By: Joelle Charbonneau
This week our very own Steve Weddle started a discussion
about the trend in publishing where authors are being asked to produce more
than one work in a year. Sometimes they
are asked to create a short story to help promote a book. Often they are requested to up their
production to two books or more. Steve
did a great job of laying out the possible reasons for this in his post – here– even if he did tweak me a bit by saying I have 17 books hitting shelves in
the next 2 years. (6 is more than
enough!)
During the ensuing discussion, I saw more than on person
comment that creating more than one book a year lowers the quality of an
authors work. I have to admit that the
certainty in which those comments were made gave me pause for a minute. I mean, I have 4 novels due to my publishers
in the next year. The comments on
Steve’s blog post made it sound as if I am selling out by writing that much or
that my writing will suffer mightily from the commitment. Um…yikes.
Then I thought about the arguments and I went from feeling
scared to being annoyed – not just at those comments, but the discussion on
this issue I have seen across the internet.
People say that writing fast means lowering the quality of the
writing.
Screw that.
Just because something is created quickly doesn’t lower the
value of the work. You know how I know
this? Because some of the greatest art
in history was created quickly and has not only lasted throughout the
generations, but with each passing year is more revered.
Let’s look at music.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is considered to be one of the
greatest composers that ever put pen to paper.
He was 35 when he died. During
his time on this earth he wrote over 600 works that are still being preformed
today. In 1791 alone – the last year of
his life – Mozart created over 60 works which included 2 operas, one of which
was Die Zauberflote (The Magic Flute), symphonies, choral music, concertos
etc. I don’t think that anyone would claim
his work suffered from speed.
And if you think Mozart was prolific, take a look at another
luminary composer - J.S. Bach who lived to be 65. Part of his job as a church composer was to
write a new cantata every week. He wrote
1126 works during his lifetime – that we know of. Who knows what works were lost to the passage
of time and poor documentation. I
guarantee you won’t hear people say they wish he’d written less.
The visual arts also have their share of prolific
artists. Raphael Sanzio – who was better
known by just his first name of Raphael – was only 37 years old when he
died. During his short life, he
completed at least 100 works that we know of.
And as impressive as that sounds, Pablo Picasso has him beat by a
mile. The total number of artworks
created by Picasso is estimated to be around 50,000.
Am I saying that all writers should be prolific? NO! Am
I saying that all the artwork that was created by Picasso or the music produced
by Bach are at the very highest standard?
Probably not.
But blanket statements saying that “all writing done quickly
is crap” and that “those who take years to craft a book are geniuses” really
tick me off. Each of us as writers—as
readers—as people move at our own pace. Associating
the time it takes to create something to its value is just plain wrong.
Read the book.
Look at the painting.
Listen to the opera or concerto and determine based on the
work alone if it speaks to you.
If it does, why does the time frame it takes to create it
matter?
