Publishing Considerations
More cents on publishing a monograph
So far, my posts about the process of publishing a monograph have appeared in a strange sequence, meaning that I didn’t follow the order of actual operations.1 Today I’m jumping back to the beginning so I can share some of my opinions about some factors that precede the proposal process. In my next post, I’m also going to share the proposal I wrote for Big Feelings, in case it’s helpful. What I’m writing here is about some factors to consider as/before you’re ready to submit that proposal. I’m just one person, so you should definitely talk to other folks if you’re at this stage. For me, the following is based on both my experiences and the years I’ve spent thinking with Laura Portwood-Stacer’s work. As ever, my biggest piece of advice remains to engage with it, whether that means signing up for workshops, working independently through The Book Proposal Book, or some combination.
1. Choosing a Goal Press
Academic publishers and seasoned writers have a sense for what kind of projects fit with what kind of presses, in part because the word has been out about what kind of work those presses are interested in pursuing. It’s a bad idea to pitch your book all over the place and simply hope that one press goes for it; instead, tailor your pitch specifically towards the goals and track record of a press that feels like it could be the ideal home for your project.
It can be difficult to figure out what makes a good “fit,” but you can take concrete steps to gather information, first and foremost by looking at what presses have already published. Each press will have particular strengths in their lists, or perhaps a series with guest editors that specifies broader categories. What intellectual lineages most inform your book? What existing work does your project engage with? Where were these published? Trace the important texts back to their source, then browse publishers’ websites to see what they’ve been up to lately. Take your best guess, and to verify if you’re onto something, have a chat with an editor.
As LPS often says, think of acquiring editors less as gatekeepers and more as potential allies—they do well when you do well, which means that if they can’t foresee a successful partnership, they’re actually doing you a favor by saying no. They might feel gatekeepy at the stage of initial conversation insofar as they suggest your project might not be a great fit for their press; but this is super valuable information to have! It saves you from wasting time on a proposal that’s not likely to go anywhere for reasons that may have nothing to do with the strength of your idea. If an editor is saying “this probably won’t work for us,” an informal chat can also clue you into where your book might land more successfully. “I couldn’t make this work, but have you thought about X press?” is a great outcome, even if it can feel discouraging initially.2
2. Actually doing it
Here too, there are options: submitting to a press can mean sending a cold email with a full book proposal attached, but it can also mean sending a “pitch” email that simply asks for a conversation. More often than not, the latter is more helpful in my view. A pitch email summarizes the main arguments and methods of your project in a paragraph or two, and basically asks if you’d be able to have a further conversation to gauge the press’s interest. That conversation can happen at a conference or over zoom, or the editor might say something simple like “yes we’re interested, send it over when you’re ready.” Either way, it’s an opportunity to start developing a relationship with actual people who work at these presses—and that is, in my view, essential.
3. Simultaneous Submissions
I’d recommend having a few top-choice presses in mind (let’s say three) and a few presses that would also work, even if they seem less perfectly aligned with your biggest hopes and dreams for whatever reason. Once you’ve got your list, there are a few different ways of thinking about how to proceed.
One approach would be to pitch your top press, see if they go for it, and if not, move down the list. Another would be to pitch a few at the same time and see who bites. I think either works, but you might lean towards one or another based on a few factors. For example: how “top” is your top press? If it’s miles ahead of everything else for some reason—almost like you can’t imagine your book coming out with any other press—then focus all your energy on cultivating that relationship. This sometimes happens with projects based in a specific community (if your ethnographic work is based in West Virginia or North Carolina, WVU or UNC press might make a lot of sense for putting that work back into the communities from which it comes). It also sometimes happens because of a particular concept or series that’s particular to a certain place. (Think about how much affect theory came out with Duke in the 2000s, for example.)
If there are two or three places that seem equally viable, you’re looking to see who might be most interested. In that case, consider simultaneous submission, but carefully. Presses expect that many authors will pursue this route, but there are good and bad ways to go about it. Some presses will explain clearly what their policies are regarding simultaneous submission, and all you have to do to keep on their good side is a) follow those, and b) disclose what you’re doing transparently. Other presses won’t have a policy spelled out, but you can inquire with an editor before submitting your proposal. Knowing how they view the practice will help you decide on your approach.
Whatever you do, the golden rule for simultaneous submissions is to be clear about what you’re planning at each stage. It’s generally fine to say, somewhere in your proposal, “at this stage I am submitting at multiple presses.” Where it can get tricky is if you move forward with two or more presses at once (which is why some presses have an “exclusive review” policy, where it’s ok for you to pitch a few places at once, but they prefer you to undergo peer-review with one press at a time).
