Just for clarity - how does four books a year relate to 3K words per day? It wasn't scientific, more like a educated guess based on my own personal output. Because I never write 3K words a day. I might outline for a month, then get totally in the zone, and write nonstop for another month. then be burned out and take a month off. (I'm kind of an erratic writer) I jump all over the place in the manuscript itself and don't write in a linear fashion. I also don't push for ideas, or push myself in terms of writing to a set schedule. (No self-discipline) I kind of want to make it so the Muse sits down with me we write together. There is also a lot of down time with editing (as you pointed out) and re-visioning and polishing the finished story. But if I was going to commit to 3-4 books a year, then 3K words a day would be the goal I would shoot for, considering all the various other factors that go into writing a novel, besides actual writing. In terms of actual daily output, I might write 3K one day, 5K the next, 1K the day after, etc. But 3K average.
That is usually a pretty good thing to aim for, my individual chapters are usually around the 3k mark so I usually try to finish a chapter a day, or every other day. It just helps with the discipline. I am in the writing zone now because I had the time and because I am in the climatic part of the book, it is more interesting now, there isn't so much info feeding anymore.
That makes no sense. If you average 3K a day, you'd have written over a million words that year. That's enough for ten books, not 3 or 4. Maybe you mean you'd write 3K a day, when you were writing? But you'd only be writing for 133 days each year, with the rest of the time spent on other tasks? I don't know. But if we're going to use numbers, they should probably be based on something, right? Like, for the last couple years my annual writing goal has been 520K words a year, which is only 10K words per week. This year I'm dropping down to 365K words, 1K words a day. That's still four books, and a more reasonable daily schedule.
Maybe you mean you'd write 3K a day, when you were writing? Yes. When I sit down to write, after outlining and understanding exactly what I want to do, or say, I might write 3K words a day average. In one month I'll have a 90K word novel completed in rough draft form. Another 2 months I might not write at all, but spend the time polishing, editing, sending it to beta readers, editors, rewriting, repolishing, etc. But if we're going to use numbers, they should probably be based on something, right?" It's based on my own personal output. So if I was going to write 4 novels a year (And I won't) I would schedule 3 months for each one. One month to outline, one month to research and write, one month to polish. And I would probably still miss any deadlines. For me, that is too much. Unless I could collaborate with someone else and split the work. So if I scaled it back to 3 novels a year, or 4 months/per novel, it might be do-able. For me personally, at my level of output. Or, I could do what I've been doing and write 2 novels a year, take it easy, have fun, and not sweat it and pay attention to other aspects of my life. I'm working on an outline right now and I'm going on two months with it. I think I like the story, but I'm not sure yet. It might be another month before like I feel like I know the story well enough to write it. It's not coming easy this time around. I could force it, but decided to just let it play out, or not, as the writing Gods decide. But the above figure was personal to me and the way I write. I wouldn't think anyone else would want to write that way. Nor should they. Everyone writes different and approaches the task differently.
Another question for you guys: Do you like using reoccurring characters in a novel (Like a series) or do you like using original characters for each? Myself, I like using both. I like using reoccurring characters as main characters, or to anchor the story and deepen the characters, and original characters for secondary parts.
For my current series I have one primary character and four secondary characters (my five mains, they all get POVs at some point) then everyone else is recurring, two of those ones are dead now and I believe another on the way to death. These characters are always popping in and out of the books. My characters stay the same throughout the series, I may add some, send them away or kill them but they are still the same.
My problem is, my secondary characters keep on wanting to become primary characters, and I have to kill them off. Then sometimes I regret it. In one book I killed off the primary character (I had no choice) and of course, that is the character that people write to me privately about wanting more of. Do you ever write your characters into a corner, or an impossible situation, without knowing how they will get out of it? I do it all the time. It drives me crazy.
I usually do that to my egocentric male characters then I get the girl to save them it is so much fun. Sometimes my characters haven't gotten out of a situation, they had to bare the consequences of the situation, it's how the situation effects them that defines the character.
Yes, strong female characters are a lot of fun. I have lots of them, including one who is transgender. (Does that count?) She is a Thai combat helicopter pilot and a tough business negotiator who routinely outsmarts everyone. Based on a real life person. (sort of) She has been the pivot, or moral compass in a couple of books now. Her conflicts are more cerebral though. OK, then, so does the conflict define the character, or does the character define the conflict? Or both? Me, I'm not sure. I think they have to work together. Or maybe, the plot (not conflict) defines the character.
If I might ask a question, I get it when some successful authors start cranking out novels for a living. But are you all talking about cranking out novels before you have established yourselves as commercial authors?
I've always thought that 'cranking out novels' was a big step towards indie establishment. Each book published may be a string back to another.
I write just to write. I don't really write for anybody else. When it's done, yes I will try to get it published but really I don't care if I only self publish a few hard copies for me and people I know then put it on amazon as an ebook. I have my own website and a small following on Facebook and it is slowly growing as I get closer to finishing. It is mostly a hobby and I am not relying on it to support me as a career. I am studying an Arts degree in Professional Writing and Publishing then I will be completing a degree in business to help solidify my worth to the company I work at right now. I would love to be able to look back when I am older and I have kids and what not and say that I actually accomplished something by writing/publishing a book. Does it have to popular? No, I just need to write. I need to write as much as I read.
I guess we all have such different experiences. I think of rapid-refresh as something formula writers do. On the other hand, what Amanda is describing doesn't sound like formula writing. I'll have to contemplate this some more.
No judgement in the phrase "cranking out", is there? My books all get published. Mostly small publishers, but they're in a niche genre, so that's not too surprising. I jumped genres and have a couple books coming up with Penguin this year. So, I guess I'm 'established'? I don't know what you mean by the term, really. Can you clarify?
I get it when some successful authors start cranking out novels for a living. But are you all talking about cranking out novels before you have established yourselves as commercial authors? Yes. Completely. It's where the ambition and drive come from to finish the things. (Writing and finishing a novel isn't easy) All reality first starts as an idea, a mind creation, then comes into a tangible form. (IMHO) If you don't have the dream, you won't have the reality, either. If you want to be a "successful" indie author, then you'll have to pay the dues to become one. Which is what this conversation, at base, is about. You'll need a back list. To get a back list, you'll need to "crank out" some novels. One novel isn't going to do it. "Successful" I'd define as "being able to pay my bills, and support my family with my fiction writing." Which I'm no where near doing. I did it in nonfiction, but fiction is another animal. But I do recognize what needs to be done if I want to achieve that goal though. I'm also in total agreement with Amanda. It's where I'm also at. I'm in it for myself. It's not about writing the "book," or even publishing the book, it's about writing the best story you can. The art and beauty of it. The journey of getting immersed in a world of your creation, populated by people you invented, is a rush. Having your Muse sit down beside you, being completely, totally, in the zone and not not coming up for air for days is a feeling like no other. Whether someone else likes what you wrote or not is insignificant to the "high" that writing creates. You hope other people like it. But their approval isn't really necessary in the grand scheme of things. I've had reviewers write some pretty harsh stuff about my work. But I'm still writing regardless of their opinion of me, or my work. Publishing is a bonus, I suppose. Amazon has created a medium though that allows for that expression. Before Amazon and Kindle took off, I have no doubt I wouldn't have the option. It's also a rush having people write to you, telling you the ways your book, or words, affected them. How your words made them feel something, or took them to another world. Those two concepts might seem contradictory, but in reality they aren't. (At least to me) It's simply loving what you're doing. Writing is a very selfish, pleasure. I'm in it totally for myself, like Amanda. That said, money is also nice and I have no intention of giving it to charity.
I intended it to mean just what it says, "cranking out". Most good authors are about quality not quantity. That doesn't mean any prolific author is by definition poor. But the vast majority of 'cranked out' books are not great. I defined cranked out as more than one full length book in a year. Your work is what it is, good or bad. My opinion of most work that is cranked out has zero to do with the skills of any individual writer, prolific or not. I don't think we need to continue this, it's not very productive when everything I post is taken more personally than it is intended to be.
