Readers of prolific authors, consciously or otherwise, seem to treat the yearly arrival of a new book more like the latest edition of a magazine, rather than a discrete literary event, hence people talking about having read "the new King", or "the new Grisham", rather than mentioning it by name, because the author is the "brand." Readers don't expect every "issue" to be mind-blowing, they just hope to be entertained in the author's accepted style, and if it's not up-to-snuff, well never mind, there'll be another one next year. I can't help thinking of Woody Allen - every year, like clockwork, a new movie.

William Goldman in "Adventures In The Screen Trade", mentions a dinner conversation with James Clavell (author of "Shogun" et al). Goldman (who says he actually hates writing) asks Clavell how he can even start writing a new novel when he knows he has 1,000 pages ahead of him, and Clavell says, "Every time I start a book, I'm convinced this will finally be the short one... then 6 months later, I find I've written another 1,000 pages."

...was incredibly consistent for a number of years, publishing regularly and writing novels which veered from first rate sci-fi to gothic horror.

However, there's definitely been a marked decline in quality over the last few years. Possibly down to burn-out.

Given that you're happy to consider someone like Stephen King who has entirely happily described himself as something along the lines of "the literary equivalent of McDonalds", then I can't see any reason why you should particularly doubt author's ability to keep up the consistency. I imagine Barbara Cartland's 700-novels were of entirely consistant quality, for example...

Neither Robert Rankin nor Terry Pratchett have pretentions to being highbrow, but I enjoy both and would say that they've maintained generally consistent standards, despite turning out at least a novel a year, most years. John Updike was considered to be a fairly highbrow fellow, and he was extremely prolific. Mark Twain didn't exactly drag his heels either.

Though a Brill Building approach might not seem likely to produce consistant work, some of their songwriters turned out many of our classics, so I'm not sure it's a reliable indicator.

don't spend two years writing a book. They fanny about for a year-and-a-half then start writing when the deadline looms, or when they need the delivery money, whichever comes first.

An author should be able to write about 2,000 new words a day, as well as revise what he or she has written the previous day. Most books are around 100,000 words -- obviously King's are way bigger than this -- but that still means about three months actual writing time, so an author should be able to comfortably write and deliver a manuscript in four months.

I have read an interview in which it was said that AMcCS writes 1000 words an hour and publishes the first draft. The same interviewer went to have a look at the wall chart over his desk while he was making the tea, because she was curious about what seemed to be a gap in his hectic schedule.
She found that the 'gap' actually contained one message: 'April 1-10: leave free to write Number One Ladies book'.

as well as magazine articles etc.

At the other extreme, Anthony Powell spent 30 years writing 'A Dance To The Music Of Time'.

I'm not convinced that there's necessarily a correlation between rate of writing and quality.

As LOUD rightly said, undoubtedly some new writers suffer from 'second album syndromes; as with musicians, some people only have one book/record in them.

I have developed a very bad Michael Connolly http://www.michaelconnelly.com/ habit. He has written 21 novels in 17 years and while always at least readable, they do vary greatly in quality. The early books are noticably worse than his more recent work, probably a result of the former crime reporter "re-training" as a crime fiction writer in public.

That said, the plot of his most recent book 9 Dragons is a bit silly, with an exotic location (Hong Kong) and some pretty pointless action scenes which seem little more than an attempt to get Hollywood to finally film one of his Detective Harry Bosch novels (so far only Blood Work, which doesn't feature Bosch, has been adapted for the screen).

I like the books because they usually pretty well written (I'm currently reading The Closers and the over use of the word "gotten" in both narrative and dialogue is beginning to grate), the police proceedure side of things comes across as realistic and the characters have a bit of depth and interact in a believable way, all of which I think are necessary elements for an enjoyable crime story.

So in answer to your question, yes Connolly is prolific, yes the quality can vary, no the books won't change your life but if you enjoy police proceedural crime fiction then he's one of the better writers around at the moment.

(BTW Void Moon, one of his non-Bosch novels is a real stand out and features an extended description of a break-in to a Las Vegas hotel room which is really gripping and beautifully written).

Jeeves and Wooster is pretty much always same book, different gags, but as its always a good book and good gags no one worries. The Flashman books are always "Flashy has to flee the UK, ends up entangled in some colonial mess, meets crazy historical figures and nubile women, gets in a mess, survives" and they're none the worse for that.

I think writers with a series of books need to be prolific but the good ones thrive. Hell even Updike had Bech and Rabbitt and Roth has Nathan Zuckerman; even the literary ones seem to have fallback characters.

seems to have a new book out every month. Many are co-written and he published 9 in 2009. How does that work? He already has 5 for pre-order on his website taking him up to June. Admittedly not great literature but the books shift in millions.

was extremely prolific over a 30 year period, often publishing two or more books in a year. Novels, non-fiction, poems, librettos, translation, journalism etc. He was nearly always worth reading, with only the occasional dip in quality (e.g. his late novel Any Old Iron was a bit below par).

Same goes for John Updike - very prolific throughout a long career - always good apart from some of the later novels.

also have co-writers. James Patterson is someone who knocks out alomost continuously but uses other people to "co-write" with him. How much they actually write is undisclosed. Authors like this seem to be a brand/business first and a writer second.

I've been reading Terry Pratchett since I was about 13 at the rate of one or two a year, and while I think he may have got into a rut about 12 years or so ago (take a well-known story and Discworld it up) the last 6 or 7 have been superb. Nation (2008 I think) was a departure from his series and ostensibly a kid's book but had many profound things to say about society and religion; I think he often manages the same trick within the series too. Even when he seemed to be treading water, each book seemed chock full of fantastically inventive characters and contained more wisdom than many other supposedly more literary works.

I've no doubt that some people essentially churn out cannon fodder, but others can maintain high levels of quality despite seemingly leaving no time for actually thinking up the stuff in the first place.

The only semi-prolific author I've ever tracked far enough to comment on is Julian Barnes.

Metroland (1980)
Never read it but I saw the Christian Bale movie adaptation. The film was pretty poor and it didn't suggest the book was anything more than semi-competent. For some reason the Art Brut song "Modern Art" always makes me think of the art gallery opening of this book (I read the first few pages in a bookshop once).

Before She Met Me (1982)
His best book under his own name. Straight up enjoyable and unpretentious. Has an awful out of nowhere ending though to ruin the last four or so pages.*

Flaubert's Parrot (1984)
I started it, then gave it to charity as it was so ungripping. The bits I'd read in the bookshop seemed good though.

Staring at the Sun (1986)
Terrible book. Feels like a series of writing exercises, spanning many years, that have been tied together into a plotless book. It just doesn't work. I have no idea how I finished it as it was monumental in its dullness. Can't imagine how he stayed awake to finish it when he wrote it.

A History of the World in 10½ Chapters (1989)
Some of it's brilliant. Some of it's so-so. Very little of it's rubbish. The brilliant parts are of course too short (the hijacked cruise liner) and the so-so bits seem to go on too long (the astronaut trying to find Noah's Ark). A book that's well worth reading as it's pretentiously ambitious in a reader friendly way.

Talking it Over (1991)
Decent book of no great merit. Easy to read as it's a written as monologues from three characters.

The Porcupine (1992)
Not read it. Looks dull.

Cross Channel (1996) — stories
Not read it.

England, England (1998)
Pretty poor. Nothing really happens in it.

Love, etc (2000)
Talking it Over sequel. It was okay. I think the French made a film out of it.

Arthur & George (2005)
Not read it.

Detective books as Dan Kavanagh:

Duffy (1980)
An immature mess without much of an ending. Not bad, but far from great.

Fiddle City (1981)
Good solid book.

Putting the Boot In (1985)
The solution to the Who Done It and Why? is easy to work out by the half way point. Okay overall.

Going to the Dogs (1987)
The best book Barnes wrote and the reason why I took an interest in him. It's a great country house murder story. I've re-read it about eight times.

SPOILER:
* - Badly written murder tacked on the end. Comes out of nowhere. Like an episode of Friends that somehow climaxes with Ross murdering a love rival for Rachel.

...the Aubrey/Maturin novels - an excellent series and consistently good.

