As I was stepping out of the shower last night, I was thinking about all the stories I want to write in the future. Naturally, I thought of the list of ideas for novels, movies, and even video games I keep on my flash drive, with every idea getting a working title and a brief description of its plot. It was at this point I was struck by a thought: how prolific must a writer be?
Of course there’s no real answer to that question, but I feel compelled to examine the issue anyway in this blog post. So let’s take a look:
Many writers write several volumes worth of work for a variety of reasons. Many, like Stephen King or James Patterson, have written huge bodies of work, some of which might not be in their specific genre of interest. Why? Well, I’m sure the income they get from the sales is nice, even if most of it goes to the publisher, but I think it might have something to do with the joy many writers have when working with a story they like and then sharing it with the people. Otherwise, why would they continue writing when they have enough money to invest in several Fortune 500 companies and retire someplace warm?
On the other hand, some authors only feel compelled to write one story and leave it at that. Take Harper Lee, author of To Kill A Mockingbird. She only wrote one novel her entire life, probably got a lot of money and plenty of awards for it, plus a movie adaptation. She never wrote another thing ever. Now, one could argue she enjoyed being a one-hit wonder so much she felt she had no need to write more. If you ask me though, I think the fact that she always lived in the same small town she grew up in and that she seemed more introverted than extroverted argues that she didn’t have anything else she wanted to say to the world. Also, every writer has to do some publicity for their work, especially in these tumultuous times for the writing industry. That whole advertising and promoting gig is not for everyone, so it wouldn’t surprise me if Ms. Lee got tired of it and didn’t want anymore of it after Mockingbird.
But most writers are not Stephen King, James Patterson, or Harper Lee. In fact, most have to continually write, especially if a writer is self-publishing and he or she doesn’t have skyrocketing sales. So as long as someone can sit at a computer and churn out a story, they will, especially if it makes the difference between paying the rent and not paying it. Like I said, many writers fall somewhere in this area, though most are doing a bit better than having to worry about rent payments. Of course, it’s not all about the money. Some just like sharing their stories with the world. I know I’m one of those folks, though I don’t mind a little cash flow here and there.
So how does this factor into how prolific a writer must be? Truthfully, it doesn’t. Writers write, and they write what they want, and how much they write is up to them. Some will keep writing new stories for years, up until the day they’re on their deathbeds struggling to type out one more word, one more sentence, one last story. Others will just write the one beautiful piece of literature and be done with it. They may not even send it to the publishers, though as far as I know that’s very rare. Why they do either of these options is their own choice and you’d have to ask them.
As for me? I’ve got many ideas for stories, and I’d like the oppurtunity to share them all with you and anybody else who might be interested. It might take me a while to get most of them out, but as long as a story keeps me interested, I’ll keep writing it and I’ll keep sharing it with the greater world.
What about you? How prolific do you feel you need to be and why do you feel this way?
Rami Ungar The Writer 
Well, H.G. Wells was super-prolific, but Douglas Adams was terrible with deadlines and didn’t produce much at any given time. I guess it all comes down to quality.
Quality rather than quantity…now there’s a post I may have to do some thinking about.