> Why buy this book when ChatGPT can generate the same style of tutorial for ANY project that is customized to you?
Isn't it obvious? Because the ChatGPT output wouldn't be reviewed!
You buy books like these exactly because they are written by a professional, who has taken the time to divide it up into easily digestible chunks which form a coherent narrative, with runnable intermediate stages in-between.
For example, I expect a raytracing project to start with simple ray casting of single-color objects. After that it can add things like lights and Blinn-Phong shading, progress with Whitted-style recursive raytracing for the shiny reflections and transparent objects, then progress to modern path tracing with things like BRDFs, and end up with BVHs to make it not horribly slow.
You can stop at any point and still end up with a functional raytracer, and the added value of each step is immediately obvious to the reader. There's just no way in hell ChatGPT at its current level is going to guide you flawlessly through all of that if you start with a simple "I want to build a raytracer" prompt!
Absolutely. And further because when you prompt ChatGPT as you write your ray tracer you don't know what the important things to ask are. Sure, you can get their with enough prompts of "what should I be asking you" or "explain to me the basics" of so and so. But the point of the book is all of that work has already been done for you in a vetted way.
Agreed. Still amazed that people keep trusting the service that has like a 60% failure rate, who would want to buy something that fails over half the time?
Shame OP stopped their book, it would definitely have found an audience easily. I know many programmers that love these styles of books.
I appreciate you sharing this! I just published my first book (nothing about programming, its about how the nation of Estonia modernized post re-independence and became a tech/e-gov hub in a single generation) and I can sympathize with a lot of this. My experience was a bit different -- I also knew the advance was going to be nothing and had a day job so I said I didn't need one (which was a relief for them as I was with a smaller publisher) and instead asked for more books to give away and some other contract terms. It took many months of negotiating to finalize the agreement and then they wanted the manuscript in ~7 months from contract signing. I guess they also assumed that I'd miss at least one deadline but instead I took a bunch of time off to get it done. I think the most important lesson for me is that book publishing, unless you're focused on trying to be the top 1% (maybe even .1%) in a popular category, is not going to be very lucrative, especially with a publisher that takes a major cut. It's easier than ever to go direct, in my case because I had a niche book and I wasn't doing it for money, I valued the prestige (or perceived prestige anyways) of having a book with a name brand publisher as I thought it'd be more helpful for my career in other ways, and candidly was mostly a passion project that I didn't feel strongly about monetizing!
If any folks want to talk about nonfiction publishing, I'm always happy to chat as many people were incredibly generous with their time for me and I'd like to try to pay it forward.
I feel 100% identified with you. I am working on a non ficton book about a niche topic and I wouldn't do it for the money at all. It's about the "prestige (or perceived prestige)". I am about to finish the first 1/3 of the book (the first draft, anyway), and I am already attempting to reach out to publishers to see if they would be interested in the book (at least the ones that don't require a literary agent!).
Some of them already replied saying the proposal seems interesting but they want to read a few chapters. I don't know if I am in the right path or not, but I'd love to read more about your experience and what can be shared!
That's awesome, can I ask what the topic is? What I did for "selling" the book was to create a proposal -- about 45 pages that has a skeleton outline of each chapter (it changed significantly during the end writing process but gave the publisher a feel for the topic), a sample chapter, and some more sales/marketing details like what are comparable books (and how well they sold if you have that data), who your audience is and how you plan to reach them (OP was in a great place having a following), why you're the right person to write the book, etc.
That one goodreads review for the Estonia book is amusing. One reader criticized him for providing references. I feel like that's a positive, not a negative, and if you find it uninteresting those tend to be easy to skip.
Yeah, I have to admit because this was my first work I maybe overdid it in providing references because I wanted to default to having real historical data and not just writing a lot of personal opinions with no backing (it was a nightmare writing up that reference section but I'm glad I did it in the end) and if I'm being honest, because I'm not in academia and didn't have credentials as an "Estonia expert" I wanted to play it safe.
Edit: Added some context and I'd also mention that one thing that was quite helpful is that at the start of the writing process I created a massive spreadsheet where I'd add in quotes, writing, and anything interesting I thought I might pull from (some of it manually written, like when watching documentaries). This was hugely helpful when I was going back but also during the writing process so I had a single source of truth I could keyword search. I've just checked it and its got 4787 rows, with most entries being about a paragraph long
Reading the full context, this is a textbook case of a "Failed Pivot" driven by investors (the publisher).
As a banker, I see the "Advance" not as a loan, but as an Option Fee paid for the author's future output.
The publisher tried to exercise that option to force a pivot: "Inject AI into this classic book."
They tried to turn a "Shinise" (classic craftsmanship) product into a "Trend" product.
The author refused to dilute the quality, so the deal fell through.
Keeping the advance is financially justified.
The "R&D" failed not because of the engineer's laziness, but because the stakeholders demanded a feature (AI) that broke the product's architecture.
In finance, if the VC forces a bad pivot and the startup fails, the founder doesn't pay back the seed money.
I had written and self-published three books, and in 2024 decided to publish the most successful one with O'Reilly. It went up for sale in December 2024.
The whole experience was wonderful. I had basically none of the problems that this fellow experienced with his publisher, and I am delighted about how it went.
I did some things differently. For one, I had already been selling the book on my own for a few years, and was essentially on the 3rd self-published edition. Because of this, they were able to see what the almost-finished product was.
I told them I would not make massive changes to the book, nor would I contort it to the AI trend (the book barely mentions AI at all), and they never pressured me once.
Their biggest contribution was their team of editors. This book has code on just about every page. I had 3 technical editors go through it, finding many bugs. How many? Let's just say "plenty".
And the feedback from the non-technical editors was, to my surprise, even more valuable. Holy crap, I cannot express to you how much they improved the book. There were several of these folks (I had no idea there were so many different specialties for editors), and all of them were great.
(They also accepted my viewpoint when I disagreed with them, immediately, every time. The final published version of the book was 100% my own words.)
From all of that, I made improvements on what must have been almost every page, and rewrote two chapters from scratch. I also added a new chapter (I volunteered for it, no one at any point pressured me to do that). The result was making a book that IMO is at least twice as good as what I was able to accomplish on my own.
I do not resonate with the article author's comments about compensation. He negotiated a pretty good deal, I think; it's not realistic to get much better than what he did, since the publisher is a business with their own expenses to pay, etc.
I was pretty disciplined about meeting deadlines that we agreed to for certain milestones. That helped my relationship with the publisher, obviously.
All in all, it was a great experience, and I am glad I did it this way.
Reading the article, it sounds like my publisher (oreilly) was better to work with than his, but I think he could have done some things differently also. In the end, though, I agree with him that it was best to walk away in his situation.
Haha good question. No, but I did not ask; I wanted to give them as much freedom as I could bear on aspects of the process I was not too attached to, so I let them pick.
I will say I was very happy with the animal they came up with! If I was not, I would have asked them to change it, and I bet they would have. They showed me a preview version early on, so there would have been plenty of time to do so.
>"All of our future books will involve AI."
>It is antithetical to the premise of the book (classic programming projects!) that they agreed to publish.
I hope this trend is not industry wide.
A publisher chasing fads and trends over enduring quality, so sad. I wish I knew who the publisher was to avoid but I can foresee their pivot to AI authors with titles like "From Zero to Hero, ChatGPT 5.2 Top Prompting Secrets for Dummies"
Technical books don't sell well to begin with. I've written a couple w/ a major publisher, it never paid back the RAM I needed to purchase to run the lab environment.
Publishers are going to demand chasing the hot-new-thing which will most likely be irrelevant by the time the book is on the shelf.
"How to write x86 ASM... with the Copilot Desktop app! - Build your bootloader in 15 seconds!"
I’ve never worked in technical publishing but I have a few acquaintances who do. Adding chapters on AI is pretty close to industry wide for new writers. Experienced writers with sales figures have a lot more freedom.
The thing is, it’s not about getting chapters published on AI. The publishers are keenly aware that AI is using their content to steal their market and so anything they publish on AI will be obsolete before the final manuscript is published. It’s about getting potentially difficult first time authors to quit before their first third gets approved - that’s when the author is owed their first advance.
It’s a lot easier to slaughter sheep if the most docile select themselves.
Ironically, I was working on a book with a similar concept in the exact same time frame originally titled "Fun Computer Science Projects in Python" that came out as "Computer Science from Scratch: Interpreters, Computer Art, Emulators, and ML in Python" with No Starch Press. Like Austin it contains a CHIP8 chapter and a couple chapters on making a programming language. The difference with regards to his experience and my experience in writing it with a traditional publisher, is that I was an experienced author so I felt comfortable finishing the entire book first before shopping it around to publishers. I didn't want too much scrutiny around the core concept and I was getting similar signals of "every chapter must have AI."
I wrote a similar blog post a month ago describing the process of creating the book and getting it published called "Writing Computer Science from Scratch":
Some in this thread have wondered what publisher Austin was working with. Based on my experience working with three different technical publishers and the setup and terms Austin was offered, my guess would be Manning. But that's just an educated guess.
I will critique the blog post a little bit. It's presented as a critique of the experience of working with the publisher, but ultimately I'm reading between the lines that the book failed because he was missing deadlines and as he wrote "life got in the way" and he lost his motivation, only partially because the publisher wanted AI in more of the book. Many of the trials he had along the way: dealing with a development editor who wants to tailor your style to a particular audience, a technical editor who needs a couple chapters to warmup, back and forth on the proposal, etc. these are all really par for the course when writing a technical book. Ultimately you have to be self-motivated to finish because of course the development editor, technical editor, etc are going to disagree with you from time to time and try to push you in different directions. If that alone is so demotivating to you, it's just not for you to work with a publisher.
PS I think his blog is really good and he should think about self publishing under a time frame and terms he is more comfortable with.
I'm glad that I released my book in 2022 before AI-hype took off. I'm familiar with the type of publisher mentioned in the article too. Those are very strict in their format and content guidelines, and I had also felt that such constraints were limiting at times. I can relate. But, I also learned a lot from the process, and in the end, my book got fantastic feedback. It became one of the print bestsellers in 2022, and got translated to many languages. I've found the whole experience positive.
But, I totally understand author's reasoning, and it's one of the reasons I want to explore different publishers as I want to deviate from writing strictly technical books.
I would have 100% bought the book the author initially pitched. I could do without the junk the publisher wanted him to add, and really it would have probably caused me to not buy the book.
I've come to hate every cookbook that starts with 100 pages of here is a tour of my pantry, which sounds a lot like, here is how to use pip!
> I've come to hate every cookbook that starts with 100 pages of here is a tour of my pantry
To each their own. As someone who learned to cook as an adult, I’ve appreciated seeing both what someone has and what nonsense I own that they manage just fine without.
Honestly, I wouldn't consider publishing a book if it didn't have that information. There's no reason to give up half or more of the potential market for a book because it's arbitrarily pitched at advanced users. Assuming the customer knows how to use pip would be crazy.
The idea of doing a thing (or having done the thing) and the actual DOING of the thing are very different. See this a lot where people think they want to be a woodworker or a baseball player or an author, but the actual _work_ of sweeping dust, doing 200 hits a day off a tee or grinding out words by deadlines are not as appealing as the halo or mystique of the final product once made the activity seem. this doubles on the effect that humans are terrible at predicting what will make us happy. so, i am glad this author was self aware enough to follow their bliss, but the last paragraph made me wonder if their introspection was fully resolved.
No, their incentive is to wait and see what books are taking off, then pile on the money when they know it's already a winner. Today, unproven authors are expected to do their own marketing.
For the marketing that has significant costs (e.g., paying for ads, paying for show appearances, paying other influencers to plug, making quality videos for social media, travel for events).
But it costs almost nothing to do ARC readers for reviews and ratings, and it's free to time things for the Kindle store algorithm. You just have to know to do it, when.
And there's some other "free" marketing that publishers should have automated by now, because they can amortize that across many book releases.
Thanks for sharing. I always enjoy reading author-publisher process articles as they get to the true behind the scenes story. I can relate to most things mentioned, and the terms seem identical to what I had when writing Modern Fortran with Manning. I also started with the intent to write for experts, but the publisher pushed for targeting beginners. The author can concede or (usually) give up the project.
One important aspect to this is that a typical first-book technical author knows well the subject matter, and sometimes knows how to write too (but usually not, as was my case), but does not know how to edit, typeset, publish, market, and sell well. That's what the publisher knows best. And of course, they want sales, and they understand that overall beginner books sell better than advanced/expert level books.
I encourage the author to continue writing and self-publish, and at a later time a publisher come to package and market a mostly finished product.
This was quite a fun read and I appreciate the insight. A couple of my peers have suggested me to write a “stuff you should know” book. Some technical in nature (like linear algebra. It blows my mind how many engineers hardware or software do not understand linear algebra) and some not technical (why stuff cost the way they do. “Why does this cost $200 when I can make it for $20!”). But reading your post was encouraging to see that self publishing for fun might be the way to go. Though I guess people would argue you can just ask a LLM now instead of reading my book.
Published author here (through O’Reilly, twice). A lot of people seem to be taking this as an indictment of the publisher. What I’m reading, though, is that the author didn’t make time to write the book and then lost interest. All the rest is normal stuff that happens when writing a book for a publisher. The author did a good job of standing up for themself and their vision, but a poor job of, you know, writing an actual book.
The publisher expended time and money on the author and got nothing in return. This isn’t surprising, and it’s why first-time author royalties are so low.
For most books, but technical non-fiction in particular, the payout isn't nearly worth enough for the effort.
And by "most" there I mean "all". Yes, there are exceptions, but those exceptions prove the rule.
I've written 2 technical books, for incredibly niche audiences, where the total number of potential buyers is numbered in the low thousands.
I self published as a PDF. and charge $200 a copy, of which I keep $200. It's -marginally- worth it. But the hourly rate is much lower than my day job.
The marketing benefit (as it affects my actual business in the same field) is likely real, but hard to measure. Still, having "written the book" opens doors, and brings credibility.
Disagree, a blog that gets tens of thousands of unique visitors could clear huge numbers on KDP. Maybe your niche is too narrow (probably, given your TAM is in the thousands) but this post is about "timeless programming projects" and is going to be extremely broad. The number of hits to the blog is itself an indicator of a very big and very eager potential market.
This sounds like my experience with a "major" technical publisher except we managed to get to the end.
I'd say that almost no one should work with the major technical publishers more than once. There's some good basic skills you learn but otherwise, they contribute very little that you couldn't get done on your own.
Writing for publication is a ridiculous amount of work, smoothing and digesting to the point of pablum, because it's just hard to please everybody. Now that LLM's can tailor to chapter-level discussions, why write?
Still, that's what it takes to reach N > friends+students.
It's beyond ironic that AI empowerment is leading actual creators to stop creating. Books don't make sense any more, and your pet open source project will be delivered mainly via LLM's that conceal your authorship and voice and bastardize the code.
Ideas form through packaging insight for others. Where's the incentive otherwise?
This story is a prototype of thousands of other stories going on right now. Of course we can't blame the book businesses. They are in survival struggle. They have no clue what to do. Every business is barely holding onto whatever that might keep them in business. AI is bad, but it is the new mafia in the town. Just erase all your beliefs instincts and make friends with it.
Maybe write a book about "Classic projects using AI", whether it makes sense or not. And use AI to write that.
This is why most publishers won't even talk to you unless you have a finished manuscript already, but I appreciated this look into a different situation.
> This is why most publishers won't even talk to you unless you have a finished manuscript already
This is absolutely not true in the world of technical publishing. I mean books published with publishers like O'Reilly, Manning, No Starch, etc. Usually you come to them with just a proposal and a couple chapters or even just a proposal. Or their acquisition editors actually reach out to you. It's the exception (not quite rare, but definitely less than 20% of books) that comes to them with a finished manuscript. I did that with my last book. I've published 5 technical books across three different technical publishers, so I know a bit about this business...
I'm just replying to this comment to not discourage people who just have an idea and not a finished book yet but have the motivation to finish and want to get a deal.
This is not true for business books like mine. It's vital to write a proposal first in that world; publishers want to influence the content (as in the OP article).
I think the same is true for tech books but I don't know as I haven't written one.
A novel or other fiction is the opposite; there you do have to write the whole thing first.
Somehow, I miss the time when I was writing a book. It's nice to do the work and research and also nice to refine. Getting money later without doing much anymore was also cool.
But my consecutive attempts of writing a book failed because of my ADHD and missing guidance. I can't do employment, but I really need someone to "nag" me 2-3 times a month to keep focus.
Thanks for sharing! I have been dreaming of writing (or better yet, finding!) a similar book for a couple years now. A hands-on guide that peels back the layers of abstraction to teach how things actually work under the hood by building them yourself. I hope one of us gets to it one day :-)
I don't think he ever got the first half of the advance...cherry-picking from the TFA:
> They offered a $5000 advance with the first half paid out when they approve of the first third of the book and the second half when they accept the final manuscript for publication.
> I continued to get further behind on delivering my revised draft of the first 1/3.
> Around this time, there was a possibility of me changing jobs. Oh, and my wedding was coming up. That was the final nail in the coffin.
> There were too many things going on and I didn't enjoy working on the book anymore, so what is the point? I made up my mind to ask to freeze the project.
Traditional publishing is a weird world. They have the shortsightedness to want to force AI into everything. But also it sounds like they still assigned human technical editors who took the job seriously.
I am honestly a bit puzzled by this description and I wish they had named the publisher. I'm fairly familiar with this space and the usual experience with tech publishers is that they don't get all that invested in what they publish because 99% of technical books sell somewhere between 500-5,000 copies. That's barely enough to pay the copyeditor to do the bare minimum (often paying attention only for the first couple of chapters), then pay the layout guy, then the proofreader.
The usual accounts I've heard from my friends who published with Wiley, Addison-Wesley, or O'Reilly is that they sign up, get some in-depth feedback on the first couple of chapters, and then are on their own. I've never heard of a tech publisher exercising this level of creative control. I don't doubt that this happened, but it just sounds out of the ordinary.
The 500 - 5000 figure, which is correct, is why most folks should instead self publish via KDP. 70% royalties mean you can get 10-50k easily with an average book. If the book is a success, you can switch career to a full time author if you wish. All this with full creative freedom. Many years ago, I canceled my Redis book for a large publisher for similar reasons to the OP: too many "do it this way" requests.
In general, yeah. The hard-to-replicate benefit is professional editing, but this is something that most tech publishers skimp on. There are some "premium" outlets where you get some real attention, but the default Wiley experience is definitely not worth 70%.
What an incredible take. It is both so wrong on so many levels and also technically correct, akin to saying "All of our future books will involve spellchecker."
I inked the deal in 2023, but shortly after felt like the market was too dead for newbies. When I initially removed the website for the book, I got a small wave of complaints, so I guess some folks still found it helpful.
You are reading a lot of things that I didn't say.
The publisher didn't do anything "wrong". It was their suggestion to freeze it instead of cancel immediately. I didn't intend on giving up on the book even then. I didn't return the advance because I never received the advance.
It says the first half of the advance would be paid on approval of the first third of the book. It also says that the first third of the book was never submitted. So I don't think the advance was ever paid out.
> Why buy this book when ChatGPT can generate the same style of tutorial for ANY project that is customized to you?
Isn't it obvious? Because the ChatGPT output wouldn't be reviewed!
You buy books like these exactly because they are written by a professional, who has taken the time to divide it up into easily digestible chunks which form a coherent narrative, with runnable intermediate stages in-between.
For example, I expect a raytracing project to start with simple ray casting of single-color objects. After that it can add things like lights and Blinn-Phong shading, progress with Whitted-style recursive raytracing for the shiny reflections and transparent objects, then progress to modern path tracing with things like BRDFs, and end up with BVHs to make it not horribly slow.
You can stop at any point and still end up with a functional raytracer, and the added value of each step is immediately obvious to the reader. There's just no way in hell ChatGPT at its current level is going to guide you flawlessly through all of that if you start with a simple "I want to build a raytracer" prompt!
Absolutely. And further because when you prompt ChatGPT as you write your ray tracer you don't know what the important things to ask are. Sure, you can get their with enough prompts of "what should I be asking you" or "explain to me the basics" of so and so. But the point of the book is all of that work has already been done for you in a vetted way.
Agreed. Still amazed that people keep trusting the service that has like a 60% failure rate, who would want to buy something that fails over half the time?
Shame OP stopped their book, it would definitely have found an audience easily. I know many programmers that love these styles of books.
I appreciate you sharing this! I just published my first book (nothing about programming, its about how the nation of Estonia modernized post re-independence and became a tech/e-gov hub in a single generation) and I can sympathize with a lot of this. My experience was a bit different -- I also knew the advance was going to be nothing and had a day job so I said I didn't need one (which was a relief for them as I was with a smaller publisher) and instead asked for more books to give away and some other contract terms. It took many months of negotiating to finalize the agreement and then they wanted the manuscript in ~7 months from contract signing. I guess they also assumed that I'd miss at least one deadline but instead I took a bunch of time off to get it done. I think the most important lesson for me is that book publishing, unless you're focused on trying to be the top 1% (maybe even .1%) in a popular category, is not going to be very lucrative, especially with a publisher that takes a major cut. It's easier than ever to go direct, in my case because I had a niche book and I wasn't doing it for money, I valued the prestige (or perceived prestige anyways) of having a book with a name brand publisher as I thought it'd be more helpful for my career in other ways, and candidly was mostly a passion project that I didn't feel strongly about monetizing!
