First Step to Publishing: Network to Build Relationships, Guest Post by John Wilsey

John Wilsey teaches history and philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of [amazon_link id="1608997928" target="_blank" container="" container_class="" ]One Nation Under God: An Evangelical Critique of Christian America[/amazon_link] and blogs at johndwilsey.com. “How can I get my ideas published in book form?”

This burning question can sometimes animate a young scholar’s mind, body, and soul for months, sometimes years.

For most new Ph.D.s, the dissertation represents the deepest and widest river of writing and scholarship they have ever crossed.

Therefore, the question of how a new Ph.D. can get their dissertation published is not only natural, it is expected.

In my experience, personal and professional connections go a long way toward getting your revised dissertation published.

Questions to Ask Before You Network

Just as significant to these connections are the questions that young scholars should ask themselves:

• Whom do I know?
• Do people respect my work?
• Do others like me on a personal level?
• Am I willing to ask my connections for help?
• How willing am I to market myself to people who do not know me?
• Am I willing to adapt my work, within sensible limits, to see it published?

Think first about the obvious question—to whom are you willing to entrust your intellectual baby?

A university press might be the natural choice for your work.

Perhaps a trade press is the best fit.

Only you can decide whom you are willing to entrust with your intellectual property and regardless of the choice you make, it will be important for you to establish a personal connection with potential publishers.

How Do I Establish Personal Connections?

Attend academic conferences and present conference papers.

If you are not in the practice of at least attending one conference in your field, I have simple advice: Start.

Meet Scholars

Conferences are the best way to meet fellow scholars who work in your field.

You need to build relationships with your colleagues, even those with whom you disagree.

Presenting a conference paper allows you to formally introduce yourself and your research to other scholars.

Meet Publishers

Use the conference website or program to find out which publishers will be present at the book tables.

Look upon most these presses as potential publishers of your work.

Don’t Discount Small Publishers

Don’t be proud or closed-minded. Many small imprints are growing in size and sophistication.

For some, small imprints may be your only option.

Many scholars dismiss small imprints usually because they think their work is too good for them.

Remember: pride goeth before destruction—and obscurity.

Make Appointments with Acquisitions Editors

Make appointments with acquisitions editors two weeks or so ahead of the conference.

Search for the names and e-mail addresses of editors on press websites.

If possible, e-mail editors directly.

Request an appointment in a concise letter that explains your thesis in one sentence.

You might also attach your book proposal and a copy of your CV so the editor can see what you are offering.

You might have to send a letter as a general inquiry.

No problem. Just do it. The worst that happens is you get no response.

Be sure to bring a hard copy of your book proposal, your sample chapter, and CV when you meet for your appointment.

If possible, make appointments with as many of the editors as possible.

The more editors you meet, the more likely one of them will be interested in your work.

Set Realistic Expectations for Meetings

Keep your expectations realistic.

Few will offer you a contract on your first meeting, but the first meeting will establish a first impression, which is the most important one.

The best you can expect is to meet an editor (or two, or three perhaps) who is genuinely interested in your work and willing to start the process of formal consideration by taking your proposal to a committee.

The least you can expect is everyone rejects your work.

If this happens, keep a positive attitude. You will have gained valuable experience by establishing contacts and founding relationships among editors, which is pure gold.

Keep a Positive Attitude

Editorial contacts have enormous potential, and if you are winsome, respectful, and willing to reasonably adjust your work to meet an editor’s standards, there is hope.

An editor who rejects your work may forward your proposal to another editor, just because she liked you.

Attitude is everything.

Go into every meeting convinced that someone will publish your work; maybe not the publisher you meet with, but someone.

Confidence—with humility, and a willingness to listen—go a long way.

What Do You Think?

How did you find your publisher?

Interested in Sharing Your Wisdom on Uncommonplace Book? Email your post ideas to  lizcovart[AT]mac[DOT]com.

How to Write A Book Proposal in 10 Easy Steps

Do you have a great idea for a non-fiction book? Are you vexed by what a book proposal looks like?

This summer I stood in your shoes.

After discussing how I wanted to revise my dissertation into a book manuscript, a potential publisher encouraged me to write a book proposal.

The publisher provided me with a list of information that I should include in my proposal, but their outline left me perplexed as to what each section should look like.

Frustrated, I hired writing coach Michelle Seaton to help me craft my book proposal.

In this post you will learn what a book proposal is, what sections you should include, and tips that will help you strategically plan each section.

What Is A Book Proposal?

A book proposal is part action plan for how you will write (or wrote) your book and part marketing document.

A book proposal should describe your book in succinct detail and excite a publisher/peer-review committee.

The 10 Steps of a Non-Fiction Book Proposal

• Rationale
• Why Press?
• Description
• Annotated Table of Contents
• Sources
• Readership
• Comparable and Competing Works
• Specifications
• Schedule
• Author Bio

Before You Begin: Title Your Work

Potential publishers want to know what they are reading, so give your book a good working title.

Tip: Write your working title at the top of the first page and use CAPS anytime your write the title of your book. This will draw editors' tired eyes to your book and help them as they skim your proposal.

How to Write a Book Proposal: What Goes into Each Section?

1. Rationale

In 2 paragraphs state why your book should be published.

Briefly explain: Why is your argument important? What is novel about your approach or methodology? How does your work add to the existing scholarship? Who is the audience for your book?

2. Why Press?

Answer the question: "Why should [insert name of press] publish this book?"

Tell the editor why your book is a perfect match for their press.

Tip 1: Do your homework. Google the presses you are submitting to and create a list of the titles they have published that are comparable to yours. Mention these titles as you explain why your book is a great fit for their press.

Tip 2: Explain why you want to publish with [insert name of press]. Show the editor that you are excited about their press and want to publish with them.

3. Description

Write an overview of your book. Describe your themes, concepts, and how you will develop your narrative.

Tip: Divide this section into topical paragraphs.

Your first paragraph should address the importance of your topic; describe your topic and why you chose to write a book about it.

Your second paragraph should explain your "take" on the importance of your topic; what is your angle/argument?

Your subsequent paragraphs should describe each of the themes/concepts you will address in the book.

End the section with a summary paragraph that ties in the importance of your work with the themes/concepts you described.

4. Annotated Table of Contents

Break your book into parts.

List each section of your book (Intro, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and so on).

Under each section heading, replace "Chapter X" with your chapter title and describe the narrative you will tell in that chapter.

Tip 1: Describe your chapters in a way that highlights the narrative tension or drama of your story.

Tip 2: Be sure your descriptions reflect how each chapter will smoothly transition to the next.

Tip 3: If your chapters rely on illustrations, explain how you will feature them and how the illustrations will add to your work.

5. Sources

Name the archives you used to gather your research and provide an overview of the collections where you found most of your material.

Tip: Think of this segment as a "highlights" section, not a bibliography.

6. Readership

Answer the question: "Who will read your work?"

Tip: Do your research and be specific. If you mention "scholars" specify the kinds of scholars who will find your book interesting.

If you mention "university professors," specify the types courses they would use your book in and, if possible, an estimate of how many students enroll in those courses.

7. Comparable and Competing Works

Describe published books that might compete with your book and how your book differs from those works.

Show editors that you know about the marketplace for your book.

Tip 1: Be strategic. There may be 30 books similar to yours; describe only those books that are most closely related to your work.

Tip 2: After you narrow your list of comparable works, search each title on Amazon.com. Scroll down to the publication information and look at the their sales ranking. Use this information as you further narrow down your choices to 6-10 books.

Tip 3: Search Google for each title on your list. See if the author was nominated for or won any awards for the work you selected. If they did, mention that award; awards highlight that you have an "award-winning" topic

Tip 4: Respect the editor. Keep your descriptions brief by mentioning the title and author of a competing work, whether they won an award for it, the point they argued, (if essential) how they argued their point, and (briefly) how your book will add or differ from said competing work.

8. Specifications

State the length of your manuscript with a word count. How many words in the body text? How many words in the notes?

Tell the editor how many illustrations you will use and describe them by type, i.e. 10 maps, 3 charts, and 4 photographs.

Tip: Illustrations cost money so limit them if possible. Mention any information you have on copyright holders.

9. Schedule

Tell the editor when your manuscript will be ready for scholarly review.

State whether you need to revise or write sections and when you plan to finish your revisions/writing.

10. Author Bio

Why you? In 1-2 paragraphs summarize why you are qualified to write the proposed book.

Conclusion/Disclaimer

Writing my book proposal proved to be a difficult task for 2 reasons.

First, authors keep their proposals close. Many fear that someone might steal their intellectual property or that a publisher might decline their manuscript because they made their proposal available to the public.

Second, book proposals require a lot of thought. I had to figure out how to articulate why my study of Albany, New York matters and why people outside of the historical profession would want to read a book about it. I also had to consider how I would revise and extend my dissertation. Articulating all of this information was much harder than I thought it would be.

This post contains the information I learned while writing my book proposal. I hope that you find it useful and that it eases your work.

What Do You Think?

What did you (do you) find most difficult about writing your book proposal? Share your story, tips, tricks, and questions by posting a comment.

3 Project Management Tips That Will Make You a Better, More Prolific Writer

Do you have too many research and writing projects going on? Are you tired of trying to manage these projects with calendar and to-do apps that leave their promises of an easier, more organized life unfulfilled?

I used to feel the same way. I had too many projects and not enough time for the project I most wanted to work on most: my book proposal. Or so I thought.

My search for solutions led me to Todd Henry’s book [amazon_link id="1591846242" target="_blank" container="" container_class="" ]The Accidental Creative: How to be Brilliant at a Moment’s Notice[/amazon_link]. The book promises to “help you establish enough structure in your life to get the most out of your creative process…to stay engaged and prolific over the long term.”

Convinced that this book would fall short on its promises, just like my calendar and to-do apps, I borrowed it from the library. However, Todd Henry proved me wrong.

The Accidental Creative lived up to Henry's billing. Using Henry’s practices, I have become an effective project manager and a better, more prolific writer.

Synopsis: The Accidental Creative

In The Accidental Creative, Todd Henry outlines the creative process. He asserts that “by building purposeful practices into your life” creatives can “stay engaged and productive over the long term” and “increase [their] capacity to do brilliant work, day after day, year after year.”

The book has 2 parts: Dynamics (Part 1) and Creative Rhythm (Part 2).

Part 1 describes who creatives are, the kinds of work they do, and why many creatives burnout.

Part 2 lays out Henry’s 6-step plan for managing creativity, which will help a creative avoid burnout.

The heart of Henry’s plan is conscious recognition. Creatives must be conscious of all of the information they take in, the time they spend consuming information, meeting with other people, and creating.

Once creatives become conscious of the information, experiences, and time they consume, they can manipulate those factors into productive creative time.

3 Project Management Tips from The Accidental Creative That Will Make You a Better, More Prolific Writer

1. Notation: Write down all of your ideas, even if they are not immediately relevant to your current project.

Henry advises readers to keep an idea notebook and to regularly review it.

Henry's 4 Tips to Optimize Idea Notebook Organization and Review Time

1. Keep the first few pages of your notebook free for the “Idea Index.” 2. Number the pages of your notebook. 3. Each time you write down an idea, flip to the index and record a brief summary of your idea and note the page number where you wrote down the full idea. 4. Take a few moments each day to scan your “Idea Index” as old ideas may help you with your current project.

2. Checkpoints: Take time each week, month, and quarter to conduct a checkpoint.

Checkpoints are written action plans or schedules that you create on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis.

Henry offers a specific checklist of items you should think about when you conduct each type of checkpoint in Chapter 9.

Checkpoint Basics:

• Set aside time: Weekly Checkpoints: 20-60 minutes; Monthly Checkpoints: 60-90 minutes; Quarterly Checkpoints: 4-8 hours
• Identify the projects you want to complete and the tasks, research, and meetings you need to accomplish them.
• Recognize and take into account all non-work related projects and familial, friendly, and professional obligations when you create your project schedule.

3. Pruning: It is okay to "prune" or let go of activities and commitments that "inhibit your ability to effectively perform."

Pruning doesn't mean saying "No" to every project that comes your way, but it does mean letting go of time-consuming projects that do not add to your overall professional and creative goals.

Success

Todd Henry's "Accidental Creative" practices work.

These 3 valuable techniques have helped me better organize my projects and my work.

Keeping and reviewing an idea notebook has relieved my mind of the burden of trying to remember the ideas I have for my various writing, research, and consulting projects. The notebook holds my ideas until I need them.

The practice of conducting weekly, monthly, and quarterly checkpoints has provided me with the roadmaps I need to complete my projects. Knowing exactly what projects I must complete each week ensures that I make time for them.

I have more focus because I have eliminated time-consuming projects that do not help me get to the “Freelance Historian” life I envision.

The best part: Following Henry’s advice has enabled me to be a prolific writer. As a result, I accomplished my goal: I finished my book proposal.

What Do You Think?

How do you manage your projects? What methods work, or don't work, for you?

Have you read The Accidental Creative? What practice do you find most helpful?

