As if writing a dissertation didn’t produce challenges enough of its own, before you’re done people will start to ask questions about your intentions to publish the work as a book. Graduate students at UC Irvine were fortunate to have Susan Ferber, the New-York based history editor at Oxford University Press offer a generous and demystifying introduction to the process of scholarly publishing.

Ms. Ferber’s straightforward and humorous approach kept her audience in their seats; her willingness to entertain questions meant the event exceeded its scheduled  time. In an academic landscape with ever increasing demands on our time, the practical mechanics of publishing too often are overlooked. But even with late afternoon Southern California traffic looming, a lively conversation kept people engaged.

Given continued debates about the future of print publications, Google’s interventions, the centrality of monographic work to communicating ideas in history, and the prevalence of the book as the measure of tenure in the academic job market, it’s no wonder that lots of people want to talk about how to get their books published.

True to her own scholarly roots in literature, Ms. Ferber’s remarks exist in textual form, easily accessible on the web as An Editor’s Book Publishing Tips for the Uninitiated. I highly recommend the full article—but will nevertheless provide a brief overview of her remarks.

1. Do your research and come to understand the differences between history lists at various publishers. Not all publishers are an equally good fit for your project.

2. Conduct oral history: ask many people about their publication stories, especially scholars who were a cohort or two ahead of you in grad school, who are likely to be closest to the process of the first book.

3. Give yourself some time and distance from you dissertation after you file.  Don’t however, neglect your committee’s comments about post-filing revisions. No dissertation is ready to go as it is. For more on revising the dissertation, she recommends William Germano, From Dissertation to Book (Chicago, 2005).

The major differentiation from dissertation to book is the necessity of clearly stating the uniqueness of your argument, and in your own terms, not heavily framed by historiography. The “so what” question is paramount; editors are most interested in the author’s interpretation.

4. Your book proposal is your calling card to publishers. You can’t afford to make a mediocre first impression. You won’t get another chance to pitch this project to that editor, so get it right the first time.

5. Components of the proposal

Cover letter

• Include your current, reliable contact information. This is more important than prestigious letterhead
• Address your letter to a specific person (who actually works at that press!)
• Include a sentence or two about the book’s argument
• Be up front about whether you’re also sending the proposal to other publishers
• Don’t forget your book’s title in the cover letter!

Proposal with title (10-15 pp) should include

• A writing sample that shows your voice
• An annotated Table of Contents

The proposal should address

• the sources you use
• the competition in the market
  note: your book will make a unique argument, but it is not completely unique. Remember, you book will end up in a library, shelved between two other books. It must in some way be like other books the library already owns. They’re not going to build a new wing for your work.
• the intended audience (be specific and realistic; it’s better to underestimate)
• the nuts and bolts
  - length in word count, including notes
  - maps, illustrations, other apparatus
  - time table for completion (realistic, not your best case scenario)

For more detailed hands-on advice, read Susan Ferber’s article and/or William Germano, Getting it Published (Chicago, 2001).

Relevant vocabulary that came up in conversation:

Subvention: financial support for the publication of a book, usually institutional, and usually to cover extraordinary costs such as permissions for art, maps, indexing, etc

Slush pile: unsolicited manuscripts that arrive on an editor’s desk (Ms. Ferber publishes projects from her slush pile, so previous contact is not a requirement).

Answers to other questions

Two months is a reasonable turn around to expect an initial reaction to your proposal.

Production time from submitting a complete manuscript is variable from press to press; at OUP the production schedule is generally from 6-9 months.

Tags: communication, education, publishing

This entry was posted on January 18, 2010 at 12:54 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.