If any folks want to talk about nonfiction publishing, I'm always happy to chat as many people were incredibly generous with their time for me and I'd like to try to pay it forward.
I feel 100% identified with you. I am working on a non ficton book about a niche topic and I wouldn't do it for the money at all. It's about the "prestige (or perceived prestige)". I am about to finish the first 1/3 of the book (the first draft, anyway), and I am already attempting to reach out to publishers to see if they would be interested in the book (at least the ones that don't require a literary agent!).
Some of them already replied saying the proposal seems interesting but they want to read a few chapters. I don't know if I am in the right path or not, but I'd love to read more about your experience and what can be shared!
That's awesome, can I ask what the topic is? What I did for "selling" the book was to create a proposal -- about 45 pages that has a skeleton outline of each chapter (it changed significantly during the end writing process but gave the publisher a feel for the topic), a sample chapter, and some more sales/marketing details like what are comparable books (and how well they sold if you have that data), who your audience is and how you plan to reach them (OP was in a great place having a following), why you're the right person to write the book, etc.
Did you also write "Inspire!: Inspiration for Life and Life at Work" ?
Goodreads seems to think so. https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/14291276.Joel_Burke
That one goodreads review for the Estonia book is amusing. One reader criticized him for providing references. I feel like that's a positive, not a negative, and if you find it uninteresting those tend to be easy to skip.
Yeah, I have to admit because this was my first work I maybe overdid it in providing references because I wanted to default to having real historical data and not just writing a lot of personal opinions with no backing (it was a nightmare writing up that reference section but I'm glad I did it in the end) and if I'm being honest, because I'm not in academia and didn't have credentials as an "Estonia expert" I wanted to play it safe.
Edit: Added some context and I'd also mention that one thing that was quite helpful is that at the start of the writing process I created a massive spreadsheet where I'd add in quotes, writing, and anything interesting I thought I might pull from (some of it manually written, like when watching documentaries). This was hugely helpful when I was going back but also during the writing process so I had a single source of truth I could keyword search. I've just checked it and its got 4787 rows, with most entries being about a paragraph long
Ha, I didn't, I wish Goodreads would get a major update!
What’s the name of your book? That sounds super interesting
Was wondering the same and went stalking in the profile. They named it a couple of days ago[1], apparently it's called Rebooting a nation
1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46398265
Looks like this is the book: https://www.rebootinganation.com/
Rebooting a Nation: The Incredible Rise of Estonia, E-Government and the Startup Revolution Paperback by Joel Burke
Yep, thats it, sorry for the slow replies, I'm out with family for the holidays!
Reading the full context, this is a textbook case of a "Failed Pivot" driven by investors (the publisher).
As a banker, I see the "Advance" not as a loan, but as an Option Fee paid for the author's future output. The publisher tried to exercise that option to force a pivot: "Inject AI into this classic book." They tried to turn a "Shinise" (classic craftsmanship) product into a "Trend" product. The author refused to dilute the quality, so the deal fell through.
Keeping the advance is financially justified. The "R&D" failed not because of the engineer's laziness, but because the stakeholders demanded a feature (AI) that broke the product's architecture. In finance, if the VC forces a bad pivot and the startup fails, the founder doesn't pay back the seed money.
I had written and self-published three books, and in 2024 decided to publish the most successful one with O'Reilly. It went up for sale in December 2024.
The whole experience was wonderful. I had basically none of the problems that this fellow experienced with his publisher, and I am delighted about how it went.
I did some things differently. For one, I had already been selling the book on my own for a few years, and was essentially on the 3rd self-published edition. Because of this, they were able to see what the almost-finished product was.
I told them I would not make massive changes to the book, nor would I contort it to the AI trend (the book barely mentions AI at all), and they never pressured me once.
Their biggest contribution was their team of editors. This book has code on just about every page. I had 3 technical editors go through it, finding many bugs. How many? Let's just say "plenty".
And the feedback from the non-technical editors was, to my surprise, even more valuable. Holy crap, I cannot express to you how much they improved the book. There were several of these folks (I had no idea there were so many different specialties for editors), and all of them were great.
(They also accepted my viewpoint when I disagreed with them, immediately, every time. The final published version of the book was 100% my own words.)
From all of that, I made improvements on what must have been almost every page, and rewrote two chapters from scratch. I also added a new chapter (I volunteered for it, no one at any point pressured me to do that). The result was making a book that IMO is at least twice as good as what I was able to accomplish on my own.
I do not resonate with the article author's comments about compensation. He negotiated a pretty good deal, I think; it's not realistic to get much better than what he did, since the publisher is a business with their own expenses to pay, etc.
I was pretty disciplined about meeting deadlines that we agreed to for certain milestones. That helped my relationship with the publisher, obviously.
All in all, it was a great experience, and I am glad I did it this way.
Reading the article, it sounds like my publisher (oreilly) was better to work with than his, but I think he could have done some things differently also. In the end, though, I agree with him that it was best to walk away in his situation.
There's a reason that ORA have huge credibility in technical publishing, and have for decades: a reliably good product.
That was definitely my experience.
Did they let you choose the animal to appear on the cover?
Haha good question. No, but I did not ask; I wanted to give them as much freedom as I could bear on aspects of the process I was not too attached to, so I let them pick.
I will say I was very happy with the animal they came up with! If I was not, I would have asked them to change it, and I bet they would have. They showed me a preview version early on, so there would have been plenty of time to do so.
