When I was writing the Finnish stuff, I kept having revelations. Something like once a week, I would have a grand revelation that was going to show me the way and make the book amazingly much better and so on. Between revelations, it was extremely slow going.
With this book, I have thoughts about small things that will make the book better and more fun to read. But I rarely have grand revelations, and the words keep happening without them, and in a book-like fashion.
The thing is, the grand revelations really look like they were necessary for the Finnish stuff. I started writing it with no clue what I was doing, not the faintest of clues. I needed to find out. And it worked that way -- it was just harder. Much harder. I'm still dealing with the repercussions of the hardness as I revise Cu Mt. I don't think it was the kind of harder that means it's going to be a far better book than this one is, though. I think it's the kind of harder that means I was a far worse writer then, and that it was a far more difficult book to write even without me improving as a writer. But being more difficult to write does not mean being more interesting to read any more than being easier to write does; they're orthogonal. (At least for me; mileage varying and all that.)
This one has its hard bits, don't get me wrong. It's just that they aren't the kind of hard bits that are amenable to dramatic revelation. It's funny, because in some ways those books had a lot simmering under the surface and only breaking out into the open some of the time, whereas this one has a lot of really overt action. But from the perspective of what they're like to write, it's a much less dramatic book.
This is good. I'd prefer to spend that energy on other things than drama.
(Today I have very little energy at all. Today I am the next thing to useless. Some days are like that.)