Well, if everything you post is taken more personally than you intended, maybe you need to look at what you're posting, rather than at how everyone is responding. Wouldn't that make sense? I'm not too worried about your opinion of my work. Honestly. I don't take it personally. But it's kind of disingenuous to pretend that other people are being too sensitive when you're acting like a bull in a china shop. If your definition of "cranked out" is "more than one full length book in a year", it might have been tidier if your original post had said, "If I might ask a question, I get it when some successful authors start writing more than one book a year for a living. But are you all talking about more than one book a year before you have established yourselves as commercial authors?" I'm not sure there's a precise definition for the phrase "cranked out". If there is one, I'm pretty sure it's not "producing more than one full length book a year." That's your definition. So you're using a phrase without a clear denotation but with a pretty negative connotation, and you get snippy when people aren't able to psychically interpret your words? Come on. ETA: And, in case you DO want to continue the conversation, we'd still need your definition of "established yourselves as commercial authors," because I think that's another phrase that could be understood in a variety of ways.
Unless we become millionaires Hey, I may be in it for myself but I can still dream... Can't I??? It certainly is possible. Konrath, Howey, and Eisler all do it. Not to mention EL James and dozens of others. It's a nice thought.
I was just mucking around I am in a joking kind of mood today, if you read some of my other posts from the last 24hrs you'll see.
I was just mucking around I am in a joking kind of mood today, if you read some of my other posts from the last 24hrs you'll see. I sincerely hope you do it. I'll cheer you on all the way to the finish line, and take it as personal inspiration when you get there. Then you can tell me about all the fun you're having, and we'll both have a blast. Of course, I'll also probably make a total nuisance of myself asking questions.
Feel free to ask questions on the forums (for a range of feedback), everybody is happy to answer them. Or just message somebody, or me, if you don't want to ask publicly, I've had a couple of messages asking questions, or even asking for private reviews of their works, (I used to be a reviewer on here, then life got in the way, I will be getting back to it as soon as have the time).
Fair warning; This post contains a certain amount of opinion. I'm not targeting anyone, just expressing my view on the current debate. To be honest, I can see what GingerCoffee is saying. 3k words, in my opinion, is a hell of a lot to write day in, day out. Hell, it can be hard enough to come up with 1500 words. Now, I know what you're thinking. '1500 words? That's nothing, I could easily write that.' And you could. But we're not just talking word count, we're talking word value. No matter how a smooth a writer someone is, or how well planned they are, there is a limit to how fast they can work if they want to produce quality writing. For example; I could write 3k words in a day, and it would be pretty average, middling writing for me. It probably wouldn't suck completely, but it wouldn't be anything I'd be proud of. Then again, I could write 1500 words. As long as I had a decent rhythm and had time to read through properly and adjust various things, I would probably come out with a decent piece of writing, something I'd be happy to show to others for criticism. Or, I could write 500 words, and they would be good. With all that extra time available to consider and rework your ideas, those 500 select words would make for some great, high quality reading. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? 500 words is overkill, obviously. 1k-1.5k is a fine daily target in my opinion, if you've got the necessary time to dedicate to it. It's like making bread without giving it time to rise. No matter how much work you put into it, no matter how precise your measurements, it's still going to fall flat - because you haven't given it enough time. That said, I'm the opposite end of the spectrum. I allow myself too much time, and don't stick to a deadline as well as I should. Even now, I'm writing this instead of getting on with my current project. So yeah, hope that made sense. All I'm saying is, give your bread a little time to rise. It'll taste much better that way
But we've established that 3K words a day is WAY more than is required. 1K words a day, well within your range for well-baked bread, is four books a year. There are people who write fast and people who write slow. I honestly don't think there's an automatic correlation to the quality of the writing. Some of my best books are ones that I wrote fast, because I was inspired and in the zone and the words flowed. Other people write more slowly, and that's fine. I don't really understand it, just like apparently some people can't understand someone writing more quickly, but our relative lack of understanding doesn't affect the reality of the other person's process. ETA: I do agree, though, that there are advantages to writing fast when it comes to the business/marketing side of things. Although again, this depends on genre - there obviously isn't the same pressure for product in literary fiction, for example, that there is in other sales categories.