I’ve published several books with them. Only once I asked and they managed to find the beast. They didn’t promise but they did deliver.
>"All of our future books will involve AI." >It is antithetical to the premise of the book (classic programming projects!) that they agreed to publish.
I hope this trend is not industry wide. A publisher chasing fads and trends over enduring quality, so sad. I wish I knew who the publisher was to avoid but I can foresee their pivot to AI authors with titles like "From Zero to Hero, ChatGPT 5.2 Top Prompting Secrets for Dummies"
You won't believe how bad things are where I live. We have a government-subsidized AI image generation course here.
Technical books don't sell well to begin with. I've written a couple w/ a major publisher, it never paid back the RAM I needed to purchase to run the lab environment.
Publishers are going to demand chasing the hot-new-thing which will most likely be irrelevant by the time the book is on the shelf.
"How to write x86 ASM... with the Copilot Desktop app! - Build your bootloader in 15 seconds!"
The article hints at this, but publishers live on the outsize success of very few of their books, and the rest of them are losses.
It's exactly the sort of financial pressure that will make them chase fads and trends, and it gets worse in difficult economic times.
Industry-wide? Looks damn near pan-industry to me
And most normal people are fed up with it. Nobody understands why most of their apps suddenly have chatbots in them now.
When a company whose services I use announces that they're adding AI to them, my first response is always to wonder how I can turn it off.
I don’t even bother looking anymore because it’s rarely possible.
I’ve never worked in technical publishing but I have a few acquaintances who do. Adding chapters on AI is pretty close to industry wide for new writers. Experienced writers with sales figures have a lot more freedom.
The thing is, it’s not about getting chapters published on AI. The publishers are keenly aware that AI is using their content to steal their market and so anything they publish on AI will be obsolete before the final manuscript is published. It’s about getting potentially difficult first time authors to quit before their first third gets approved - that’s when the author is owed their first advance.
It’s a lot easier to slaughter sheep if the most docile select themselves.
Ironically, I was working on a book with a similar concept in the exact same time frame originally titled "Fun Computer Science Projects in Python" that came out as "Computer Science from Scratch: Interpreters, Computer Art, Emulators, and ML in Python" with No Starch Press. Like Austin it contains a CHIP8 chapter and a couple chapters on making a programming language. The difference with regards to his experience and my experience in writing it with a traditional publisher, is that I was an experienced author so I felt comfortable finishing the entire book first before shopping it around to publishers. I didn't want too much scrutiny around the core concept and I was getting similar signals of "every chapter must have AI."
I wrote a similar blog post a month ago describing the process of creating the book and getting it published called "Writing Computer Science from Scratch":
https://www.observationalhazard.com/2025/12/writing-computer...
Some in this thread have wondered what publisher Austin was working with. Based on my experience working with three different technical publishers and the setup and terms Austin was offered, my guess would be Manning. But that's just an educated guess.
I will critique the blog post a little bit. It's presented as a critique of the experience of working with the publisher, but ultimately I'm reading between the lines that the book failed because he was missing deadlines and as he wrote "life got in the way" and he lost his motivation, only partially because the publisher wanted AI in more of the book. Many of the trials he had along the way: dealing with a development editor who wants to tailor your style to a particular audience, a technical editor who needs a couple chapters to warmup, back and forth on the proposal, etc. these are all really par for the course when writing a technical book. Ultimately you have to be self-motivated to finish because of course the development editor, technical editor, etc are going to disagree with you from time to time and try to push you in different directions. If that alone is so demotivating to you, it's just not for you to work with a publisher.
PS I think his blog is really good and he should think about self publishing under a time frame and terms he is more comfortable with.
I came away with the same impression. I was less blaming the publisher and more about life getting in the way with the author
Sounds like your publisher was trying to just take your work and sell it. Giving you the least amount you’ll agree to.
Self publishing is the way. The internet is your Barnes & Noble. Finish the book and publish it yourself. Sell it for $20. Market it. Have peace.
I'm glad that I released my book in 2022 before AI-hype took off. I'm familiar with the type of publisher mentioned in the article too. Those are very strict in their format and content guidelines, and I had also felt that such constraints were limiting at times. I can relate. But, I also learned a lot from the process, and in the end, my book got fantastic feedback. It became one of the print bestsellers in 2022, and got translated to many languages. I've found the whole experience positive.
But, I totally understand author's reasoning, and it's one of the reasons I want to explore different publishers as I want to deviate from writing strictly technical books.
I would have 100% bought the book the author initially pitched. I could do without the junk the publisher wanted him to add, and really it would have probably caused me to not buy the book.
I've come to hate every cookbook that starts with 100 pages of here is a tour of my pantry, which sounds a lot like, here is how to use pip!
Just skip the chapter?
> I've come to hate every cookbook that starts with 100 pages of here is a tour of my pantry
To each their own. As someone who learned to cook as an adult, I’ve appreciated seeing both what someone has and what nonsense I own that they manage just fine without.
Honestly, I wouldn't consider publishing a book if it didn't have that information. There's no reason to give up half or more of the potential market for a book because it's arbitrarily pitched at advanced users. Assuming the customer knows how to use pip would be crazy.
The idea of doing a thing (or having done the thing) and the actual DOING of the thing are very different. See this a lot where people think they want to be a woodworker or a baseball player or an author, but the actual _work_ of sweeping dust, doing 200 hits a day off a tee or grinding out words by deadlines are not as appealing as the halo or mystique of the final product once made the activity seem. this doubles on the effect that humans are terrible at predicting what will make us happy. so, i am glad this author was self aware enough to follow their bliss, but the last paragraph made me wonder if their introspection was fully resolved.
