A couple of days ago I read an article by a Romanian writer, in which he said that the way we perceive certain foreign authors in Romania is different than how they are perceived in their home countries. The reason for this is that only their best works are available in Romania, thus readers have a distorted perception.
Somehow, this idea that a bad novel can counter-balance a good one makes sense. It’s something that often happens with prolific writers: some of their stuff is good, some great, but a lot is also mediocre at best.
But the writer of that article said that the key to all this is to write for a couple of years on a collection of poems, short stories, or a number of novels and then only choose to publish the best of them. This solution is something I disagree with.
First of all, because it’s damn near impossible for a writer to objectively pick and choose his best works. And then, I ask one question: who in this world has the necessary expertise to do that? We’re talking about a very random game. Publishing houses don’t know what might sell, what next year’s trend might be. It’s all a gamble.
A lot of bestsellers, a lot of the novels that have won major literary awards have been rejected by publishing houses. And even though it’s hard to prove, I believe that a lot of what some writers felt as being their best works have been rejected by the public and/or critics. Much like the way Steinbeck felt about his East of Eden, a novel that even today garners mixed reviews.
Picking a “best of” from a pile of papers is easier said than done. Beta-readers can only help you as far as quality is concerned. But quality does not guarantee sales. And beta-readers are not the same as the general public.
Yes, I agree that some of our stuff shouldn’t leave our houses. Some of our stories are just bad. And we should either fix them or just discard them. But then there are stories that we feel are just good, just functional enough to find an audience… and often, as an irony of fate, the public loves those.
In the end, I believe that the only way of finding out if your story is good or great or just mediocre is to release it. And see if readers love it or not. If it can become a bestseller.
Writing for five years on a hundred short stories and picking the ones you believe to be the best is not a good way to go at this. But there is one great advice to follow. Time.
In this battle of quality vs. quantity, when so many writers are just trying to release at least one title each year, when audiences are growing so hungry (see G.R.R. Martin and his A Song of Fire and Ice series), the answer is time. It’s something all writers should think about.
Whether or not they’re willing to spend more time refining a certain piece of work. To tie up all the loose ends, to make the writing really shine. It’s also a question of whether they’re willing to spend 3 years working on a novel, only to enjoy moderate success. Or no success at all. It’s hit and miss, actually.
That’s why I understand that some writers might focus on quantity, trying to deliver anywhere between 1 to 4-5 novels per year, hoping that sales of one book will take off, while others focus on quality, publishing a novel every 5 to 10 years.
As with a lot that has to do with either writing or publishing, there is no universal answer. Every writer has to find his own answer, whether he’s capable of delivering a good enough product every 4 months, whether he can sacrifice enough of the quality, just so he can hope that one novel will become the next Great American Novel.
Related articles
Good food for thought. Thank you!
My mom lived in Romania for many years, I love Romania and I believe they have great artists in authors! Great post!
You always seem to discuss something I'm pondering. I'm a fan of quality over quantity, but with the advent of e-pubbing spending 5 years on one book is a luxury I can't afford. If you have a guaranteed audience it's another story.
You know, Stephen King says his "Dark Tower" books are his best works, but I tend to think that "It" and "The Stand" are better. In the end, it's all subjective, isn't it?
A novel does not necessarily becomes a best seller because it's a literary masterpiece. A book is a best seller because it speaks to a large number of people, touches something inside them, be that intrigue or love or fear or hope, the story pulls the reader in and leaves them turning pages. Many bestsellers recently jump in and out of point of view, contain trite phrases and bad grammar that leaves creative writing instructors moaning and pulling out their hair. Doesn't matter. The books speak to people, and, in the end, that's why people buy books.
So, as to your question. Is a writer a good judge of their 'best' work. Probably not.
If you want to be a professional writer – i.e. get paid to write – publish everything that someone will let you publish. Unless, of course, you enjoy the starving part of starving artist.
I agree with V above. Also, having a "best of" pile and a "just for my desk drawer" pile may be a luxury few of us have.
Not only do I find it impossible to predict crowds – I also find them changing their views over time!!! It would seem to make sense then to publish, then hope for the best, sometime in the future.
Starving yes, published no needing work always prolific well yes, how long 40 years but it has bee been great always looking foward never looking back…
Great post!
I love your blog, I was going to say a lot more but I think I'll just stick to I love your blog!
I'm definitely on the side of quality above quantity. Sure Dan Brown made a fortune, but he is known by millions as the witer who can't write his way out of a wet paper bag. When I picked up a dog-eared copy of his book second hand in India, I almost coudn't believe how appalling the writing was. It was embarrassing to read. I still think it's the worst writing I've read in a book published in the traditional paper-based, publishing house way. He obviously likes his money, but personally I would have been too embarrassed to send writing like that to my mum to read, let alone a publisher. Guessing his perspective on what writing is is different to mine.
I would say Quality over Quantity. Agree with your post overall.
