What's been good for me about being in a group is that it forced me to produce output, week in and week out, for the long period of time until my book actually took on a momentum of its own. And I still think a group could be beneficial to me if I could find one where the writing level and/or subject matter was closer to my own. I want people who'll see the small things and call me on them. Also, as I'm editing I keep pulling things out of my rough draft, overexplanations and the like, that I never would've put in if my weekly audience wasn't people who'd never read a Regency and rarely read historical fiction of any stripe.

The thing about being a writer is-and I try to remind myself of this every time I get the nervies about how much I don't know about writing- is that the only method that really matters is the one that gets you to apply the butt-glue and put the words on the page.

If that's a writers' group, swell. If they make you break out in hives, that's a big neg-a-tory. If communing with nature and a laptop does it for you, charge up that battery and head for the great outdoors. If you need to cloister yourself away in the closet converted to an office to get some privacy for writing, get a lock for the door.

In short, while there are formats, and submission requirements, and the need for an outside eye once the work's drafted, whatever gets that first draft completed? That's the right way to work.

Susan, that was my thinking...but I don't know... Ambivalence Girl rides again. Maybe. Some things are better with people...maybe I'll see how NaNoWri goes.

I think he'll improve; the story is a good one. He's just in his late fifties and this is his first try. He's a sweetie and takes correction and editing very well, so far.

In the meanwhile....

Two-book deal ("Famous Flower of Serving Men" and "Matty Groves") being hammered out as we speak.

Small money, which I expected in this economy; I'd like slightly more than they're offering, but it sure as hell isn't a deal-breaker.

Problem: the two-book deal would be done with joint accounting. Basically, that means having to earn back the advance on BOTH books before I saw a penny in royalties. And since they'd likely be bringing these out a year apart, in 2004 and 2005, it would probably be 2007 before I saw a penny in royalties.

Which smells really kinda, well, pissant, for a book deal this small. If we were talking six figures, that would be one thing. But shit, not for a measly $12K.

That's nasty, Deb. Is it non-negotiable?

I'm editing the work of one of our two newest writing group members.

It's awful.

Damn. I shouldn't have missed last week, should I? @#$@#$ migraine.

Eek, Deb. So basically you get $12k now, and then nothing for three years, and quite possibly nothng then? For two books?

That's robbery. Can you negotiate?

Betsy, Jenn's negotiating even as we speak; really, just truly pinchy for a deal this size. And I just got a nice warm chatty loving catchup email from Ruth, without a word mentioned about the offer.

Gronk.

Betsy, he'll get better. He understood right away what we were telling him, and I'm being ruthless in my line edit, though I'll attach it to a very warm email about it. He's very sweet.

I'm sure Jenn will fight for the best deal she can get -- since under joint accounting, as an agent she won't get any royalties either until maybe 2007. This is definitely the time when having an agent with a financial interest in your books is going to justify her commission.

Totally. I mean, the entire point of taking a smaller advance is that they're out of pocket upfront for less, and you get yours as royalties sooner.

Come onnnnnn, Jenn. I have shitloads to do and Ruth is in her office, and come onnnnnnnn...

best of luck, Deb. I wish I had something useful for you.