Skip to main content

I want to write a non-fiction book - part 3 - finishing your proposal

The previous part of this series looked at putting together an outline, which both helps the writer get ideas together and is an essential part of a book proposal. Here we'll look at what else a good book proposal contains. Always remember that in the end this is a sales document - you are selling your book idea to a publisher. Make it engaging, not dull.

Start off with a title and subtitle. These may we be changed in discussion with a publisher, but it's a starting point and is necessary. The title is your first opportunity to grab the attention of a would-be reader. Don't waste it. It can either make clear what the book is about, or be a clever title that intrigues, which is then explained in the subtitle. Either way, the subtitle is also a good opportunity to get in some keywords that might be useful when someone searches in an online store.

I recently read Ananyo Bhattacharya's book The Man from the Future. This title could have applied to anyone male, but grabs the attention. The subtitle then fills in the essentials: The Visionary Life of John von Neumann. Or take James Gleick's book Genius. A one word title can be strong - but it certainly wouldn't work without the subtitle The Life and Science of Richard Feynman. This kind of approach works well with something like a biography. Sometimes, though, just coming out with the topic up front can be effective. One of my best-selling books is Inflight Science. We immediately get a picture of the topic area. But even here, the subtitle makes it clearer what it's about - A guide to the world from your airplane window. Without this, you might think the book was just for plane enthusiasts.

Next in the proposal we need a summary of what the book is about - no more than a page, and ideally somewhat less. (Historically, sticking to one page had a specific reason as publishers used to circulate a single page of paper internally - but keeping it compact is still essential.) The summary should encapsulate exactly what the book will do as a product. It's a common mistake to write this like the blurb on the back of a book. But that's aimed at the public and will often both use superlatives and leave questions unanswered to avoid spoilers. A commissioning editor is not interested in you saying this is the best book on [whatever your book is about] ever published. They want to read about what the book will deliver, not see self-praise. Make sure you give answers to the key points covered. If, for example, it is a book about an unsolved crime, you need to put your solution in here. 

Write your summary like a good newspaper article. You want to grab your reader's attention and hold them. Craft the opening sentences so the editor wants to read on. The first paragraph should get us deeply engaged in the core of your subject, not meander around background matters. And make sure you end by pulling the whole thing together. Highlight what's special about your book. If you have personal experience that's relevant, mention it in passing, but unless it's a memoir/autobiography the essential is the book's topic, not you. You can reserve most of that for a short (no more than half a page) 'about the author' section, which should come next. Don't tell them about your school exam results - make sure it's about your experience that makes you the ideal person to write this book.

Next, the editor will want to see some context. Tell them what is already published in this area and why your book is different and better that the competition. Try to do this honestly - pick out four or five books that are as close as possible to yours. Reasons yours might be better include the other books being out of date, lacking detail, taking a totally different line and so on. 

A final precursor to your outline is a short section on audience and delivery. Who will want to read your book? Resist the temptation to say everyone - it's just not true. But with many non-fiction books there are specific subgroups of the population who might particularly enjoy reading it. Make it clear who they are (and specify why). As far as delivery goes, when could you reasonably deliver the manuscript by? Again, be honest. Don't tell them what you think they want to hear, but what is realistic for you. 

You also need to give a length in words and details of scale of illustration. Broadly, slim non-fiction titles start around 60,000 words, midsized around 80,000 and chunky ones 100,000 or more. As far as those illustrations go, how many do you envisage? Break it down, if relevant, to diagrams and photographs. Usually photographs will be black and white, in line with the text. (This means they need to be high contrast. Photos, say, of space scenes simply don't work this way.) If you need colour, say so - but be aware it pushes up cost and may make your book less likely to be published, unless it is a book that's driven by its illustrations. We'll come back to different kinds of book when we look at finding a publisher, as not all produce heavily illustrated books. Of course you won't actually know numbers of images or diagrams you need, but you can give a good guess.

Next comes the outline (see previous topic), and finally a sample of the book itself - usually a chapter or 10 to 20 pages. There's a temptation to make this your 'best' bit, but bear in mind the editor has to read it in isolation, so it can often be best to make it the first chapter (though ideally not an introduction, as these are often dull). This is your chance to show what your writing style is like. Don't try to fake it and be more literary than you usually would be - just make it count as an excellent piece of writing.

To finish, here's an outline of the topics this series of posts will cover.

  1. Is my idea a book?
  2. Outlining
  3. Other parts of a proposal
  4. The pitch letter
  5. Finding a publisher (or agent)
  6. The contract
  7. Publicity (and extra earnings)
  8. Self-publishing

Image by Scott Graham from Unsplash

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense