Skip to main content

I want to write a non-fiction book - part 2 - Outlining

As I mentioned recently, not everyone is a writer - but plenty of people would like to write a book. I've had over 50 books commercially published, so thought it might be useful to do a short series on the essentials of writing a non-fiction book and getting it published. See the end of this post for a summary of the series.

In the first part of this series I looked at deciding whether your idea was really a book - to do this I recommended listing around 10 headings that would set out your basic structure. Now we're going to flesh those out. What we'll get is the biggest part of a book proposal - the document you send to a publisher to sell your idea. It's also extremely valuable once you starting writing the book. What you will do next is, for each heading, fill in some detail.

I'm going to show you two ways to do this - but before I do, I ought to warn you that putting together the outline is the hardest part of writing a book. It can be agony. If you do it properly, it should take you between half a day and a day, which doesn't sound like a lot of effort. But the thing is, what I'm asking you to do is put together all the key topics covered under each heading, at a time you probably won't have fully researched the contents. This really stretches your imagination to the limits. Also - like every forecast or budget - it will be wrong. Some things you list here won't end up in the final book. Some will need to be added as you go along. But it's still an essential part of putting a book proposal (or plan for self-publishing) together.

I'm going to give you two examples of (part of) an outline. In both cases, these are books that use a particular style of having an introductory chapter, then a step back chapter giving some background, then diving in for some more detail. Of course, your book may not be structured like this, but it is one effective way to draw readers in. 

The first example is a bullet point approach. Here we provide a series of subheadings (you could include sub-subheadings too, if it helps) - short phrases that take us through the main points that will be covered. It can be quite useful to have a summary couple of words, then a little more text rounding out the description as you will see here. This is the first three chapters of the original outline for my book on Gravitational Waves.

14 September 2015

·      The first hint – whispers of a detected event on the LIGO team network

·      Engineering runs – this version of LIGO was not live yet. They were still testing

·      Blind injections – even if there was a detection, it could have been a fake

·      Realisation – the reality hits the team: a gravitational wave has been detected


Waves?

·      On the beach – waves at their most familiar

·      Modelling the universe – how we make use of models, like waves to explain the unknown

·      Light fantastic – the wave theory of light and its current status

·      Ripples in the cosmos – other waves, leading to the possibility of gravitational waves

 

Einstein’s baby

·      Newtonian wobbles – how gravitational waves could exist even in Newton’s version

·      Einstein goes relativistic – the introduction of relativity

·      The general theory – Einstein takes on gravity

·      Warps and wefts – the implications of having warped spacetime and its ability to wave

·      Shaking it all about – Einstein’s prediction – but remembering he also said he expected they would be impossible to detect

In the second example, rather than use bullet points, I've written a couple of paragraphs describing the chapter. This can work better with a longer book, where the chapters can benefit from a more readable description. The text below is from the original outline for my book What Do You Think You Are? - note the way that each chapter summary ends with a sentence tying it to the next chapter, which makes it flow better for the reader. This is particularly useful if you are using the outline to sell to a publisher, as it's particularly important then that your text reads well.

1. A Complex Web

Genealogy has never been more popular. Yet TV shows such as the BBC’s Who Do You Think You Are? and genealogy websites can only scratch the surface. This approach may give small insights into where we came from as individuals, yet the components that make you distinctively you form a complex web stretching into the far past that consists of so much more than the skeletal parental lines of genealogy

This introductory chapter prepares us for a dive into the different aspects and pathways of our individual pasts that make us the people that we are.

We can’t ignore genealogy though. It is embedded in our consciousness. However, what we uncover rarely does more than scratch the surface. As we shall discover, though, we can say that the reader is indubitably descended from royalty.

2. Your Ancestors Were Royal

Some of us delight in genealogy, others treat is as family trainspotting – but whatever your view, it has severe limitations. This chapter starts with the idea of a very simple family tree that ignores siblings and works backwards. Each generation, the number of people goes up exponentially: 1, 3, 7, 15… for n generations, it’s 2n-1. It has been estimated that around 107 billion people have ever lived. This is less than 237. Yet 37 generations takes us back fewer than 1,000 years of the circa 200,000 humans have existed. And that’s just one person’s family tree out of 7 billion plus. There’s something very wrong here.

The flaw is in thinking that your real family tree is a neat branching structure – but in reality it’s entangled and intertwined. Whether it’s the intense inbreeding of historical royal families (and the medical problems that brought) or the historically limited gene pool from lack of mobility, such is the entanglement that show mathematically that you are related to everyone in the region you were born in alive 1,000 years ago or earlier (who has living descendants). That includes all the royalty. Just like Danny Dyer, you have royal blood.

This chapter goes on both to include the history of genealogy and the remarkable story of mitochondrial Eve – the result of using mitochondrial DNA, passed down through the female line, to trace back to the most recent common ancestor of all living humans. Going deeper we look at how using the complete genome goes back far further to LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all organisms now living, 3.5 to 3.8 billion years in the past. This, though, is as nothing to your true origin story – the origin of the atoms that makes you up.

3. Stardust Memories

On a physical level, you are a collection of atoms – and they have far more history than any other aspect of what comes together to make you up. In this chapter we trace back the history of a number of atoms in your body to see how they’ve previously been in plants and mountains, movie stars and dinosaurs. But that’s only the beginning. 

Long before the first sparks of life on Earth – before the formation of the solar system around 5 billion years ago – almost every atom that is now in your body already existed. (We’ll also track down those odd ones that didn’t.) We see how the heavier atoms were forged in stars which then exploded to send their stardust across the galaxy. But even that isn’t the beginning. The components of those atoms existed before those exploding stars themselves were formed – as did all the many billions of hydrogen atoms in your body. We see how those came into existence over 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than 400,000 years old. We can even go back further to understand how the energy those atoms were produced from originated with the universe itself.

Atoms are a very reductionist way to see what we’re made up of. But there’s a higher-level pathway to follow too. Food, water, oxygen – there’s a whole mess of inputs required to power your body, grow it and keep it healthy. 

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 Corinne Kutz 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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope