In this post, I wanted to talk about two different ways to go about seeking a contract for a monograph.
In the first way, one drafts an entire manuscript, polishes it, then writes up a book proposal and sends it out to publishers. If publishers are interested, they can request the full manuscript to send out to referees. If the referees are impressed, the publisher may offer a contract to the author. After the author revises the manuscript in light of referee comments, the book will likely go out for a final clearance review before publication.
In the second way, one writes up a book proposal with, perhaps, only a few chapters completed. The proposals, together with the sample chapters, are sent out to publishers, who decide whether to offer a contract on the basis of the proposal, rather than on the basis of a completed manuscript. As far as I know, most or all major academic publishers still require a clearance review of the final manuscript before publication.
There may be some minor variations of these cases based upon the practices of individual publishers and, perhaps, the nature of the work and the stature of the author, but my sense is that most academic monographs follow one of these two processes.
For some authors, there is no need to choose which process to follow. For most authors lacking a long and illustrious CV, a full manuscript will likely be required before a publisher will offer a contract, or so I have been told both by other authors and by editors.
My first book came out earlier this month. (It’s on divine determinism; if you are interested in this sort of thing, you can find more information about it here. Should I be ashamed of mentioning this? Is it shameful self-promotion? I have read through this post (and its many comments), and still don’t know.) When I began writing that book, it was clear to me that I was in no position to gain a contract without a full draft in hand. Because of this, I simply started to write. After I finished my first complete draft, I revised it. When I had taken it as far as I thought I could, I began taking a look at publishers. I began by making a list of decent publishers—those that show up on publisher polls and others that I have found to publish good work. Then I went through their catalogs to see whether my book would be a good fit for them, given what they had recently published. Finally, I decided to approach a publisher with a short letter of intent. That letter was received well, and the editor asked for a proposal. This yielded a request for a full draft, and in due course, I had a contract.
The downside of needing a full draft is the enormous opportunity cost in drafting a book that does not find a publisher. As I noted in an earlier post, one of the benefits of being at an institution focused upon teaching is that my tenure decision will not turn on my publication record. Nevertheless, I certainly did not want to put endless hours into writing something that would never be published at all.
Many (most?) early career authors are not really in a position to avoid this danger, since they likely will be unable to receive a contract without a full draft in hand.
I was curious, though, about the practices of those who think they might be in a position to get a contract earlier than that. Do you try to do so? I would suspect that most people with the experience and name recognition to get a contract on the basis of a few chapters could also be confidant that their work will find a good home whenever they approach a publisher. Thus, the main worry with writing the full manuscript first—that it might not find a publisher—is likely not much of a worry for the only people who are likely to get a pre-draft contract.
Perhaps, though, there are other benefits of having a contract in hand early. Besides the relative peace of mind it brings, I supposed it also quickens the process. One can continue working on the draft while the proposals are under review, so the project spends less time in limbo. Additionally, having a contract in hand would provide a deadline. Although some might prefer avoiding this, I think I would prefer to have it. Setting my own deadlines is helpful, but having a publisher do so would be even more helpful.
For those of you out there that have been in the position of choosing which contract process to pursue, which have you taken? Why?
I must confess that I was curious about this even during the early stages of writing my first book. Now, however, the question has become slightly more practical. I am currently working on a second book, and although I think I am not a great candidate for a pre-draft contract (one thing that will hurt my chances is that the second book is in a different area), I have wondered whether I should at least try to get an early contract.
Leave a Reply to Marcus ArvanCancel reply