspiration to strike. Downtime in between books (and between series, especially) is necessary for most people to recharge and come back to new creative projects with a fresh outlook.
This constant need and pressure to create might steal away the joy of writing and make it no longer fun and fulfilling.
While it looks like the pros might be winning out, I would weigh those cons more heavily. They can tax your capacity to do the work in the short term and even in the long term. If you’re one of those people who can consistently sit down and knock out 5,000 words in a day, then wow, go for it. If you’re one of those people who can only manage short but regular writing sessions, that’s great too. Listen to your own creative process and do what’s right for you.