“The best” in what sense? You might potentially have written more “books” than anyone else, but I doubt many people who know anything about books will be hugely impressed. The most well-known highly prolific book authors tend to be ones perceived as having mostly written short, repetitive, formulaic and/or low-quality books and/or ones with a “captive audience” who would read anything they wrote due to early recognition or other factors (e.g. Barbara Cartland, who published 723 novels in her lifetime, or Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard). In the modern era of eBooks, I’ve encountered authors who publish at a rate of a book a month or more (e.g. Morgan Rice), and their output is generally formulaic and repetitive at best, or downright terrible and/or offensive at worst. I doubt many people would view them as “the best” in any sense.
Theoretically someone could write 5,000 short stories or essay-length articles in, say, a 50- or 60- or 70-year career (i.e. at a rate of more than one a week) and publish each one as an individual eBook. But it seems unlikely to me that most of them would be worth reading compared to things written with more care and attention, especially if they’re self-published without the benefit of professional editing, proofreading and other quality control. I also think it’s very likely that publishing in this manner would be seen by many people as a transparent (and probably misguided) attempt to make more money than publishing collections of stories/essays and/or to win some imaginary competition to be “the best” at writing lots of eBooks.
No comments yet, come on and post~