Book sequels are hitting shelves faster

[Ransonwrites]

One of Nathan Bransford's recent blog updates included a link to this article: Impatience Has Its Reward: Books Are Rolled Out Faster

It's about the growing trend to get sequels out much faster than has previously been the practice. Below are a few selected quotes:

...

The practice of spacing an author’s books at least one year apart is gradually being discarded as publishers appeal to the same “must-know-now” impulse that drives binge viewing of shows like “House of Cards” and “Breaking Bad.”

“Consumers want to be able to binge-read or binge-watch,” Christine Ball, the associate publisher of Dutton, said in an interview. “We wanted to give the consumers what they wanted in this case.”

...

“I think the bottom line is that people are impatient,” said Susan Wasson, a longtime bookseller at an independent shop, Bookworks, in Albuquerque. “With the speed that life is going these days, people don’t want to wait longer for a sequel. I know I feel that way. When I like a book, I don’t want to wait a year for the sequel.”

...

But does this need for speed mean we're getting good books, well-written books, properly plotted books and decent characters?

Or are we getting the spell-checked second draft?

Is the author/publisher relying on the corrosive effects of internet culture both on readers' attention spans, and their appreciation of quality, to slip us a quick hit of the literary equivalent of white powder up the left nostril, rather than treating us to a fine glass of the amber stuff that's been aged in a barrel for eighty years?

I'm not sure I like this rapid fire approach. Life is not so short that I can't wait 9 or 12 months for the next book, so long as I know I'm getting a good book.

Does everything have to be done at light speed?

 

[Boneman]

As a reader: yes. As a writer: bugger that, who do you think I am - Brent Weeks? I remember waiting 7 years on a demented train for Stephen King to get on with the Dark Tower series, and that was a bit much... I'm more than happy to wait for a great book, and I'd be hacked off if the market made the writer rush it, and produce an inferior product. I imagine the writer would be, as well.

 

[Vladd67]

Reminds me of a line from Castle, having been told that James Patterson was going to be late for their poker game Richard Castle says Patterson was probably going to use the time to write another book.

 

[Brian G Turner]

But does this need for speed mean we're getting good books, well-written books, properly plotted books and decent characters?

So far as I understand it, writers can have a few books up their sleeve when they are signed, but are usually forced into the "book/year" rhythm no matter how much they beg and plead otherwise.

Ironically, it was the quick publish approach that helped to launch Brent Weeks - with his first trilogy coming out at a pace of a book a month.

If the material is there, then definitely worth exploiting them - though, of course, an author might want to consider self-publishing some as part of a hybrid approach.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yep, as a fast writer the model appeals to me - sadly people too often mix quick with shoddy. About nine months apart is my norm. Note:apart - each book takes over a year to get to the polished state.

 

[Mouse]

I was going to say what Brian's already said. Newly published writers would have a few books already written I'd imagine. And if they were flogging a trilogy, I'd guess they have it mostly, if not all, completed by the time they were looking for agents.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I know that lots of writers are reluctant to write a whole trilogy on spec, but it may be the way to go in establishing a career. Of course it would be horribly disappointing to write two sequels and then discover you can't even interest a publisher in the first book. But I think it would be equally disappointing to get that first book published and then the series and your career not take off because you didn't have the sequel ready and the momentum died. (I know from experience how disappointing the not-getting-sequel-done-and momentum-dies scenario is, though I haven't experienced the other, so I can't be sure that it's equally awful, but I can say that it well and truly sucks.)

So if you go to a publisher with three or four books already written (or almost written) then the books can be published in fairly quick succession and establish a career. George Martin already had a career, of course, but it wasn't a particularly stellar one. But the first few books in ASoIaF came out quickly enough that a massive number of readers became addicted and that's why he's been able to get away with the long periods between the other books. If there had been big gaps between the first and second and the second and third, would the series be such a phenomenon? My opinion is that it would not have been.





.

 

[Dozmonic]

Reminds me of a line from Castle, having been told that James Patterson was going to be late for their poker game Richard Castle says Patterson was probably going to use the time to write another book.

