Jim Baen’s Universe

How long does it take to write a book? ERIC: That basically depends on three factors: The length of the book.2. The type of book it is.3. Whether I’m writing it solo or with a collaborator (or collaborators). Length is the most obvious. Novels are made up of words, and the more words in a given novel the longer it’s going to take to write it. My novels, thus far, have ranged in length from about 110,000 to 180,000 words. The shortest being The Philosophical Strangler and Rats, Bats & Vats; the longest, 1632. Although that’s about to change — The Shadow of the Lion, now nearing completion, is going to be well over 200,000 words long; probably closer to 250,000. (I might mention here that writers gauge the length of a book in a different way than readers. Readers think of length in terms of pages, but for an author that’s almost meaningless. The number of pages which a given number of words translates into varies wildly, depending on many factors determined by the publisher, not the writer — fonts, leads, margins, etc. So writers talk in terms of words, because that’s the only fixed absolute quantity.) How many words do I write a day? Well, that varies a lot, depending on the type of book it is, as I’ll explain in a moment. But I don’t write every day of the year, anyway. Not even close. Writing, for me, is “burst work.” When I dig into a novel, I will write just about every day until the book is finished. Never less than 1,000 words. Once or twice — as many as 10,000 words. My average per day runs somewhere in the 1,500 to 3,500 range. Once a novel is finished, I will then take a break of anywhere from two weeks to two months, basically in order to “recharge my batteries.” During that time I occupy myself with editing work, writing short stuff, rewriting…

NOTE: For those of you who prefer your bibliographies chronologically, here it is. This page does not include the classic SF series I’ve edited. — Eric Flint. (last updated on 27 January 2019) 1970Trade and Politics in Barotseland During the Kololo Period, 1970 Journal of African History (Volume XI:1) 1993Entropy and the Strangler, (short story), in Writers of the Future Volume IX 1997Mother of Demons, September 1997 (pb) 1998An Oblique Approach, March 1998 (pb) with David DrakeIn the Heart of Darkness, August 1998 (pb) with David Drake 1999Destiny’s Shield, July 1999 (HC) with David Drake 20001632, February 2000 (HC)Destiny’s Shield, June 2000 (pb)Fortune’s Stroke, June 2000 (HC) with David DrakeRats, Bats & Vats, September 2000 (HC) with Dave FreerThe Thief and the Roller Derby Queen, (short story), in The Chick is in the Mail, edited by Ester Friesner, October 2000, (pb) 20011632 February 2001 (pb) From the Highlands, (short novel), in More than Honor #3: Changer of Worlds with David Weber March 2001 (HC)The Philosophical Strangler, May 2001 (HC)Carthago Delenda Est, (novella), in Foreign Legions, edited by David Drake, June 2001, (HC)Fortune’s Stroke, July 2001 (pb)The Tide of Victory, July 2001 (HC), October 2002 (pb) with David DrakeRats, Bats & Vats, September 2001 (pb)Pyramid Scheme, October 2001 (HC), with David Freer 2002From the Highlands, (short novel), in More than Honor #3: Changer of Worlds February 2002 (pb)The Philosophical Strangler, March 2002, (pb)Forward the Mage, March 2002 (HC) with Richard RoachThe Shadow of the Lion, March 2002 (HC) with Mercedes Lackey & Dave FreerThe Tyrant, April 2002 (HC) with David DrakeThe Islands in Warmasters, an anthology, May 2002 (HC) with David Drake and David Weber1633, August 2002 (HC), with David Weber“Carthago Delenda Est,” (novella), in Foreign Legions, September 2002 (pb)The Tide of Victory, October 2002 (pb) with David Drake 2003Pyramid Scheme, February 2003 (pb), with David Freerâ–ª “Fanatic,” (novella) in The Service of the Sword, the fourth Harrington anthology, April 2003 (HC), compiled by David Weber1633, July 2003 (pb)Forward the Mage, August 2003,…

