Nonfiction author here. It seems like the fact that he didn't encounter this sort of thing until his sixth book ended up making this a lot more stressful than

Nonfiction author here. It seems like the fact that he didn't encounter this sort of thing until his sixth book ended up making this a lot more stressful than it needed to be, and a lot more work for both him and his editor. Because he had such a strong relationship with the editor, he likely did not have to write a detailed book proposal, in which some of the structural issues might have come up. The editor seems to have heard a general pitch -- "dual biography of Churchill and Orwell, with a focus on how they each, in their own way, fought against totalitarianism" -- and agreed to get on board on the strength and quality of their previous collaborations. And then Ricks had the liberty of working on the book for _three years_ before dumping the completed manuscript on the editor. Both the writer and the editor share some blame for the fallout from that. As Ricks says, this was not a rushed job. You would think that over the course of those three years, there would have been communication between writer and editor on how the book was shaping up. With journalism and nonfiction writing in general, you sometimes don't have the ability to predict at the start how things will come together structurally until you've done all your research and reporting. Sometimes you have to change directions. But it seems like those profound structural issues could nevertheless have been caught at an earlier point in the process.