Funny because it's easy to believe

 

[The Bluestocking]

As a reader: yes. As a writer: bugger that, who do you think I am - Brent Weeks? I remember waiting 7 years on a demented train for Stephen King to get on with the Dark Tower series, and that was a bit much... I'm more than happy to wait for a great book, and I'd be hacked off if the market made the writer rush it, and produce an inferior product. I imagine the writer would be, as well.

What Boneman said.

Also - I do agree with the thought that perhaps it may be best for new writers to have at least 2 - 3 books ready to go if they are writing a series. Better to be prepared than to be caught flat-footed should the first book take off like a rocket!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The idea of increasing the rate of bringing out books has been around for a long time. I remember Tim Holman at Orbit doing that (or saying they were going to do it soon) at least 10-15 years ago.

I do think this is something authors have to be aware of - at least one book a year. For a lot of authors that shouldn't be a problem, but for some it will be. And I think it's more about the impatience/keen-ness of readers (especially in doorstop fantasy) than anything else, with, perhaps, a hint of the commercial imperative...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

If there had been big gaps between the first and second and the second and third, would the series be such a phenomenon? My opinion is that it would not have been.


.

I agree.

 

[Boneman]

In a talk Patrick Rothfuss gave at Waterstones in Brighton, he addressed this problem. When he was signed up he'd written almost a million words which was spit into a trilogy by the publishers. During editing and rewriting, at least three new characters were invented, which meant copious rewrites, and at least two new storylines. Being a perfectionist, he wanted to make the books the very best they could be - betas (oh, to have that job!), editors, self input, and so on. He asked the audience: "Who'd like to wait 6 months for the next book if it's okay?" No hands went up. "Who'd like to wait a year for the next book if it's good?" I think two hands went up. "Who'd like to wait until the book was the very best it could be, with no loose ends and the most satisfying it possibly could be?" All our hands went up...

I can understand publishers wanting to maintain momentum, to garner better sales, but if it comes at the cost of the standard of writing, then sales must inevitably fall away, mustn't they? If not now, then in 2,3,5 years time, as readers tire of rushed books. Patrick said he never dreamed of how much his books would change under the rewriting process, and felt he would have been unhappy if his original writing had been published as it was.

I accept he's an exceptional case, because he's got such a following, and I imagine there are hordes of fans who'd rather wait for the next Abercrombie,GRRM,Steven King (insert best-selling author here) and yes I see that a newbie could garner a better following if three books came out close together, so there's probably a compromise there somewhere. And I'm off to finish books 2&3 of my two unwritten trilogies, in preparation...

 

[Kissmequick]

But does this need for speed mean we're getting good books, well-written books, properly plotted books and decent characters?

Or are we getting the spell-checked second draft?

Doubtful! I,er, have a project on the go that will be released in short order (I think it's going to be 3 months, 3 books), and my Rojan Dizon series books were released 4 months apart

That's not how long it takes to write one! For the new project, the first two will be done, edited, edited again etc a year before they are due to be published (and the third should be at least done up to the first edit). So all three will be done (from my end) waaay before they are due out. For my Rojan books, I turned in the edits on books three the week the first came out.

It's not like a publisher puts the book out 2 weeks after they get the final copy! If they intend to put the books out quickly, they'll make sure they are all done/good to go writing wise well before the first goes out. If there's a delay at the writing end, then they'll shuffle the release of all of them back a bit. Basically there's more time between signing and release than there otherwise would be, not necessarily that you have less time to write the books (though it helps if you are a reasonably fast writer -- if you aren't then this sort of deal probably won't work for you).

Rothfuss was in a different position -- his second book was never intended to be released quickly after the first, so they pubbed that, then hoped for a quicker release for book 2 because it was so popular. The situation changed.

I know that lots of writers are reluctant to write a whole trilogy on spec, but it may be the way to go in establishing a career. Of course it would be horribly disappointing to write two sequels and then discover you can't even interest a publisher in the first book.

