If you look at a lot of authors they crank out story after story and they might be decent writing but nothing spectacular, yet make lots of money. Meanwhile some guy who writes a single amazing sentence might end up changing a lot more people's lives but never get the credit for it...
Which would you prefer to be?
Isn't writing really about quantity over quality?
I would much rather write the one sentence that will change more people's lives than crank out crap books for money.
To me, it's all about quality. That's one reason why I tend to dislike modern writing; I feel like many modern authors don't care about quality as much as quantity. They are more worried about publishing a lot of books than the quality of those books. I feel like many of them write for money, not for the love of writing. That's also why I prefer classics-- the quality is amazing and you can tell that the author put their heart and soul into the novel.
Quantity may get you fame, wealth, and recognition now; but quality is what is remembered for generations to come. Take a look at To Kill A Mockingbird-- it's the only novel Harper Lee published, but it's a classic. Quality over quantity.
Isn't writing really about quantity over quality?
Well - for a beginning author - it should obviously be about quality if they want their book to be published. Prolific authors who make a living off of their writings probably tend to emphasize quantity over quality. James Patterson, for example, publishes lord knows how many books in one year, thanks to his ghost writers. But on the other hand, Mary Higgins Clark only releases a book or two a year. So obviously she's weighing more on quality than quantity.
For me - I like quality. And kudos JP - he usually manages to maintain both.
To me, it's all about QUALITY. You theory is right on point. But all that doesn't matter to me, if the book is crap then why go look for more books under that author? ....%26lt;3
Quality gets remembered.
Well..... it never hurts to have both does it? But then again maybe a %26quot;lack of quality%26quot; and %26quot;the illusion of quantity%26quot; is what makes such authors so much money. Or maybe they are just craking out stupid but long stories.
But you know what I heard? It's not about writing it's about the story.
You can have all the fancy words you want and metaphors and personifications and such but without a good storyline it pretty much %26quot;sucks%26quot; where as if you have a good storyline but not the best writing it doesn't really matter, but again decent writing never really hurts does it?
I would prefer to make a good book that I like that hopefully others would enjoy too.
I don't write for money I write for myself and hopefully others.
It's not a matter of quantity over quality, it's a matter of producing something marketable to larger audiences. Spectacular writing is rarely mainstreamed (except for cases of classics). What is mainstreamed and marketed better is writing that captures a larger audience. This means it can't be too difficult to read, or heavily coded; it needs to have relatable characters and a good hook.
That's not exactly good writing. It's just marketable writing that a larger audience can enjoy.
By the time most authors become best sellers, they have several rejected manuscripts, books published by small presses, and works under other pen names that were never promoted. The new publisher takes them on as new works usually.
But I know what you're getting at. Authors who crank out lukewarm works that become hot items have a gimmick or can tell a good story despite not being able to write themselves out of a paper bag. Aim your work at a age group and give them what they want. They could care less if you're hack--they're being entertained.
Why do I write? Because I like to entertain. I want to write stories and novels that people love. I want them to remember my book years after they read it and recall a favorite scene or passage. I want them to share my books.
I think if you get paid for writing that's just icing on the cake!
