I've moved on. After working on my current project until I reached the point of "it must be done", I've decided to adopt a new way of proceeding with my next project. I'm writing the synopsis and log line first.
This cannot be an original idea, right?
After finishing my last novel, I did a post-mortum review. I borrowed this technique from my day-job life as a product manager. After you finish a project, you answer the following questions:
1) How did the project unfold? What were the major problems?
2) What techniques or processes worked well? What did not work?
3) Compare your original schedule and work plan to your final - what adjustments will you make to your schedule and work plan on future projects?
4) What changes do you want to make to your process?
I would share the answers, but it's a bit like telling everyone what you weigh. Either everyone will want to kill you because you are too perfect, or everyone will turn away because nobody wants to admit that anyone could weigh that much. So I'll gloss over the details and focus on the biggest change I'm making to my process.
I'm going to write the synopsis and log line for my novel first. Then I'm writing the query letter and back cover blurb. And then, I'm going to ask trusted readers for feedback on which project I should write next.
Does anyone else do this? I've got so many projects rolling around in my mind, I feel conflicted on which one to pursue. I figure this approach could add the reader's point of view into my process. Couldn't hurt, could it? After all, there are some stories that folks don't want to read, right?
So what do you think? Am I on the right track?
Live and learn. Or as my old daddy says, "Live and learn. Die and forget it all."