Academic

More on Writing Academic Books

By Jacqueline Lipton

To return to my sometime obsession about academic book writing, here's another question I have for the blogging community.  When people think about writing academic books, do they generally write the book first and then shop around for a publisher, or do they court a publisher with a proposal first and then write the book after they get the contract?

I've known colleagues who take both approaches, and I suspect it's as much to do with personal choice as anything else.  I can see pros and cons in both approaches.  Obviously, if you write the thing first, you risk not being able to find a publisher who wants a book exactly as you have written it - so therefore having to confront the possibility of making changes/compromises after putting all of that work into the book.  You can also face problems, as a colleague did recently, that a prospective publisher sends only portions of the completed manuscript out for review (rather than the whole manuscript).  This can lead to odd reviewer comments from reviewers who didn't get the chance to see the chapters in the full context of the work as a whole.

Of course, if you go with a proposal first to a publisher without having written the book, you potentially run the risk of publisher/editorial intrusion into the original concept - which could theoretically make the book better or worse depending on the nature of the publisher's suggestions/requirements.  A publisher may be more inclined to be proscriptive about a proposal for a book that hasn't been written yet than when confronted with a completed draft manuscript.

When I've worked on books, it's always been proposal first, then contract, then writing up.  But I'm interested in others' experiences/perspectives.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on May 12, 2009 (boomark / email).