> Cons of a publisher: [...] they actually do little to no marketing of your book.
Unless the publisher has already written off a book, don't they have incentive to market it?
There are some low-cost things you can do to market a book, and they reportedly make the difference between no sales, and some or many sales.
And a publisher can learn the currently effective marketing methods, and then apply that skill across books of many authors.
No, their incentive is to wait and see what books are taking off, then pile on the money when they know it's already a winner. Today, unproven authors are expected to do their own marketing.
For the marketing that has significant costs (e.g., paying for ads, paying for show appearances, paying other influencers to plug, making quality videos for social media, travel for events).
But it costs almost nothing to do ARC readers for reviews and ratings, and it's free to time things for the Kindle store algorithm. You just have to know to do it, when.
And there's some other "free" marketing that publishers should have automated by now, because they can amortize that across many book releases.
Thanks for sharing. I always enjoy reading author-publisher process articles as they get to the true behind the scenes story. I can relate to most things mentioned, and the terms seem identical to what I had when writing Modern Fortran with Manning. I also started with the intent to write for experts, but the publisher pushed for targeting beginners. The author can concede or (usually) give up the project.
One important aspect to this is that a typical first-book technical author knows well the subject matter, and sometimes knows how to write too (but usually not, as was my case), but does not know how to edit, typeset, publish, market, and sell well. That's what the publisher knows best. And of course, they want sales, and they understand that overall beginner books sell better than advanced/expert level books.
I encourage the author to continue writing and self-publish, and at a later time a publisher come to package and market a mostly finished product.
This was quite a fun read and I appreciate the insight. A couple of my peers have suggested me to write a “stuff you should know” book. Some technical in nature (like linear algebra. It blows my mind how many engineers hardware or software do not understand linear algebra) and some not technical (why stuff cost the way they do. “Why does this cost $200 when I can make it for $20!”). But reading your post was encouraging to see that self publishing for fun might be the way to go. Though I guess people would argue you can just ask a LLM now instead of reading my book.
that'll only be the case if you actually write the book so that the LLMs have that info. Until then they can't regurgitate your know-how.
Published author here (through O’Reilly, twice). A lot of people seem to be taking this as an indictment of the publisher. What I’m reading, though, is that the author didn’t make time to write the book and then lost interest. All the rest is normal stuff that happens when writing a book for a publisher. The author did a good job of standing up for themself and their vision, but a poor job of, you know, writing an actual book.
The publisher expended time and money on the author and got nothing in return. This isn’t surprising, and it’s why first-time author royalties are so low.
You didn’t share the complete deal details but just from what you shared, it seems like the payout is not worth it for this big of an effort.
What if you self publish yourself using Amazon toolings? Will the numbers be worse? At least you will be in charge of your own quality and deadlines.
For most books, but technical non-fiction in particular, the payout isn't nearly worth enough for the effort.
And by "most" there I mean "all". Yes, there are exceptions, but those exceptions prove the rule.
I've written 2 technical books, for incredibly niche audiences, where the total number of potential buyers is numbered in the low thousands.
I self published as a PDF. and charge $200 a copy, of which I keep $200. It's -marginally- worth it. But the hourly rate is much lower than my day job.
The marketing benefit (as it affects my actual business in the same field) is likely real, but hard to measure. Still, having "written the book" opens doors, and brings credibility.
Disagree, a blog that gets tens of thousands of unique visitors could clear huge numbers on KDP. Maybe your niche is too narrow (probably, given your TAM is in the thousands) but this post is about "timeless programming projects" and is going to be extremely broad. The number of hits to the blog is itself an indicator of a very big and very eager potential market.
That sounds like 2025. Everything is "required" to be about AI. Gooodbyee you silly year!
This sounds like my experience with a "major" technical publisher except we managed to get to the end.
I'd say that almost no one should work with the major technical publishers more than once. There's some good basic skills you learn but otherwise, they contribute very little that you couldn't get done on your own.
I’ve self published a few books now on Amazon. I put $0 down, they take care of everything and I get a deposit into my account every month.
I’m doing it again soon for my next book. It’s fantastic, though having a following online is helpful to get the word out
I would have purchased your book ! I just wanted to say thank you for writing (your blog). It is a joy to read.
Writing for publication is a ridiculous amount of work, smoothing and digesting to the point of pablum, because it's just hard to please everybody. Now that LLM's can tailor to chapter-level discussions, why write?
Still, that's what it takes to reach N > friends+students.
It's beyond ironic that AI empowerment is leading actual creators to stop creating. Books don't make sense any more, and your pet open source project will be delivered mainly via LLM's that conceal your authorship and voice and bastardize the code.
Ideas form through packaging insight for others. Where's the incentive otherwise?
This story is a prototype of thousands of other stories going on right now. Of course we can't blame the book businesses. They are in survival struggle. They have no clue what to do. Every business is barely holding onto whatever that might keep them in business. AI is bad, but it is the new mafia in the town. Just erase all your beliefs instincts and make friends with it.
Maybe write a book about "Classic projects using AI", whether it makes sense or not. And use AI to write that.
This is why most publishers won't even talk to you unless you have a finished manuscript already, but I appreciated this look into a different situation.
I hope you finish the book. I would buy it.
