I would first like to thank Patty for her opinion on what makes a good shell
book, it's nice to find agreement. I have attempted to write my book (Sea
Shells of Southeast Alaska) according to standards such as those,
successfully in some areas, not so in others...
 
I am at that point in the writing process where I should just stop but
cannot. I have read and reread my ms over and over again, questioning every
statement I make. It seems that every fact I state is one in which I feel a
need to question whether or not it's something I believe to be true,
something that is true, or something I heard somewhere (Turban legends?)
without verification. I think this is the hardest part of the writing
process. At some point in time you have to say "It's good enough" and be
willing to live with a few glaring errors. It's the same thing with deciding
what to include species-wise. Over a week ago I was doing my FINAL rereading
of the ms before sending it off to the publisher. I suddenly was wracked
with guilt because I had included only a token memntion of Odostomia and
Turbonilla. Now I have eight species of Pyramidellids! I want it to be a
usefull reference, but don't want it to grow into a ten volume set. Anyhow,
just some thoughts on writing.... Take care- Aaron
Aaron Baldwin
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ofseaandshore.com