How to Write a Book

How Long Does It Take to Write a Book? Depends Who You Ask

Kia Orion | | 10 min read

People ask this question like there's a number that applies to everyone. There isn't. But a few things I've learned about how long books actually take:

The range between real authors is so wide it's almost useless

If you go looking for data on how long it takes to write a book, you'll find numbers so far apart they stop meaning anything. Jack Kerouac typed the manuscript of On the Road in three weeks, feeding a continuous scroll of teletype paper through his typewriter so he wouldn't have to stop and reload pages. Donna Tartt spent ten years on The Secret History. Tolkien worked on The Lord of the Rings for twelve years while holding down a full-time professorship at Oxford. These are all real timelines for real books, and the spread between them is so enormous that averaging them out would be like averaging the price of a Honda Civic and a private jet and calling it a useful number for car shoppers.

The more interesting pattern is what was happening on a daily level. Ian Fleming wrote each James Bond novel in roughly two months, which sounds superhuman until you look at the conditions he set up. Every January and February, he'd go to Goldeneye, his house in Jamaica, and write from about 9 a.m. to noon. Around 2,000 words before lunch. No exceptions, no off days, no waiting for the mood to strike. Then he'd swim, snorkel, have drinks, and not think about the book again until the next morning. He did this fourteen times and produced fourteen novels.

What Fleming understood, probably without framing it this way, is that speed comes from removing decisions. He didn't deliberate about when to write or how much to write or whether today felt like a writing day. He'd already answered those questions once, permanently, and then he just executed the routine in a place with no distractions. The books weren't rushed. Casino Royale, Dr. No, From Russia with Love, these hold up. The consistency didn't make the work worse. If anything, it made the work more confident, because Fleming was always warm, always mid-stride, never starting cold after a three-week gap.

So when someone says "a book takes six months to two years," what they're really describing is the range of outcomes produced by different daily habits applied over time. The calendar doesn't write the book. The morning does.

First books take longer because you're learning two things at once

Your first novel takes longer for a reason nobody talks about enough: you're simultaneously writing a book and learning how to write a book. These are two separate skills happening in the same hours, and they compete for your attention in ways you can't fully anticipate.

Every first-time novelist hits problems they didn't know were problems. You're sixty pages in before you realize your point-of-view shifts are confusing, or that a subplot you loved in your outline has been wandering for forty pages without connecting to anything. Timeline inconsistencies creep in. Characters who seemed distinct in your head start blending on the page. These aren't signs of failure. They're the curriculum. But they slow you down because you have to both diagnose the issue and figure out the fix, often without any framework for either. Khaled Hosseini spent two and a half years writing The Kite Runner, his first novel. His second, A Thousand Splendid Suns, took about eighteen months. The gap wasn't because the second book was simpler. It was because Hosseini had already learned how scenes connect, how to manage a dual timeline, how to feel when a chapter was pulling its weight and when it wasn't.

It's a bit like learning to cook by hosting a dinner party. You're not just learning knife skills and how long to roast a chicken. You're also learning how to time five dishes so everything lands on the table warm, how to recover when the sauce breaks, how to adjust mid-stream when you realize you're out of an ingredient. The second dinner party is faster not because you became a better chopper, but because you learned all the invisible coordination that sits on top of the cooking itself. First books work the same way.

Your daily writing practice is the only variable that determines how long the book takes. We send writers one exercise every morning to keep that practice consistent.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

Word count per day is the only variable you actually control

There are a lot of things about writing a book that you can't predict ahead of time. You can't know in January whether your ending will change in August. You can't know whether the book needs 70,000 words or 95,000. You can't control whether you'll hit a structural problem in the middle that takes three weeks of staring at note cards to untangle. All of these things affect how long the book takes, and none of them are things you can schedule around.

What you can control is how many words you write on any given day. And the math on this is surprisingly forgiving. If you write 500 words a day, every day, you'll produce 182,500 words in a year, which is enough for two full novels with room left over for revision and material you end up cutting. Drop to 300 words a day and you're still at 109,500, a comfortable novel-length manuscript. Even 200 words a day, which is less than a single page of most paperbacks, gets you to 73,000 words in a year. That's a complete book.

Graham Greene understood this better than almost anyone. He wrote 500 words every morning and stopped, even if he was mid-sentence. Especially if he was mid-sentence, actually, because that gave him an easy place to pick up the next day. He didn't have bursts of 3,000-word days followed by a week of nothing. He had a daily writing practice that he maintained for decades, and it produced more than twenty-five novels, plus short stories, essays, screenplays, and travel writing. Anthony Trollope took a slightly different approach but with the same underlying logic: he wrote 250 words every fifteen minutes, timing himself with a watch, and he'd do this for three hours each morning before leaving for his job at the Post Office. If he finished a novel during one of those sessions, he'd pull out a fresh sheet of paper and start the next one in the same sitting. The consistency bordered on mechanical, but the output was extraordinary, forty-seven novels over a career.

This is why the question "how long does it take to write a book" sort of dissolves when you flip it around. The better version is: how many days are you willing to show up? Because once you have your daily count, the timeline calculates itself. And the daily count doesn't need to be big. It just needs to be real, something you'll actually do on a tired Wednesday when nothing about the book feels exciting. If you're curious how famous authors structured their mornings around this kind of consistency, the patterns are remarkably similar.

Revision takes as long as drafting, and nobody warns you

Most "how long does it take" answers address the first draft, and then they stop. This is like estimating how long it takes to build a house by only counting the framing. The revision process, in almost every case I've seen or experienced, takes at least as long as the drafting did. Sometimes longer. And I think part of the reason people underestimate it is that revision doesn't feel like "writing" in the way that generating new pages does. It feels like maintenance, or surgery, or, on bad days, demolition.

Raymond Carver's relationship with his editor Gordon Lish is maybe the most extreme version of this. Lish cut some of Carver's stories by as much as 70%, fundamentally reshaping them into the minimalist style that made Carver famous. Whether that was collaboration or something more invasive is still debated, but the point stands: the revision wasn't a light polish. It was a second act of creation that took enormous time and energy. Zadie Smith has said she writes the first twenty pages of a novel roughly a hundred times before she can move forward. A hundred drafts of the opening before the rest of the book even exists. That's not a number I fully understand, honestly, and I'm not sure if she means it literally or if it just feels that way. But it points to something real: the time you spend rewriting, restructuring, and cutting is where the book becomes the book. The first draft gets the material on the table. Revision is when you figure out what the book actually is, and that process of discovery takes whatever time it takes. Your writing voice doesn't really emerge in the first draft. It emerges during the months you spend revising, hearing your own sentences again and again until you learn which ones sound like you and which ones don't.

I keep coming back to the Graham Greene method. Not because 500 words is the right number for everyone. But because he understood that the question "how long will this take?" dissolves the moment you commit to a daily count. You stop measuring in months and start measuring in mornings. And that shift changes more than your timeline. It changes your relationship with the work itself, turning a massive, intimidating project into something that fits inside a single cup of coffee.

If you're working on your first book right now, here's a longer guide on how to write a book that covers the full process from idea to finished manuscript.

We send writers a prompt every morning, with craft context and a quote from a writer who figured this out. If you're working on a book right now, having that daily anchor helps more than you'd expect.

Free. Every morning. Unsubscribe anytime.

K

Kia Orion

Author of The Writer's Daily Practice, the #1 Bestselling book in Journal Writing and Writing Skills. He writes a free daily reflection for writers.

Keep reading

Stop staring at the blank page. Start writing with purpose.

A free daily reflection delivered to writers every morning. Quotes from literary masters, an original reflection, and a prompt to get you writing.

Join 1,000+ writers. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.