Just based on what works for me: 1) What is the quickest and easiest project to finish right now? 2) Focus on that- write the full draft, 1000 words a day minimum, tick those daily progress boxes, etc 3) When finished (yay!), send it off to friends/editor/publisher/etc for feedback 4) Immediately start the next quickest and easiest project (embrace the cyclical nature of writing to be always writing; avoid the 'I'm done! *Basks* What next?' mentality). Time and life are finite, get things done. Be human; DIY, No AI.
Thanks for sharing your thought process with us, James.
It seems like you see the benefits of going with a publisher, with one concern: creative control.
I've been lucky enough to be published by five different companies and never had a problem from an editor pushing their vision on me.
In any event, you can feel them out on creative control before you invest much time or effort. Your first step remains a pretty low lift: a proposal submission to editors with your qualifications and a synopsis of your concept. (Publishers have submission guidelines on their website. Be careful to follow them.) If they accept your proposal, you'll get an advance, and years to write it. Before you accept their offer, you can ask for their policy on creative decision rights. You can ask for contact info of writers they've worked with and you can email them as references to make sure the publisher is a good fit for you.
Also, you can show an interested publisher synopses of five projects and see which one they love "as is."
In short, you can solve this problem without adding to the workload of your proposal.
Again, given your name, your following, your subject matter expertise, and your work ethic (300-400 blog posts a year of insightful, professional, well-edited content), you should have your pick of publishers.
"I've been lucky enough to be published by five different companies and never had a problem from an editor pushing their vision on me."
Your experience and mine are definitely not the same. The big risk you take with working with a publisher is not direct creative control ("Your bugbears should be sexier.") but indirect ("Something on time is needed rather than something finished, our royalties/payment will be just enough to keep you tied to us for the next project, or else not enough for you to eat now, you seem overwhelmed, let us help you.")
It is not the brutality of publishers that is the threat to a creative, but the kindness. Because of the publishing system, I've seen "good" publishers stifle creative completion more severely than bad ones. I've seen mediocre to excellent writers lose their fastball in real time.
This is not a "current day" issue, but it is worse now than even 30 years ago. Take a look at a very similarly plagued creative in George R.R. Martin - His most pure creative outputs ("Sandkings", "The Way of the Cross and Dragon", and even Beauty and the Beast ) were all freelance work, or else ones upon which he was a producer. Book 1 Game of Thrones is clearly the best of his (pending) octology or whatever, and it was as creative as it was because he had no publisher for it until it the first book was more than 2/3rds finished with the manuscript (and fully done with the treatment). That first book sold horribly. (I, a fantasy and Sandkings fan, didn't find it for more than a year after publication...in a hardback remainder bin!) Bantam or whatever imprint published it did stick with him, and he was able to eventually parlay his t.v. career into the massive franchise it has become, but have you noticed what happened to the creative content of GRRM?
It died. Gruesomely. It isn't just a question of him losing his fastball with age. Its a question of balance: most creatives can't produce and distribute their salable end product, but they also can't perform those business functions and maintain their zip and passion.
This is what I read between James' lines. Anyone correct me if I am wrong. I get that I've had perfectly lovely and lucrative relationships with contracted publishers. I've had disastrous ones too. But there's always a creative trade off: the more you can do on your own (including tech self-assistance), the better.
What I see is that, whether or not James finds a partner to work with, none of that will help James with the current logjam, because all of the current projects need at least a few more gains before he is ready for them to move there. The logjam isn't because he isn't pawning the work off to others, it is because nothing is ready to be pawned off to others.
Which is why I recommend he uncover one project that can be done (not amazing, not perfect, but done) on his own via self-publishing and worldwide distribution, with 70%-90% revenue coming directly to him, even if that is simply expanding the distribution of existing content. Let that tiny revenue stream provide the crack in the dam he is seeking, in March 2026 so that he has a tiny flare of light, a creative life-line (if not quite yet a livelihood), and simply proceed, but in a way that connects him to the market he desires, without the (benevolent or not) meddlers he eschews.
The logjam breaks slowly, but it breaks, and, further downstream, depending on the material, the sawmill or overland transportation or beaver colony, awaits. But the sawmill is not here, the tractor-trailers are not here, nor cranes, nor woodworkers, nor even beavers.
Just one man, with one peavey, looking for a key log.
One thing that confuses me is that it seems you already had assistance on one project: the annotated Dwimmermount with layout by Paolo Greco. Have you considered just finishing that the way you were?
In fact, have you considered dividing the designer’s edition of Dwimmermount in two, with one part the annotations of the original descriptions and the other a play-ready version stripped of annotation but with the room entries revised for ease of parsing in the moment?
