Thoughts, musings, observations, practical advice, and not-so-gentle chidings from an inside perspective gleaned after years of managing an independent publishing company. (Note: as a rule, I will not be responding to indvidual posts.)
This fascinating article appeared in my email a few days ago, and I thought it was worth sharing with readers and publishers alike. Enjoy. -...
Whether you are in the manuscript development stage, plan to self-publish, or are publishing with another company, contact me if you need professional assistance on any aspect of the publishing process, marketing issues, and promoting/branding yourself as a writer. Email
Question: "How important is it to you that a Civil War book be based upon exrtensive [sic] archival research?
Very important. Otherwise, why write it? 36 votes (83%)
Important, but not that critical to me: 6 votes (13%)
I can look past that. Secondary sources are fine: 1 vote (2%)
Meh. I will read anything with Civil War in the title: 0 votes (0%)
This question generated a lot of interest, both in the comment section and in emails (and a few calls) to me. I think the verdict is about as lopsided as I expected given the readership of my blog. Someone made the distinction that archival research and primary research are not necessarily the same--a good point, although not germane to the poll question, which did not link the two.
(Only JD asked what I meant by "archival." OK, he really did not ask that.)