You don't need to have written all the books before you get this sort of deal (I'd only written book one of Rojan's and only enough of this project to ensure the publisher wanted it.) though if you have, it might give them the idea to release quickly. Personally, I'd only write book one (but know what will happen in 2 & 3 at least vaguely) until it's sold. But that's me.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

You don't need to have written all the books before you get this sort of deal (I'd only written book one of Rojan's and only enough of this project to ensure the publisher wanted it.) though if you have, it might give them the idea to release quickly.

You're right. It isn't necessary. I signed a single book contract for my first book (and multi-book contracts based wholly on synopses thereafter). But what I was trying to say -- and perhaps I didn't say it well -- was that unless a new writer already knows that he/she is able to turn out finished books quickly, then it may be best to have a couple of finished, or nearly finished, books in reserve the first time. That way, he/she won't have to worry about killing the momentum.

 

[Kissmequick]

That's a good point

But whatever your writing speed, this is something your agent can chew things over with your publisher - mine certainly talked to Orbit about deadlines and what was manageable. He negotiated longer, though in the end I didn't need that much longer - a matter of a few weeks IIRC.

I think (though I can't know for sure) that it's something they consider a bonus, but not a requirement. So if you say, one book a year is going to be my pace, then they adjust accordingly (within reason. They may get upset if you reckon your next book will be ready about 2023....). And if you say, hey one book a year is what I can manage, they probably won't put you up for quick turnaround on releases. Of course, they want as much as you can, but Orbit have been very flexible and open to communication on this. Because much as they want a book asap, they want it to be good, and they want you not to burn out and have a meltdown in the middle of book 2.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Reduction of momentum is bad news in our internet-obsessed age.

 

[Ransonwrites]

Reduction of momentum is bad news in our internet-obsessed age.

This is the basis of my concern. I've been looking into social media self-promotion and there are growing numbers of self-help guides, professional consultants and membership-based organisations set up to educate the author about the subject, support them in their endeavours and act as a kind of cross-pollination/promotion opportunity via networks.

My point is that I perceive a growing assumption that authors will be connected to social media 24/7. Having experimented with using social media as a self-publishing promotion platform for the past few weeks this prospect fills me with horror. I haven't enjoyed the experiment at all, for reasons not pertinent to this thread.

I think this perception that the author must be perpetually available and engaged in hollow and valueless 140 character Twitter witticisms and pithy, yet insincere Facebook remarks is largely the fault of self-published authors who are, quite rightly, making use of the only marketing opportunity they have access to (particularly since Waterstones* has banned book signings by un-agented and/or self-published authors).

*cannot get used to the missing apostrophe

The problem is that this could foster the notion among publishers that their authors should be required to do the same. I researched a blog post about the concept of co-publishing last year (I first saw the term associated with an Italian TV writing competition: it was like X-Factor with books) and wasn't very happy with my conclusions - I foresaw publishers trapping first-time authors in contracts that stipulate the author practically work full time hours on social media self-promotion, while the publisher waters down their own marketing efforts in direct proportion, reaping the cost savings of so doing at the author's expense.

Thus, we see the ultimate consequence of this rapid-fire approach to publishing, with its implied emphasis on feeding the insatiable maw of social media consumers - a disproportionately vocal and visible demographic whose attention spans have been so impaired by instant gratification that publishers don't dare suggest to them they should wait a whole 12 months for a new book: not when most of them would reflexively un-follow a 'tweep' who didn't tweet something hilarious at least once every 12 hours!

Note that I called the social media collective a 'disproportionately vocal and visible demographic' because, as noted by Boneman when he described Patrick Rothfuss asking his audience whether they were prepared to wait longer for better book. Additionally, there are plenty on social media who are not instant-gratification-junkies... presumably a large number are Patrick Rothfuss readers.

Disclaimer: social media is okay in small doses, but not when grafted on like a second head the way all the self-help guides and consultants advise.

 

[Kissmequick]

I've talked to a few editors (in the Big Five etc) about social networking and you know what they say?