Anthony Trollope's 'Barsetshire' novels are also excellent.

Stieg Larssen's 'Millennium' trilogy is also fantastic (but he won't be writing any more as he is no longer with us).

Both seem to knock out fine crime novels at a once-a-year rate.

Could you apply the same idea to prolific bands? I hear there was one lot who, between 1963 and 1970, released about twelve albums which lots of people think are quite good.

... and she's dead.

GG published 30 or so novels over some 60 years. I've not read all of them, but those I have I generally enjoyed excepting England Made Me and Heart Of The Matter (which some regard as his finest work).
My favourite of his is The Comedians, which topically in view of today's earthquake is set in Haiti.

Shakespeare managed to rattle off 38/39 plays and some of the best poetry in the language in 22 years, and all without the benefit of a Celtx-loaded laptop.

Dickens whacked out 18 gobshite-long novels in about a quarter-century before lurgee forced him to take a well-earned break.

Trollope and Proust were so Diarrhoeaically (yeah, I know) prolific that I'm surprised they found time to wash, and Alexander Dumas seemed to be able to knock a Richard Chamberlain vehicle out in the time it took his wife to change the hoover bag.

Seem to remember Tom Sharpe published a book more a less every year until the mid 80's and that I enjoyed all of them. Not read them in ages.... I'll have to revisit......

Turned out almost forty novels, as well as lots of unpublished stuff, lost manuscripts and short stories in a writing career of about forty years. Though the quality of his early and very late work is variable, from the early sixties to the mid-seventies he was pretty regularly turning out a good novel a year, many of which are of extra-ordinary quality. I think it's safe to say none was ghostwritten and there were no sequels, recurring characters etc which surely makes writing the next one a little easer...

Read all her novels and short stories - they're all excellent. Most are compelling thrillers which have more psychological depth and intensity to them than the average page turner. 'The Talented Mr Ripley' is probably the most exciting unputdownable book I have ever read. I am just disappointed there aren't any more of her books.

I would also recommend Graham Greene - I've always found I can rely on him for a good read.

Might I commend the wonderful works of Haruki Murakami to you.I've never been disappointed with his novels or short stories.The author who's output I find bemusing is Neal Stephenson,I mean how does he find the time to sleep,eat or take a dump.

is the partner of Ricky Gervais. I'm sure it's his fault.

..and everyone here should at least read "Piece Of My Heart"
..but for excessively prolific, you can't go past Dean Koontz, he must write one a week.
Dickens churned 'em out too.

Along with Terry Pratchett and Tom Sharpe, I'm also very partial to Neal Stephenson, and one thing I've come to believe is that his mega tomes would be a good 100+ pages shorter with some judicious editing. They're great to read, but there are some awful dry spells in there. Is it a case of too many books going straight to the printers ? Or no-one brave enough to stand up to them ?

The charges of both misogyny and racism have, unfairly - I feel, become the received wisdom when talkling about Kingsley's boy. Still, I think he is utterly brilliant both in his fiction and arguably more so in his journalism. Ok, Yellow Dog is a bit of a woofer and the 'vampire red' post 9/11 stuff didn't enhance his reputation, but my word, he hasn't put many toes wrong outside of that. There's too much gold to choose from: the last page of The Information more thsn whiffs of genius, Koba the Dread is one of the finest books about Stalin you'll find and, by far my favourite, the short story The Janitor on Mars from the Heavy Water collection is breathtaking.
Friends who've interviewed him do say he's a curmudgeonly bugger though.

Great title. The GLW pre-ordered it for Chrimbo for me.. can't wait.

They gradually lead you into the back story of Parker and his supernatural past. Along with lots of detail and really strong supporting characters these are the only books I take the trouble to track the release date of the next one. To return to the original theme, they don't come along too often.

Churning them out consistently...well, not Updike now, obviously...

Just heard of the death of Robert B.Parker - what a shame. He churned 'em out, but they read as easily as he seemed to find it writing them. Ed McBain, Donald Westlake, and now Robert Parker ... who's left? (Lawrence Block, I suppose)

to The Bible coming out? It's been bloody ages...