I just now completed the required two pages.
The way I see it, is I am no Stephen King. He probably would write better if he were less forcedly prolific, though we have no way of knowing. Not that I am trying to be critical of him--his works and their commercial success speak for themselves. Nevertheless, I will not try to write as much as he does for the following reasons:
- If I write 3000 words a day, and I suppose I could, I would have a rough draft by October 10. Then all I would have to do is rewrite the things 20 times. Whereas if I write 500 words a day, I will only have to write it twice. So what's the point to hurrying through my rough draft.
- I wish to create something enduring, that future generations, if they exist, may look at and learn from and feel inspired by. Grinding out book after book isn't what Tolstoy, Flaubert, or Henry James did. Even Charles Dickens only averaged one book a year.
- I prefer quality over quantity. As King himself said in his memoir, he doesn't do it for the money. There is no good reason, aside from more money to churn out 3-4 books per year. As far as some writer's go, they have a neurological need to write that many. Alice Flaherty address it in The Midnight Disease. I have nothing to say to writers like that, except if you can write 4 novels a year and not sacrifice quality, more power to you! Most of us can't.