correct. Whether film or book or painting or musical composition, you as the maker have no way of knowing in advance if what you are making is going to "click," even less so if it is going to "stick." Comes with the territory and is part of the challenge. (I have as many "failed" manuscripts sitting in my desk drawers as I have had published.) Still, strikes me as odd to cite that as the reason to make more of what you are making. You might just as easily cite it to make less.

I suspect that some makers are by nature and temperament just more prolific and/or driven than are others. Needless to say, necessity--financial, psychological, etc.--can play into the dynamic as well, as can an individual's health.

David Lean made 16 films. Kubrick a dozen. Altman almost three times that. Hitchcock five times that. And John Ford, I can't even count that high. My point is that there are those who, for whatever reasons, many of them purely personal, subscribe to the throw it at the wall and see if it sticks school of making, like an Altman (or with respect to books, a Stephen King or Joyce Carol Oates, say), and then there are those who are more--what is the correct word?--selective? discriminating? slow? perfectionist?

And now I feel that I am only stating the obvious so I will shut up. In my experience talking about the creative process is mainly pointless. Too nebulous, and far too varied, one creator to the next.