It's a bonus. Not a requirement. You don't have to be on twitter or face book or forums or whatever. You don't have to blog. They like it if you do, but it's not something they get sniffy about if you don't. One editor told me they'd taken on someone with zero internet presence, and he wasn't going to start now, either. ETA: I can't see it becoming a contractual obligation, unless your agent drops the ball either, and that's if they ever added in a clause, which I can't see. Though that may depend on the publisher, ofc. Small presses may require more from you as their marketing is less. I've small press pubbed, and yes the onus is more on you, but Big Five is a massive difference.

The thing is, ofc, because you have marketing behind you when you trade publish with bigger pubs, you don't HAVE to do it all yourself. Your books are on shelves in Waterstones, there (may be) advertising, national reviews etc. The onus is on you to write good books. And that's where they would like you to spend the majority of your time. If you like to tweet, or blog, or post on forums then Yay! If not, there are other, debatably better, ways to get the word out about your book. I mean, what good's a blog that no one reads? They need to have heard of you first...

If you self publish, then yes, the onus is all on you, and you have to make use of everything available. That pressure is less when you have a team behind you doing all they can do too

 

[Gareth Lewis]

This is the basis of my concern. I've been looking into social media self-promotion and there are growing numbers of self-help guides, professional consultants and membership-based organisations set up to educate the author about the subject, support them in their endeavours and act as a kind of cross-pollination/promotion opportunity via networks.

My point is that I perceive a growing assumption that authors will be connected to social media 24/7. Having experimented with using social media as a self-publishing promotion platform for the past few weeks this prospect fills me with horror. I haven't enjoyed the experiment at all, for reasons not pertinent to this thread.

I think this perception that the author must be perpetually available and engaged in hollow and valueless 140 character Twitter witticisms and pithy, yet insincere Facebook remarks is largely the fault of self-published authors who are, quite rightly, making use of the only marketing opportunity they have access to (particularly since Waterstones* has banned book signings by un-agented and/or self-published authors).

There are a number of reasonable people advising that social media doesn't do much for promotion (it tends to attract those after free content, rather than those inclined to buy). They say your time's better spent writing more, so you get more titles out and increase your discoverability.

Since I generally share your view on social media, this is the advice I prefer to stick to. I've pretty much given up on Twitter, I'm struggling to find material for my blog, and I find Facebook an indecipherable mess. They may be more useful once a writer has a following, but until then I spend the time producing more work.

 

[Boneman]

Note that I called the social media collective a 'disproportionately vocal and visible demographic' because, as noted by Boneman when he described Patrick Rothfuss asking his audience whether they were prepared to wait longer for better book. Additionally, there are plenty on social media who are not instant-gratification-junkies... presumably a large number are Patrick Rothfuss readers.

Disclaimer: social media is okay in small doses, but not when grafted on like a second head the way all the self-help guides and consultants advise.

Agree with the disclaimer 100%. I will never tweet... Unless I'm paid to, of course.

Patrick Rothfuss has started on twitter recently, and if I can find the blog talking about his reasoning I'll post it. I think he's not particularly happy doing it*, and that's a shame because his blog is one of the best in the business.

I've talked to a few editors (in the Big Five etc) about social networking and you know what they say?

It's a bonus. Not a requirement. You don't have to be on twitter or face book or forums or whatever. You don't have to blog. They like it if you do, but it's not something they get sniffy about if you don't.

Phew, that's a relief... all I have to do is get published by the big boys! There does seem to have been pressure on writers (and it may be a perceived pressure, rather than real) that you should have an internet presence, a website, a blog, because the publishers want you to do your bit to get yourself out there.

[Btw, what does ETA stand for? Living so close to the airport, I've always known it as Estimated Time of Arrival...]

*Perhaps not: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/?s=Starting+twitter October 17th 2013 details it, and he uses his first tweeting to raise money for charity... Because his twitter feed comes alongside his blog, there are a number of comments by him about twitter that are quite disparaging, of himself and twitter, though...