Skip to main content

How long does it take you...

There are some questions that all writers face on a very regular basis, and one of those is 'how long does it take you to write a book.' (For what it's worth, my answer is nine months to a year, but I typically have two on the go at once, so I can mix some research and some writing.)

That doesn't come as much of a surprise. But what does often raise some eyebrows is how long it can take from submitting a shiny manuscript to the publisher to the finished book hitting the shelves. This is typically another nine months to a year. Of course it doesn't have to be. You will see books rushed out when someone famous dies in weeks - but that's a special case, far from the norm.

There is a lot of work behind the scenes before there's a physical book you can buy. Once the manuscript leaves the author's hands, it will typically:
  • Sit around for a month or two - books are always written to a deadline, but it's rare that there is then any urgency when the manuscript is delivered
  • Be read and have a preliminary edit by your editor - this is the worst bit, the point where the editor might come back and say 'this is rubbish' or 'we need significant re-writes'. If you are lucky you get 'I love it, and there's very little to do'
  • Be copy edited - this is the work of a different person who irons out as many of your typos and grammatical quirks as they can, plus queries anything that doesn't make sense. The copy editor may also mark up the book for proof printing
  • Proof reading - a very first cut of the book as individual sheets comes back to you and a professional proof reader. It's amazing how many little errors will still have slipped through
  • Production of bound proofs - with some but not all books an almost-paperback version is produced to send out to reviewers who take a long time reading it, or write for a publication with a long lead time. Personally, if possible, I much prefer reviewing from the real thing.
  • Production of the book - and perhaps a month ahead of publication you have the first real example of your book in your hands
A lot to do, then - but these processes are all fairly short and don't justify that nine to twelve months. It doesn't come from production requirements, it's for sales and marketing. Publishers typically produce catalogues twice a year, so there needs to be plenty of advance warning for that. The word has to be spread. The complex sales process, where your editor effectively sells the book to the in-house sales team, who then sell it to the bookshops has to be undergone. Key times of year have to be considered. (Is this a Christmas book?) All in all, it is sales and marketing that drive the timescales after you produce your masterpiece, not physical production.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense