I read about authors who write a 60-70K word book in a month or two. Some can turn out 10K words a day. While I certainly believe writers can achieve this, I think (from reading their novels) they do so by building simple characters, less scene details, lots of repetitive action, and uncomplicated plots.
There is a market and niche for this easy style of fiction. But, I find more enjoyment in a novel of some complication in plot and character. I want to have a connection to the time and place where the novel is placed.
In Anne R. Allen blog post “Are Slow Writers Doomed to Fail in the Digital Age?”, she is a slow writer in an industry demanding fast writers. Volume equals more money. She writes, “In fact, I believe working slowly and mindfully is the best way to build a career.”
Fast writing does not mean fast success. Some authors think so by publishing a multitude of novels over a short period of time. They believe the more books published, the more readers they’ll attract and the more money they’ll make. A few achieve this, but only because they have a team of ghost writers helping them.
So, are slow writers doomed since they produce a book a year instead of three or more in a year? On the other hand, an author can take years to write a book of gibberish or two months to do the same. Forget these possibilities of failure.
They can happen or not. Instead, focus on how much time put toward writing rather than the number of words produced in a day. You might feel better.
I’m a fan of slow writing because I’m biased. I write slow. I have tried writing the fast stuff and it can work, but I’m not satisfied with it. I think there is a more viable market and niche for stories with a few plot layers, slightly flawed characters, and places that seem real.
This takes time to write.