Lately I've heard and read much discussion about how productive a writer needs to be to stay au courant, so to speak. The consensus seems to be that you better muster up a book a year, although some can write three or even four. Of course an easy little cozy mystery that tips the scales at 75,000 words or the light as a feather romance that is barely 60,000 words may be easier to churn out than that 135,000 word thriller with its sixteen subplots. Some writers say, no way, and will take their sweet time, be it two years or five to produce the new oeurve.
Me, I'm taking about 3 years per book but that was with work and lots of other "stuff", but why would I bust my butt to write, write, write when no one is able to read, read, read? It is already mega-depressing to have three, count 'em three books unpublished, but think how I'd feel with six or ten? Set my hair on fire? You got it.
The Boston Globe had a long article on the topic today. Hooray fro Dennis Lehane who writes slower and better than most. If you scan the hard cover best seller list, do the plots make you want to race out and buy the books? Not me. On the other hand, the trade paperback list usually has lots of "must reads." Depends, I guess, on what you're looking for.
Here is the link to the Globe.