I have been an avid reader
ever since I was little, and there are authors who I enjoy and
admire. When I was in elementary school, R.L. Stine was the most
prolific author I was aware of, and I had read some of his books. It
amazed me that he could spin out so many books. Same with Francine
Pascal (I had never heard of ghostwriting back then except for that
one PBS kids' show, but that was a totally different kind of
ghostwriter...)
Later on, I would read
books from other prolific authors. It certainly didn't mean that I
read all of their books. I've read Nora Roberts, Danielle Steel,
James Patterson, Stephen King, and other authors who have a long list
of books under their belt. Since I read so much, I came to notice
that there was a downside to being a prolific author, especially as I
got older and read more novels geared towards adults.
After a while, the books
tend to get repetitive. Point in being, I received about ten Cassie
Edwards books from a co-worker who knew I was an avid reader. Not
being one to turn away a free book, I kept these books at work to
read during my break times. The first one was Savage Obsession, or
something like that. It had a redhead as the heroine, I think her
name was Brenda? I forget the name of the Indian chief who abducts
her. It was typical bodice-ripping to me. After that I read a few
more and noticed a definite pattern. The beautiful, young white woman
is kidnapped/coerced by the handsome, tall Indian, who is invariably
the chief of his tribe, or next in line to be leader of the tribe.
She may hate him at first and struggle with him, but in the end she
always gave in. Sometimes they even had sex within a few days or even
that very night of meeting one another. After ten books, there was no
mistake in finding the pattern. She just repeated the same plot with
just a change in names, and the color of the woman's hair and eyes. I
Googled her and found out that she's written over a hundred books.
Damn, that's a lot. That's over 3 books a year. That averages to less
than 4 months spent per book. No wonder they're so repetitive, she
doesn't spend enough time on them. That's not to mention the whole
plagiarism thing... but that's a whole different matter, so you can
read about that in this link
(opens in a new window) or we can move on...
Another author who made it
to 100 novels is Andrew Neiderman. He is the who wrote the book that
the movie 'Devil's Advocate' is based off. (The movie is way better
than the book, though) and he is also the ghostwriter of V.C. Andrews
(d.1986) he has actually written more books under VCA's name than his
own. I love V.C. Andrews (the real one) and her books were brilliant.
However, Neiderman recycles plots, names, and phrases, and you can
see that the quality of writing has dropped since she died. He's
written about 40 books under his name and almost twice that many
ghostwriting, and his writing is the same across the board, the same
complaints that can be found for his ghostwritten books also plague
the ones under his name, his plots recycled, endings predictable
and/or cliché, poor characterization, etc. Despite these complaints
he ignores his fans and continues to churn out the same old shit over
and over. He's actually been reduced to writing reviews for himself
(opens in a new window)
but stopped once he was called out and one of his reviews deleted
(but it can be seen when you look up 'most recent comments' in his
profile.
I've read several books by
James Patterson and Fern Michaels. Patterson's writing style
really bothers me. I read 'Maximum Ride' and was left with
a sour taste in my mouth. It was just so bad and I felt especially
ripped off because I bought it for new and paid full price. Later on,
I got a hand me down of 'Where the Wind Blows', the book that Maximum
Ride was supposed to be a rewrite of. 'Where the Wind Blows', while
not the best book in itself, was far better than Maximum Ride. The
other three books I read by Patterson were all more recent, and they
were so lackluster that I don't even remember them that well. There
was one with a woman who kept killing her fiances, one with a woman
who had jury duty and lost her son in an explosion, and the other one
I think was about some sort of drug. Fern Michaels had the same
impression on me. Again, all her books were hand-me-downs. It is the
only reason I read more than one book from her. I read one of the
Sisterhood books, as well as 'Hey Good-Looking' (the worst of the
lot), the Marriage Game (a close rival to the preceding book for the
worst of the lot) and then one more Sisterhood book (the one about
Yoko) It was obvious she didn't research, and she just keeps churning
them out despite getting bad reviews for doing so.
Danielle Steel and Nora
Roberts are two more authors I had problems with. I read two DS books
and hated both of them. One was 'Miracle' and the other one was 'the
House'. She repeats herself. A lot. I mean, seriously, a LOT. And the
plotlines and dialogue are just so badly written. I never read one of
her earlier books so maybe she was good once, but these two books
were more recent and just terrible.
Nora Roberts is someone I
do like. I've read about ten books of hers, including the trilogy
that started with 'Jewels of the Sun'. She has some great writing
here and there and some brilliant scenes, but I found many parts
repetitive, especially after getting through about five books of
hers. The female characters are almost always the same personality,
and I see the same fight between her and the male lead in various
forms through the books. I especially disliked 'McGregor Brides'
because I found the three stories within it and their respective lead
characters basically copies of one another. The last book I read was
'The Villa'. I loved the backdrop and the mystery. However, as soon
as I heard of the deals that the family was being forced to go
through because of Tereza's will, I immediately saw what was going to
happen with Sophie and her contentious relationship with the man she
is supposed to share her duties with. Some of the scenes were really
well-written, but the book ended up wrapping too quickly and was
somewhat cliched. And guess what? Nora Roberts has written over 200
novels. Holy shit. Well, with that many romance novels, things are
bound to repeat themselves...
That is why I will
consider myself successful if I give my fans and the world just ten
astounding stories. At this point, I have already accomplished one
story – 'Seeds', and if I can put out just nine more awesome
stories in my lifetime, I will have considered myself successful. I
care more about the quality of my works than how many books I can
churn out. For some people, it might be easy to spin out a hundred
novels, but I just couldn't live with myself if I was writing the
same thing over and over. I'm serious. The thought of basically using
the same schtick over and over and changing just a bit here and there
is just mind-numbing.
There is so much I want to
write and say, yes. That's why 'Seeds' is three books rather than
one, but I want what I am saying to be worthwhile. I don't want
people thinking, 'didn't I read this story before...?' I notice that
those hailed in history as great writers had considerably fewer
novels under their name (not including short stories) While the
authors I mentioned above publish more than one book on average per
year, even sometimes as many as 4 or 5, authors like Charles Dickens,
Mark Twain, and Jane Austen published less than one per year. I do
not attribute this to just the fact that they didn't have computers,
but the fact that they had to think more about what they wrote, that
the publishing world was not back then what it is today. Many authors
back then didn't get truly appreciated until after their deaths, so
these people were not getting instant fame. They knew that they had
to stand out and hone their abilities and that is what they did. I
don't see much of that from many people today, including some
authors.
I am not casting all
prolific authors in a bad light. Some just pull it off better than
others. Even with her flaws, I find Nora Roberts a decent author and
did enjoy some of her books, such as 'Blue Smoke', but like with
other things, not taking enough time on something is going to make
the quality suffer. You can't change that.
'Seeds' took me two years
to write, and another half a year to edit, which I did four times,
going through each time and finding little things to tweak, even in
my very final edit I did find a few itty bitty things to fix. I
believe in taking the time to hone and refine a work to make a truly
memorable story rather than just churn out a handful of books per
year. Maybe this won't mean as many books for my readers, but at
least these books will be damn good.