> This is why most publishers won't even talk to you unless you have a finished manuscript already
This is absolutely not true in the world of technical publishing. I mean books published with publishers like O'Reilly, Manning, No Starch, etc. Usually you come to them with just a proposal and a couple chapters or even just a proposal. Or their acquisition editors actually reach out to you. It's the exception (not quite rare, but definitely less than 20% of books) that comes to them with a finished manuscript. I did that with my last book. I've published 5 technical books across three different technical publishers, so I know a bit about this business...
I'm just replying to this comment to not discourage people who just have an idea and not a finished book yet but have the motivation to finish and want to get a deal.
This is not true for business books like mine. It's vital to write a proposal first in that world; publishers want to influence the content (as in the OP article).
I think the same is true for tech books but I don't know as I haven't written one.
A novel or other fiction is the opposite; there you do have to write the whole thing first.
That was super interesting!
I think you should self-publish. With your existing audience, you'd sell plenty of copies, and nobody would push "AI" into your work.
Somehow, I miss the time when I was writing a book. It's nice to do the work and research and also nice to refine. Getting money later without doing much anymore was also cool.
But my consecutive attempts of writing a book failed because of my ADHD and missing guidance. I can't do employment, but I really need someone to "nag" me 2-3 times a month to keep focus.
Thanks for sharing! I have been dreaming of writing (or better yet, finding!) a similar book for a couple years now. A hands-on guide that peels back the layers of abstraction to teach how things actually work under the hood by building them yourself. I hope one of us gets to it one day :-)
I'm surprised the contract didn't obligate you to return most or all of the advance after canceling.
The first half of the advance was to be paid after the first third was approved.
They never got to that point.
I don't think he ever got the first half of the advance...cherry-picking from the TFA:
> They offered a $5000 advance with the first half paid out when they approve of the first third of the book and the second half when they accept the final manuscript for publication.
> I continued to get further behind on delivering my revised draft of the first 1/3.
> Around this time, there was a possibility of me changing jobs. Oh, and my wedding was coming up. That was the final nail in the coffin.
> There were too many things going on and I didn't enjoy working on the book anymore, so what is the point? I made up my mind to ask to freeze the project.
> They agreed.
Traditional publishing is a weird world. They have the shortsightedness to want to force AI into everything. But also it sounds like they still assigned human technical editors who took the job seriously.
Something like 80 percent of published books with an advance never even make back their advance, in case you were wondering why royalties are so low.
You're witnessing a collapse of demand. Do not ignore it - though it may not be permanent.
I am honestly a bit puzzled by this description and I wish they had named the publisher. I'm fairly familiar with this space and the usual experience with tech publishers is that they don't get all that invested in what they publish because 99% of technical books sell somewhere between 500-5,000 copies. That's barely enough to pay the copyeditor to do the bare minimum (often paying attention only for the first couple of chapters), then pay the layout guy, then the proofreader.
The usual accounts I've heard from my friends who published with Wiley, Addison-Wesley, or O'Reilly is that they sign up, get some in-depth feedback on the first couple of chapters, and then are on their own. I've never heard of a tech publisher exercising this level of creative control. I don't doubt that this happened, but it just sounds out of the ordinary.
The 500 - 5000 figure, which is correct, is why most folks should instead self publish via KDP. 70% royalties mean you can get 10-50k easily with an average book. If the book is a success, you can switch career to a full time author if you wish. All this with full creative freedom. Many years ago, I canceled my Redis book for a large publisher for similar reasons to the OP: too many "do it this way" requests.
In general, yeah. The hard-to-replicate benefit is professional editing, but this is something that most tech publishers skimp on. There are some "premium" outlets where you get some real attention, but the default Wiley experience is definitely not worth 70%.
> I am honestly a bit puzzled by this description and I wish they had named the publisher.
Does it matter which exact one if all the publisher oligarchs behave exactly the same?
He wants more information because the story doesn't ring true, in his experience.
Yes, because as far as I know, they don't behave like that.
"12% of total sales ..."
Me: That doesn't sound too bad! They keep 12% of the profit, leaving him 88%!
".. and then 15% [after that]"
This reminds me of the scene in Queen of the South. FL (female lead) is new to power, negotiating some deal.
Guy: How much?
FL: Unsure how much to take 10%.
Guy: Thinking her cut is only 10%, seeing her as weak Oh.. heh.
FL: Detects her mistake For you.
Guy: Face gets red, angry But.. but..
> "All of our future books will involve AI."
What an incredible take. It is both so wrong on so many levels and also technically correct, akin to saying "All of our future books will involve spellchecker."
I hate it.
I killed a book deal I had for this book I mostly finished:
https://kevmo.io/zero-to-code/
I inked the deal in 2023, but shortly after felt like the market was too dead for newbies. When I initially removed the website for the book, I got a small wave of complaints, so I guess some folks still found it helpful.
"All of our future books will involve AI."
In the era of AI, who is going to buy books?
AI slop
I don’t see the publisher doing anything wrong.
You “froze” the contract instead of telling them you intended to stop all together and it also seems like you didn’t return their advance.
You are reading a lot of things that I didn't say.
The publisher didn't do anything "wrong". It was their suggestion to freeze it instead of cancel immediately. I didn't intend on giving up on the book even then. I didn't return the advance because I never received the advance.
ah my mistake then. Looks like either party didn't do anything wrong.
It says the first half of the advance would be paid on approval of the first third of the book. It also says that the first third of the book was never submitted. So I don't think the advance was ever paid out.
Wow this is the first time I encountered this blog! Subscribed!