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.)
X I was asked recently to write an editorial for Civil War News about the state of Civil War Publishing. Here is the article, which made th...
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.)