I want to write a non-fiction book - part 5 - finding a publisher (or agent)

The quick version of this part of the non-fiction book journey is 'do your research'. I have a friend who runs a small publishing house that specialises in certain kinds of memoir and self-help. Every week, she receives novels, and non-fiction proposals that are way outside her scope. This does not make her happy.

Traditionally I would have said the best thing to do would be to buy a copy of one of the publishing guides, but now it's easy enough to go through a good number of books aimed at a similar readership as is your own in an online bookshop, noting down their publishers. Build a list of, say, ten likely publishers then visit their websites and explore them in detail. Look at how they describe themselves and what ranges of books they publish. Take a look at any guidance they have for authors. As mentioned in the previous part, try to find an appropriate contact (a commissioning editor, usually) to send a proposal to for each publisher. (Linked-In can sometimes help with this.) Only then send off your proposal.

Some worry about sending out a proposal to more than publisher. There's no need to be concerned. In the olden days, some publishers might have regarded this as 'bad form' - but they are more commercial organisations now and recognise that this is going to happen.

A number of publishers don't take direct submissions from authors, requiring you to have an agent. This is typically the really big publishers, such as Penguin Random House. We'll come onto agents in a moment. But most of the smaller publishers do take direct approaches - and they may well be better to start with than a big firm. With the big companies you are a tiny fish in a huge sea and may well get very little support even if your book is commissioned. I've almost always get more post-publication marketing from small to medium sized publishers than the big names.

An agent, of course, takes some of the pain of hunting for a publisher away, in exchange for typically between 10 and 20 per cent of your earnings. They can seem appealing - I've worked both with and without an agent. The biggest plus from having an agent was being made more visible to the publishing business at large. He also got me the biggest advances I've ever had (interestingly, for book that would not be my bestselling ones, in part because of that lack of marketing). But the downside of having an agent, apart from giving up that percentage of my earnings, was that I had to fit my publishing timetable to him, often leaving me with weeks or months without anything happening. It can also be harder to get an agent than to get a publisher direct. In the end I preferred the hands-on control of not having an agent and we were mutually happy with the parting.

If you want to find an agent, again research them well. Some specialise in different types of books, or different markets. Because agents are less visible to the public than publishers, you will get more benefit here from getting a copy of something like the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook to help develop a contact list.

So, you make contact, a publisher likes your proposal and makes you an offer. Brilliant. But they will also send you a contract - and that can have plenty of pitfalls, so that will be our next consideration.

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

Image by Jaredd Craig from Unsplash

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

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

Search This Blog