Wanted: Guest Bloggers

Dear Reader, Are you a historian? A writer? Do you have publishing experience, writing techniques, historical research, or tips for historical research that you would like to share?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above questions, please consider becoming a guest blogger for Uncommonplace Book.

I started Uncommonplace Book as a place to share my passion for early American history, writing, and the historian’s craft.

I want the blog to be a useful resource, which is why I try to focus on the ins-and-outs of working as a historian.

I would also like Uncommonplace Book to be a forum where historians and writers can come and share their knowledge about how they work, write, and overcome the challenges of obtaining paid work, fellowships, and access.

My knowledge and experience only go so far, and while I still have advice to share on how to “Get Access” to digital records, improve writing, and tips for book/research project management, I would LOVE to extend the discussion.

Therefore, I invite you to share your advice, tips, tricks, and experiences for how to work better as a historian and/or writer with others at Uncommonplace Book.

If you are interested in sharing your expertise, please send me an e-mail at lizcovart [AT] mac [DOT] com.

My inbox is always open, so please feel free to contact me anytime you have a suggestion for content or features that you would like to see addressed in or added to Uncommonplace Book.

With sincere appreciation for your consideration and continued readership,

Some Thoughts on Theory: New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable Takeaway

I do not consider myself to be a "theory-driven" historian. Theory influences the way I read and think about primary and secondary sources, but I don’t write about how specific theories apply to my argument. Or so I thought.

New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable

On Friday October 5, I attended the inaugural New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable. Sponsored by the Dutch Consulate, the Nederlandse Taalunie, and the New Netherland Institute, the Roundtable convened for a full day of discussion about the scholarship on New Netherland by “emerging” scholars.

Eight emerging scholars and eight established scholars participated. The work of the emerging scholars explored the history of New Netherland from the vantage points of architecture, art, objects, ideas, culture, and trade. As the last presenter, I collected nearly 7 pages of notes about the history of New Netherland before the Roundtable turned its attention to my project.

I participated in the Roundtable with the hope that the other scholars would assist me with sources and ideas for how I could study the influence of Native Americans and non-Dutch Europeans on the development of the New World Dutch identity that developed in Beverwyck/Albany between 1614 and 1664. Although I began with this request, conversation quickly turned to my use of "identity" as a theoretical concept.

Roundtable Discussion

Initially, the Roundtable seemed to support my ideas about identity. Participants asked questions about how the concept worked in the 17^th century, whether I had looked at religion as a major influence in identity creation, or if I had studied the contribution of African slaves to the New World Dutch Identity of Beverwyck. As I considered these questions, Walter Prevenier raised his hand: “I don’t get identity.”

I explained that I understood identity to be the way a person understood their relationship with their ethnicity, religion, community, region, and nation. I also explained that the word “identity” was fraught with ambiguity, which is why I avoid using the word in my written work as much as possible. Instead, I use “self-understandings” or refer to specific subjects of my study.

Prevenier pressed further: “How can you tell how the Dutch colonists identified unless they tell you in the written record ‘I identify as Dutch’?”

Great point.

Without intending to, I had latched on to "identity" as a theory and centered the argument of my dissertation on it. Subconsciously I knew I stood on shaky ground, but the urge to make a grand argument that would contribute to the historiography overwhelmed my objections.

REVELATION

Historical arguments do not have to be steeped in theory to be interesting or compelling.

Prevenier’s point seemed obvious. In fact, as soon as he articulated it, I understood his confusion and realized that it mirrored my own, hence why I used the terms “identity” and “self-understandings” sparingly in my written work.

Prevnier’s remarks helped me to admit that I was trying to force a modern-day concept (albeit a popular one) on my historic subjects who would not have understood “identity” the way I do.

Once I stated this realization out loud, I felt free to leave the theory of “identity” behind me.

Book Proposal Tweaks 

The Roundtable scholars supported my decision to abandon "identity." No one advocated a complete overhaul of my project. Instead we discussed different ways I could reframe the argument I want to make, which is something along the lines of "early Americans used cultural adaptation as a mechanism for surviving life in a sparsely-settled frontier, war, intercultural diplomacy, politics, and economic and demographic change."

I am still working on my new 1-2 sentence explanation of my project, but once I have it, I will tweak my book proposal to reflect it.

I am grateful for the New Netherland Emerging Scholars Roundtable participants for their conversation and ideas. They provided me with invaluable insight that will improve my book.

What Do You Think?

What do you think about using theory to make a historical argument? Do you think theory is necessary to answer our questions about the past? Do you think historians overuse theory?