Comment by 578_Observer
1 day ago
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.
> Keeping the advance is financially justified.
It didn’t sound like they got the advance (or rather the first half) as they never fully completed the first 1/3 of the book before the deal fell through.
Where is the part where they forced a pivot? They asked for AI. He said no.
You are technically correct. "Force" might be too strong a word. However, in banking terms, we call this "Constructive Dismissal" of the project. By attaching a condition (AI) that breaks the product's core value, the publisher effectively killed the deal while making it look like a negotiation. The author had a choice, but it was a choice between "ruining the product" or "walking away."
I get what you’re saying, but this is incorrect. The author exercised a third choice, which was to say no. This isn’t speculation. This is what the author said actually happened.
What killed this deal is that the author did not set aside enough time to do the work, and then lost interest. This seems pretty clear from the post. From my reading, it looks like the author was missing deadlines before they even brought up the topic of AI. And then continued missing deadlines and pushing out the schedule even after they said no to the AI ideas. And then ultimately put the whole thing on hold and never picked it back up.
If the publisher said “put AI in this or we kill the project”, your reading would be correct. But I don’t see that anywhere in this write up. I see an author who didn’t deliver. Not even the first third, so there wasn’t even an advanced payment.
And to be clear, I am not hating on the author here. Life happens. Interests change. All I’m saying is that this project was not canned because of the refusal to put AI into it.
2 replies →
And the only thing they asked is like to add a chapter on a machine learning algorithm. I get that everyone wants to talk about how sick of AI they are. But there are plenty of AI projects that would fit right in the spirit of the book.
The ML algorithm part was the _author’s_ suggestion on incorporating AI, not the publisher’s
> tried to
Yes but also
> this is a textbook case of a "Failed Pivot" driven by investors
It was a rejected suggestion. In no way did this actually cause the deal to fail.
Do they have to return the Advance in this case? Is there any case where it makes sense fo reject the Advance?
It depends on the contract, but generally, if the author worked in "Good Faith" (did the work legitimately) and the project was cancelled due to the client's strategic shift, the advance is usually non-refundable. The advance pays for the time already spent. If I hire a carpenter to build a table, and halfway through I say "Stop, I want a chair instead," I still have to pay for the half-table he built.
If the carpenter took 1/3 of the project quote, built half a table, and decided to quit and join the circus, would he keep the fee? For a carpenter it would be a small claims court, for this it’s a gift. Which is weird.
1 reply →
Are you a bot?
Haha, no. I am a real human banker in Gunma, Japan. I'll take that as a compliment, though. Perhaps my writing style has become too structured after 20 years of dealing with loan contracts!
The writing certainly has the cadence & other writing techniques of an LLM reply. :)
[dead]