There will always be bad, mediocre, good, and great books that are published…As the population rises across the planet….you will have different striation of people who are willing to buy and read at one of those levels (either during their lifetime or all the time) of a intellect because the readers themselves. YOU as a writer must make that choice what kind of writer do you wish to be and just write and let the chips fall where they may…
I myself wish to do my best and submit it for judgement…The quicker I can do that without hurting the quality of the manuscript the better…..so write.
I don't know about other writers, but personally, my own opinion on my work changes daily. I can think my novel is the greatest thing to emerge in the fantasy genre this year, and the next day, I realize it's a fun but mediocre read. Then the next day I wake up thinking it's dull crap that's nowhere near ready for publication, and probably never will be. Then I get someone telling me my amazing writing blows their mind, and I start easing back into square one.
So yeah, all that to say, I think publication is the only possible test, at least for me. :P
I must agree I think it is also the same with tv and film. Quality will always be better then quantity
Love this post. I agree- just send it out and see what happens… we should not hold ourselves back.
I started writing on a dare. Someone said "I bet you think you could do better," and I thought I could. So I wrote a little short story. Which turned into a novel, which turned into a series of 6 novels.
Along the way, I went from being a pretty lousy writer with a catchy story to a decent writer. (I'm no literary genius by any measure). The act of writing every day has made me such a better technician. The art is the same, the art for me is the story in the world I've created. But my paragraphs are structured in a more effective manner. I'm much more skilled at the craft of writing. And interestingly enough, my characters are deeper because of that. Because my ability to convey that is better.
I don't know if that makes much sense, but my regret is that none of that really comes through in the first book in the series. If you judge my writing by my first ever novel, it's not so good. But if you can wade through the 1st, some magic happens somewhere between the end of the first book and the start of the third.
Now I need to go re-write the first book :)
As always, your entries are valuable, thought provoking, and useful
I've always had a hard time equating quality with popularity. If a piece of writing blew your hair back is it really necessary to consider whether it is on the bestseller list? The critics, as far as I see it, have too much influence and many blindly follow their opinions. If the critics and everyone around you is saying something is great you have to be really careful to remain objective and not let it color your perception. Many a book or film or album (good or bad) has soared to the top of the charts based on mass appeal and critical momentum not necessarily quality. I feel a writer is best advised to block all that stuff out and follow their vision at whatever cost. If one is priviledged enough to have an audience great but consider all of those amazing artists who were outsiders and shunned during their time, many never saw the fruits of their labor but persevered anyway and the world is a much better place as a result.
This makes me think of some parenting advice I heard while raising my kids – concentrate on quality not quantity. I never agreed with that. As a parent you need to concentrate on both. I wouldn't want my kids to only remember a handful of memorable, quality times. I want them to remember day-to-day life as a family, too. With writing, you need to write, write, write. Some stuff you'll love and some you'll not, you need to just spend the time doing it. Quality will eventually show itself.
Interesting thought. Thanks for posting.
I think as a writer you should write all you possibly can. A publisher will make the call as to whether or not they think it deserves to be published. On the flip side I've read some self published novels that were every bit as good as novels published by the big publishing houses. I guess the whole idea of what's good and what's not is pretty subjective. It's always great to come across a blog entry that really makes you think. Thanks.
What defines a good novel?
One that sell's and make's a lot of money? which may still be a rotten story.
OR
One that attack's the emotion's and feeling's of the reader who's mind float's in a surreal world carried away by word's entwined and projecting a realistic euphoric feeling of living the adventure.
At least that's my opinion
That was a great post and it makes me think of all the authors I read and like. I think the depth of the story and the intricacies of the plot have a lot to do with the quantity aspect. Some of my favourite writers follow a pattern that is much the same in every book and allows the author to release many. However, I read this because I know what I am getting and love the charactors in the series.
On the other hand, the series like "Songs of Ice and Fire" by Martin are so indepth and origional that I can see why it takes him many years between books. Sometimes as many as 10 years.
I appreciate you sharing your insight on this topic. There is so much to consider when putting writing out for others to view. I have and continue to keep my writing to myself and yet am now finding that I am compelled to write and just let go of it as it really isn't mine anyway. I am merely the instrument who hears, interprets and puts it in the ethers.
Interesting. I personally prefer the quality route, but I can understand why not everyone might. For me, art is sacred, and I have to feel good about what I'm putting out there.
I'm not sure I could even shoot for a book every four months–even without the farm and the day job. I take the naive view, I keep writing until the story is told and I'm happy with it. Then I edit. Then I work with the editor and it gets repeatedly edited until it's finished (or until neither of us can stand it anymore, I'm not sure which.) Then we publish it. Yes, there's a loose schedule, but something always comes up, like a broken foot, or a death in the family, the stuff of life. The only sure thing is that it doesn't see print until it feels right and resonates at the right level.
So true on the topic of translated novels. And equally correct about successful writers producing good/bad/mediocre work – they're human, after all! I can see how signing a contract for one book per year could be the death sentence for quality writing.