Me? I have two problems with this. One is about quality. Years ago, one of my favorite authors, Sue Grafton, who writes the alphabet series about investigator Kinsey Milhone, published H and then I in the series, and they sucked. I for Innocent was worse than H. Grafton then admitted in an interview that she knew the books were poor, and that her publisher had pushed her into writing faster.
No more, she said. I will write at my pace, and I will make sure every book from now on is the best I can make it. The quality of J went up - noticeably. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing what she said!) This stuck with me, probably because I was lucky enough to interview her on a radio show not much later and it was part of my research. Let's be honest - why would writing faster ever make a book better? If you are a writer, you know that you need time to write and plot and deepen the characters, and then you need more time to revise and improve. I doubt that publishers are paying editors extra to fix up fast/poor novels.
But what bothers me more is the burn-out factor. In the NYT article, it says about writer Lisa Scottoline:
Ms. Scottoline has increased her output from one book a year to two, which she accomplishes with a brutal writing schedule: 2,000 words a day, seven days a week, usually “starting at 9 a.m. and going until Colbert,” she said.We can certainly all do that for a month or two, maybe even six. But day after day, week after week, ALL year? And still write something as good in six full-on months as the novel that took a year and went through thoughtful revisions? Maybe Scottoline can do it. Maybe there are lots of dedicated writers (some mentioned in the article) who can work at this pace, for years and years. But why? To keep the panicking publisher off your back?
As a reader, do you want two books a year from your favorite writers, no matter the quality? Or will you soak up whatever you can get? What do you think?