I just received the following very helpful email from a follower of the Cocoon who thought it might be helpful to share their experience in securing their first book contract. First of all, I would like to thank this person for taking the time to write this and share it with our community. I think it's a really helpful post, and I imagine it could give rise to a great discussion!
I am a junior academic with a PhD from a non-Leiterrific school. Currently, I am a postdoc at a prestigious, large, research-intensive philosophy department. In this blogpost, I would like to share with the Cocooners some insights on getting your first book contract with a major university press (which I received recently).
1. Motivations for writing a monograph: There may be all kinds of practical reasons, such as an upcoming tenure review, but regardless of seniority, a monograph can help put you on the map as an expert in the field; it is rather like a business card, it helps to shape your identity as a scholar. Notice, for example, when scholars are introduced (e.g., as plenary speaker) the books they have written are named (whereas articles, except if groundbreaking, rarely are). In my case, I had already written two articles on the topic of the monograph, and given several talks, including 2 plenary talks on international conferences and 2 seminars.
It seems that the ideal moment to write the book is when you have some recognized expertise on the topic, as exemplified by articles and (invited) talks, but still plenty left to say in a way that is best said in the long, narrative format of a book. It has to be something worth saying, marketable and timely. If the topic is timely, write now and do not wait for that ideal time when you are 2 years into the tenure track. Presses are sensitive to whether or not the book has sales potential.
My monograph is on a topic that is very different from my dissertation (I am a few years post-PhD). I have heard from people who did try to turn their dissertation into a book that it requires more work than you think, and it is not always easy to find a good publisher. If you do decide to turn your dissertation into a book, you have to rewrite dramatically. The style of a book is very different from that of the scientific article. Since there are *many* dissertations that are written each year, and only few of those make good books, I think it's a bad idea to try to convert the diss into a book merely for the sake of having a book on one's CV. In that case, it is best to wait a few years and try to discern if one's research has some sort of direction, scope and timeliness that would warrant writing a book. It is a time- and energy-consuming process, which, in my case, took almost 2 years (excluding the revisions that still need to be done in response to referee requests, which will also take several months), so not an endeavor to be undertaken lightly.
2. When to approach publishers? There have been endless debates on the blogosphere about when to approach publishers, when the book is in progress or when it is roughly finished. In my case, I approached the publisher when the book was finished. This was a good idea, since the acquisitions editor came back to me *the same day* to ask for a full manuscript. If it had only been half-finished, the reviews of the MS may not have been so glowing as they were now. There are only a dozen or so really good publishers, so every shot count. In the light of my experience, I'd wait to approach publishers until I had a manuscript ready that was in at least in a shape that could be sent off for review.
3. Which publishers to approach? There are only a limited number of excellent academic publishers and only a few good commercial publishers (Leiter has several lists that reflect the opinion on what these are for philosophy). It is very important to approach these top presses first. Only in second instance approach a middling publisher (preferably one who is still good in your field). When deciding whom to approach, examine the catalogue to see if your book fits within it. There are obviously presses with large catalogues that publish in many fields (e.g., OUP) and approaching those is fine, but there are nevertheless subtle differences between them (e.g., some presses may be more receptive to an interdisciplinary approach than others). I would recommend to never approach an academic press that has a reputation for vanity publishing, as it raises a red flag. One can find examples of such presses on prominent philosophy blogs, but I will not mention them here as one of them tends to sue people who say they are a vanity press and I don't want to bring the Cocoon people into trouble.
If your book does not find a home with a top or middling press, it may be worthwhile reconsidering to approach any publisher. It is better not to have a book at all than one with a vanity publisher or with an obscure publisher -- no book means you still have potential to write a book, a book with an obscure or vanity publisher signals that's all you can do. Perhaps it is better to wait, and then rewrite and resubmit later.
Next to reputation, one should also consider pricing. One thing to consider with some good commercial publishers, like Routledge, is that the first edition of monographs tends to be very expensive (around $100), and even the Kindle edition tends to be very expensive. This will probably mean, unless you are a star in the field, that your book will only have limited sales potential, perhaps only some specialists in your field and libraries. This is an important consideration as it is crucial that your book gets read.
4. How to approach a publisher: It is OK and in fact common practice to approach several publishers with the same book proposal. By contrast, full manuscripts are only reviewed by one press at the time. The following video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4emZiLILE) gives very good advice on how to approach publishers (the speaker is the senior acquisitions editor at MIT Press). Wrap up: you don't need to write a long, contorted narrative, or even send your proposal right away. In my case, I just sent a simple 4-line e-mail asking if they would be interested in reviewing a book on topic x, with a very brief, 2 sentence summary of the scope and method. If they are interested, they will follow up. As the speaker on the video explains, acquisitions editors are specialists and have a good sense of what books fit their catalogue and might be a good match, even on the basis of little evidence. Writing very long e-mails with unsolicited book chapters simply looks unprofessional.
5. If the press agrees to have your book refereed, it is a good idea to suggest potential referees, people who are not your advisor or reader of your dissertation, etc, etc, but who would know your work and be able to judge it competently. I had one referee (who later revealed his identity to me) who even suggested other reviewers to the editor who would be competent in reaching a considered judgment about the book. Good referees are crucial.
6. Regardless of verdict, take special care and attention to the referee comments, and write a detailed plan of action that says how you will incorporate them, point-by-point. As with journals, you are not obliged to take on every referee suggestion, but in that case, you need to give good reasons for why you will not incorporate them. In my case, the press was a university press where a board composed of delegates of the press and people of the university meet at regular intervals to decide on whether or not to go ahead with a book. Their positive decision for my book was based on the positive referee reports with suggestions for minor revisions, accompanied by the detailed plan of action indicating how those suggestions would be incorporated, with a projected timetable and approximate word count. I think that even if the review is negative, it is worthwhile to look over the comments as they can contain worthwhile advice. I had 3 referee reports, with about 80 comments, of which about 70 will be incorporated in the book.
Any thoughts?
Comments