As a rule of thumb, the further along in the process you go, the less cool it is to be also doing that with another press; put differently, the more time and energy a press puts into pursuing your project, the less OK they’re going to be if you ditch them for someone else. Think of that opening pitch email—you can send that to 1,000 presses for all that it matters; you’re just having a conversation at that point! But if you give someone your full book proposal and sample chapters, that should already be a list way narrowed down, perhaps two at a time with an idea about the next two or three if those don’t work out. By the time that material goes out for review, it should ideally only be going for review with one press at a time.3
4. Contract Options
If a press wants to pursue your book, there are generally two ways that can happen. I very strongly prefer one over the other, and I’ll explain why.
The first is the “full manuscript” route: you give the press your book, they send it out for review, and based on those reviews, decide if they’ll offer you a contract or not. This is not a solitary decision; editors take your book proposal, manuscript, the peer reviews that came in, and your written response to the peer reviews to their board for a vote. This is where acquiring editors really become your advocates: they are presenting not only your work but also your plan for making that work into a worthy book.
If the board votes to move forward, you will be offered a contract. The contract can vary, but may stipulate a second round of review. If there is a second round, the press will try to send it to the same reviewers from the first round, so they can see if you addressed any problems or suggestions. You can negotiate a little on the details of a contract, but generally the payment schemes are fixed.4 This option really works for established authors who know what a finished manuscript looks like.
The second is the “advance contract” option, and I like this one best for a bunch of reasons. (More pertinently, I recommend it for early-career authors.) One reason you might take this option is if you’d like to have a book contract while not having finished your book. This can be helpful if you’re on the job market, or want to go around to conferences and say that your book is under contract. The advance option allows you to do this when you’ve only written two chapters, because it only requires those two chapters and a book proposal. Together, those three documents go out for peer review, and based on the reviews (and again, your plan for responding to them), the press decides whether or not to offer you a contract.
One difference with this option is that it’s guaranteed that your entire book will have to go out for another round of review once it’s finished—your contract isn’t “final” in this sense, but simply guarantees that you will submit a full book by such and such date, and that that manuscript will be sent out by the press for review. It might sound stressful to elongate the process like this, and to effectively force yourself to do more peer review (a process that is far from flawless). BUT! I think it’s still worth doing, especially for first time authors.
In addition to the benefits of being able to say that you have a contract, one huge factor to consider is how receiving early peer feedback can improve your book. With this option, you get an opportunity to take on advice and perspectives while you’re still actively writing the thing, giving you time to shape it as you’re going. Especially if your full manuscript goes back to the same people who reviewed the sample chapters, peer review can turn into a collaborative and ongoing dialogue between two parties who each want the book to be good.
For me, the biggest example of how this can be advantageous is the fourth chapter of Big Feelings, which was entirely suggested by a peer reviewer.5 If someone you really respect says ‘it seems like this book would really benefit from a chapter on X’ at a conference, you’re lucky if the timing works out and you can actually think about taking their advice. Going advance contract ensures that you get loads of feedback early, with ample time to take it on board. Your book will be better for it.
That kind of outcome, of course, depends on drawing generous and generative reviewers, which can feel like an absolute crap-shoot. In some ways, it is. But keep in mind that you can suggest potential reviewers (so long as they’re not personal friends or mentors)—in addition to requesting that your book not be sent to specific people (say, if you’ve developed a methodological nemesis). In your suggestions, you might explain why a given scholar might be a perfect reader for your project, and the press is very likely to be convinced by a good argument. If you have a collegial but professional relationship with senior scholars in your field, keep them in mind: as I wrote here, your peer reviewers will ideally become your first blurbers, and therefore, additional advocates for your project.
That’s all for now. Please let me know if there’s anything I’ve left out :)
Previous posts cover blurbs, promotion, the dissertation —> book issue, and the trade issue.
Sometimes the response will be mixed, somewhere in-between enthusiasm for your idea and disinterest. To turn tentative curiosity into full-throated excitement, you might have to tweak your proposal to better fit a press’s vision; I wrote about my experience with that process here.
For a variety of reasons, my proposal for Big Feelings ended up going out with two presses simultaneously. This turned out fine, and I communicated constantly with both editors about this. I did end up feeling kind of icky about it though, because one press had gone that far down the process with me only to have me turn around and say “I’m going to go with another option.” Try to avoid that if you can.
Common points of negotiation involve “first right” clauses—where the press you’re publishing with now asks to be the first press you pitch for any future projects—and details over the type of copyright you will or won’t retain. In my contracts so far, I’ve askes for the first right clause to be dropped, and that I retain my copyrights. I’ve had no problems getting these requests approved.