by Eric Flint | Jun 9, 2021 | Salvos Against Big Brother Although this column addresses the controversy surrounding so-called Digital Rights Management, I devoted my first three essays to a discussion of the general principles concerning copyright as such. As I explained, I did that because it’s impossible to discuss DRM intelligently without understanding that all the issues involved are couched within—derive from, actually—the general principles in our society that govern copyright as a whole. Copyright is not an issue sitting over here, with DRM being a different issue sitting over there. In reality, DRM sits right inside of copyright. The link between the two—the cushion that DRM sits on, if you will allow me to develop this into a metaphor—is called “fair use.” It is one of the most critical aspects of copyright law, and has been since the inception of the copyright era in the early eighteenth century. And my metaphor is actually a good one, because “fair use” is exactly that—a cushion. It’s the provision in copyright law—I’m about to lower the bar for this metaphor—that keeps society’s buttocks from getting too badly bruised by the hard limits that copyright places on society’s ability to benefit from creative intellectual or artistic work. But DRM is too heavy. It’s steadily squeezing all of the real substance out of society’s fair use cushion. By now, that cushion isn’t much more than a skimpy little pad. Before too long, the way things are going, it will be gone entirely. The definition of “fair use” is slippery in copyright law, and always has been. In the nature of things, it’s a gray area rather than a sharp line. Trying to define it precisely, in legal terms, poses much the same problem that trying to define pornography does. One person’s filthy disgusting story is another person’s literary masterpiece. Terms which have both been applied, to give just one example, to James Joyce’s famous novel Ulysses. Whatever the…

by Eric Flint | Jun 9, 2021 | The Editor’s Page This article was originally published in Jim Baen’s Universe Vol 1, Num 2, August 2006 by Eric Flint My original plans for this issue’s “The Editor’s Page” got swept aside last month by the death of Jim Baen, the man who launched the magazine and whose name is—and will remain—on the masthead. Jim lived just long enough to see the first issue of the magazine come out on June 1. Less than two weeks later, on June 12th, he suffered a massive stroke from which he never recovered consciousness. He died on June 28th. That’s not much of a consolation, but it’s some. This magazine was important to Jim for several reasons, one of which I will spend most of this editorial discussing. He was only sixty-two years old when he died, after a life of many accomplishments, of which Universe was one. And by no means the smallest, either. For Jim, the magazine was both a return to his own origins—he was the editor of Galaxy back in the mid-seventies, early in his career—and a continuation and expansion of a policy he had made central to Baen Books since the onset of the electronic era. That was his complete and total opposition to so-called Digital Rights Management and all the panoply of laws, regulations and attitudes that surround it. One of the reasons he asked me to be the editor of Jim Baen’s Universe is because he knew I shared, in full, his hostility toward DRM. He wanted Universe, among other things, to be a showcase demonstrating that it was perfectly possible for a commercial publisher to be successful without soiling themselves with DRM. (“Soiling” is the genteel way to put it. Jim was far more likely, in private correspondence and conversation, to use a simpler Anglo-Saxon term.) There are a lot of ways you can examine Jim Baen’s life and his career. I spent some time thinking about how I…

by Eric Flint | Jun 9, 2021 | The Editor’s Page This article was originally published in Jim Baen’s Universe Vol 1, Num 1, June 2006. By Eric Flint In my editor’s remarks for this first issue of Jim Baen’s UNIVERSE, I want to discuss the current state of the short fiction market in science fiction and fantasy. I’m sure most people reading this already know that short form fiction has been declining steadily for decades, in our genre. All four of the major paper magazines still in existence—Analog, Asimov’s, The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and Realms of Fantasy—have been struggling against declining circulation figures for a long time, with no end in sight. Many smaller magazines have folded altogether. And the one major online F&SF; magazine that had been paying the best rates in the industry, the Sci-Fi channel’s SciFiction, recently closed down. The reasons are complex, and I’m not going to get into them here beyond a few brief remarks. What I want to talk about instead is the impact that the decline of short form fiction has on the field as a whole. That’s true, regardless of what causes it. In a nutshell, it’s extremely damaging, and for two reasons—one which affects authors directly, the other which affects the readership base of the genre and therefore its future. The absence of a large and vigorous market for short form fiction hammers authors directly. That’s because it makes F&SF; authors almost completely dependent on the novel market. And, while the novel market is and always will be intrinsically more lucrative than the short form market, it is also an extremely harsh environment for authors. Why? Well, simplifying a lot, it’s because of the fundamental economics involved. Novels, unlike washing machines and toasters and automobiles, are unique, each and every one of them. Not “unique” in the sense that they don’t have generic similarities, but “unique” simply in the obvious fact that each and every story has…