Well, I'm not sure that I have an opinion on this that takes a side. I can see validity in both takes. I think it's important to write many things, things that are written without ever intending to publish them. There has to be practice. There has to be "training", so to speak. But there also has to be an eye to all of this practice having a direction and a concerted effort to improve.
There's an underlying issue here. How does one objectively judge the quality of art? In other words, is the art teacher grading based on aesthetic value? Based on how pot-like the pots are? Based on how well the pots serve their function?
The title of the OP is a quotation of something I wrote. By the "quality" of a piece of writing, I was referring to its worthiness of being read. "x is better than y" is my way of saying "If I had to choose between reading x and reading y, then I should read x." Which is of course subjective; everyone gets something different out of any given book. That is another thing about producing a variety of works vs. trying to perfect a single work: the more variety you produce, the more readers you can reach out to. Is it better to have a 50% chance of writing a book that a given reader will love, or a 90% chance of writing a book that a given reader will really like?
Sales don't equal quality. Also, some of us aren't writing for a wide audience, so sales aren't that important to us.
Yes I do. Not because you can't learn to edit a chapter to perfection, but until you finish the piece you won't know if the chapter even fits. You're writing a whole story, not just a series of separate chapters. If you spend too much time polishing each sentence, paragraph and chapter to 'perfection,' are you going to be willing to ditch the whole thing, if need be? Or totally re-do it to include some information you now know needs to be there? Or remove information that is no longer needed and may even lead people in the wrong direction? Or rewrite it to change focus? Swap POV because you now realise that part of the story is better told by another character? Obviously, you'll go back through what you've just written and get rid of bad stuff you see right away. Maybe even leave it for a day or two, then trawl through it again. But once you've done that a couple of times, then move on. Don't worry about crafting the perfect opening sentence, etc. Just get started and keep going. An opening 'hook' sends your readers in a certain direction, and if your direction changes during the writing of the book ...well, all that polishing time has been wasted. Or, worse yet, because you wrote such a great opening hook. now you can't bear to craft another one that is more pertinent to the story you've actually written—instead of the one you intended to write when you started out.
I'm confused. He didn't say sales. He was talking about pleasing a reader. Surely you want at least one reader? Edited to add: Ah, he did say "more readers." All the same, leaping from "readers" to "sales" strikes me as a large assumption about intent.
You are right. I did not explain myself very well. Forget I mentioned reaching out to more readers. Here is another attempt at explaining what I meant: Given a reader named "Reader": Defining "quality" such that "a book is higher quality" = "a book is worthier of being read by Reader": Given that, in Reader's eyes, your success as an author equals the quality of your best book: Assuming your goal is to be as successful as possible: Is it a better use of your time to make one good attempt or several decent attempts at producing something of excellent quality? Analogy: is it better to roll a weighted die once, or to roll an unweighted die several times and take the highest number? (I still feel like I am doing a shitty job of explaining this. Statistics textbooks explain it better.)
That is a good philosophical question @daemon, and it would come back to each person's drive yeah? I have only just learnt about prospect theory and wonder if it plays a part here. Although publishing potential is not necessarily known, and I still do not have a good grasp of the concept.
I feel like I understand what you're saying, and I also want to add a nuance: I think that a creation that you successfully get from "That's an idea." to "Ha! First draft finished!" increases your skill, your creative abilities, your mental network of creativity, MORE than a creation that you get from "Ha! First draft finished!" to "Ha! Final draft finished!" So I think that ten first drafts with one final draft is worth more than, say, two final drafts, and worth a whole lot more than one final draft that's polished to an even higher gleam. I have no data for this. No evidence. It's just what I believe.
From my programming experience, I would agree. Lots of programmers claim N years experience when what they really mean is they have done pretty much the same work for a year, then repeated that for another N-1 years. Same language, same problem domain, etc. (COBOL programmers a classic case in point). I could not stand the thought of that, and have been a contractor since 2 years into my career and worked in a number of very different fields as a programmer, never doubling up. Different languages and databases and business models, etc, etc. I believe this has lead to more skill development than person A, and certainly a broader business exposure. Whether it's better is another matter. Some people may be far happier with fewer works polished to a higher degree?