Are the numbers really that important?

I often smile when I read press releases for new books that can't wait to remind me how many titles this author has published. Implicit in this piece of information, of course, is that productivity translates to quality. It's the American way, don't you know? We're #1 in everything, and quantity is at the top of the list. "How many homers did he hit? How much money does he make? How many books has he written? And finally the coup de grace, "What has he done lately?" These are the kinds of metrics that Americans focus on when talking about a person's reputation or worth.

I'm willing to bet that most published authors have been asked at one time or another, "When's your next book coming out?" Members of a writer's fan base are often genuinely eager to absorb more of a certain wordsmith's work, and that is a good thing. But implicit in the question about the "next book" is the notion that any author worth his/her salt must have a list of books on his/her resume. Surely, a continuous stream of pithy thoughts are beating a path down that well worn synaptic trail from brain to paper. Or, perhaps not.

What I'm positing here is that the number of titles produced is not the most important indicator of whether a book is good, worth reading, or entitled a place in the pantheon of respected work. In this regard, I'm reminded of a couple of great works that have endured the test of time to claim a place on the roll call of classics. And these were not only first books for their authors, but also the only books they ever wrote. Who might I be referring to? Well, Margaret Mitchell of Gone with the Wind fame for one, and Harper Lee, who wrote To Kill a Mocking Bird, for another. I wonder what they answered when asked when their next book was coming out?

Some authors are indeed quite prolific, and their genre of choice may actually lend itself to producing sequel after sequel, and most importantly, sale after sale. All-time best-selling author Agatha Christie wrote 80 novels (or as I used to joke, wrote the same story 80 times). I know this may upset Christie fans, but for me it's the difference between watching a soap opera and a feature film. Do you prefer life on the installment plan, where you can spend your time anticipating the next chapter? Or would you like it all in one gulp so you can consider it in toto? In the final analysis, what's important to publishers is, "Will it sell?" They don't really care about the quality of the work.

It's also good to bear in mind that critical analysis of an author's work is mostly subjective, and whether a book it makes it into publication or not is often a matter of luck. Stories abound about the rejection of an author who ultimately went on to become famous. Jack London's Call of the Wild was reportedly turned down 90 times before finally being published. To test the plight of new writers eight years after his novel Steps won the National Book Award, Jerzy Kosinski permitted a writer to change the name and title of his award-winning book, and send the manuscript to thirteen agents and fourteen publishers. They all rejected it, including Random House, who had published the original book!

Many years ago, I was a member of a writing group that was run by a famous author. Early in his career, in a stint as an editor at a famous mainstream publisher, he admitted that he had turned down Mr. Roberts, a book that not only became a best seller, but a blockbuster movie as well. Stories of such rebuffs are legion, but the point is that oftentimes Lady Luck plays an all too important part in the difference between success and failure. The good fortune of having your manuscript land on just the right editor's desk is not to be underestimated, and this alone should encourage authors to keep trying.

So, the bottom line here is not that there aren't several successful authors who, once established, churn out bestsellers year after year, one after another—there obviously are. Stephen King and James Patterson come to mind. My point is that the number of titles from a single author that the public is willing to consume is not a measure of the quality or importance of the work. In fact it might be quite the contrary. Having a significant quantity of book titles published is a great metric for financial success, one that many authors would gladly kill for. However, the reality is that most writers toil in obscurity all their lives, working on what might be valuable manuscripts that will never see the light of day. Only a relative few command the spotlight at all, and even fewer do so for an extended period of time.

When I peruse the bookshelves for a good book, I routinely reject those that have the author's name in type larger than the title of the book. "Look here," they are saying, "another book by this famous author/person." They are obviously selling name recognition, not the worth of the story or even the subject matter. To me an author is the vehicle that delivers a good story to its destination--the reader. He or she is not unlike a reporter who delivers an interesting news report. When the messenger becomes the story, however, is when my interest wanes. And the number of books the author has succeeded in getting published or sold is not a factor in my buying decision.