Just based on what works for me: 1) What is the quickest and easiest project to finish right now? 2) Focus on that- write the full draft, 1000 words a day minimum, tick those daily progress boxes, etc 3) When finished (yay!), send it off to friends/editor/publisher/etc for feedback 4) Immediately start the next quickest and easiest project (embrace the cyclical nature of writing to be always writing; avoid the 'I'm done! *Basks* What next?' mentality). Time and life are finite, get things done. Be human; DIY, No AI.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your thought process with us, James.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you see the benefits of going with a publisher, with one concern: creative control.
I've been lucky enough to be published by five different companies and never had a problem from an editor pushing their vision on me.
In any event, you can feel them out on creative control before you invest much time or effort. Your first step remains a pretty low lift: a proposal submission to editors with your qualifications and a synopsis of your concept. (Publishers have submission guidelines on their website. Be careful to follow them.)
If they accept your proposal, you'll get an advance, and years to write it. Before you accept their offer, you can ask for their policy on creative decision rights. You can ask for contact info of writers they've worked with and you can email them as references to make sure the publisher is a good fit for you.
Also, you can show an interested publisher synopses of five projects and see which one they love "as is."
In short, you can solve this problem without adding to the workload of your proposal.
Again, given your name, your following, your subject matter expertise, and your work ethic (300-400 blog posts a year of insightful, professional, well-edited content), you should have your pick of publishers.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
"I've been lucky enough to be published by five different companies and never had a problem from an editor pushing their vision on me."
ReplyDeleteYour experience and mine are definitely not the same. The big risk you take with working with a publisher is not direct creative control ("Your bugbears should be sexier.") but indirect ("Something on time is needed rather than something finished, our royalties/payment will be just enough to keep you tied to us for the next project, or else not enough for you to eat now, you seem overwhelmed, let us help you.")
It is not the brutality of publishers that is the threat to a creative, but the kindness. Because of the publishing system, I've seen "good" publishers stifle creative completion more severely than bad ones. I've seen mediocre to excellent writers lose their fastball in real time.
This is not a "current day" issue, but it is worse now than even 30 years ago. Take a look at a very similarly plagued creative in George R.R. Martin - His most pure creative outputs ("Sandkings", "The Way of the Cross and Dragon", and even Beauty and the Beast ) were all freelance work, or else ones upon which he was a producer. Book 1 Game of Thrones is clearly the best of his (pending) octology or whatever, and it was as creative as it was because he had no publisher for it until it the first book was more than 2/3rds finished with the manuscript (and fully done with the treatment). That first book sold horribly. (I, a fantasy and Sandkings fan, didn't find it for more than a year after publication...in a hardback remainder bin!) Bantam or whatever imprint published it did stick with him, and he was able to eventually parlay his t.v. career into the massive franchise it has become, but have you noticed what happened to the creative content of GRRM?
It died. Gruesomely. It isn't just a question of him losing his fastball with age. Its a question of balance: most creatives can't produce and distribute their salable end product, but they also can't perform those business functions and maintain their zip and passion.
This is what I read between James' lines. Anyone correct me if I am wrong. I get that I've had perfectly lovely and lucrative relationships with contracted publishers. I've had disastrous ones too. But there's always a creative trade off: the more you can do on your own (including tech self-assistance), the better.
What I see is that, whether or not James finds a partner to work with, none of that will help James with the current logjam, because all of the current projects need at least a few more gains before he is ready for them to move there. The logjam isn't because he isn't pawning the work off to others, it is because nothing is ready to be pawned off to others.
Which is why I recommend he uncover one project that can be done (not amazing, not perfect, but done) on his own via self-publishing and worldwide distribution, with 70%-90% revenue coming directly to him, even if that is simply expanding the distribution of existing content. Let that tiny revenue stream provide the crack in the dam he is seeking, in March 2026 so that he has a tiny flare of light, a creative life-line (if not quite yet a livelihood), and simply proceed, but in a way that connects him to the market he desires, without the (benevolent or not) meddlers he eschews.
The logjam breaks slowly, but it breaks, and, further downstream, depending on the material, the sawmill or overland transportation or beaver colony, awaits. But the sawmill is not here, the tractor-trailers are not here, nor cranes, nor woodworkers, nor even beavers.
Just one man, with one peavey, looking for a key log.
"clearly the best of his (pending) octology or whatever" - don't even hold your breath.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that confuses me is that it seems you already had assistance on one project: the annotated Dwimmermount with layout by Paolo Greco. Have you considered just finishing that the way you were?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, have you considered dividing the designer’s edition of Dwimmermount in two, with one part the annotations of the original descriptions and the other a play-ready version stripped of annotation but with the room entries revised for ease of parsing in the moment?