next »

[drkinbote]

Hi everyone,

Last summer, a new series at basically the top academic press in my discipline contacted me to express interest in my project (my first book). I had met one of the series editors a few months earlier, and she remembered my project and talked it up to her colleagues.

All of the series editors and the acquisitions editor contacted me to ask for a proposal. They said they could issue a contract after seeing a proposal, intro, and 2 chapters. I said at the time that I would send it in 6 months or so. I have my proposal and sample chapters within a few weeks of being ready, but the manuscript itself is not yet done--I am just beginning the last chapter, which should be done by June 1st or so. I already have the book's argumentative arc worked out, so not having that chapter written is not hurting the proposal significantly at this point. The other chapters have been revised a few times and will need another round of revisions before I would send them off. I think I can do that while writing this last chapter.

My question is--is it in my best interest to even pursue this or should I wait until I have a full manuscript? Though they didn't call this an advance contract, that is what I understand it to be. It seems to me that this confines me but not them. I am wondering if any of you have any experience/wisdom about this situation. I am attracted to the idea of having readers/editors on board early to help guide the final revisions sooner rather than later, but I also worry that there are pitfalls to this approach I should consider.

Thank you!

I am in my 2nd year on the tenure track.

[betterslac]

If this a press you want to publish with, go for it. Just because you have a manuscript in hand doesn't mean that the editors/reviewers may not want significant changes in your approach. My book that will be coming out at top press has been importantly reshaped by a reviewer the acquisition editor works closely with even though I submitted the original proposal with a complete manuscript in hand. This has meant some significant revisions and additional research on my part.

In short:

1) If this is a top press and they are willing to offer you a contract, that's what you want, right? Better an early acceptance than having to grind out more proposals and go through the "we're sending it out for review so you can't send it to another press" routine that eats up valuable time.

2) Better to have the views of editors and reviewers on hand while drafting the last few chapters and polishing the early parts than have do that work, then have to go back and make significant revisions.

[wanna_writemore]

Depending on your department and institution, an advance contract may also be beneficial in your annual review/third year review/pre-tenure sabbatical application if any of these applies to you.

[drkinbote]

Thank you, wanna and better! You have offered some valuable perspectives. I guess one reason why I am reluctant when I really have nothing to lose is that I wasn't planning to do any of this until next year. This feels like the opportunity may be too good to pass up at this point.

Thank you again!

[parispundit]

Also, the advance contract can be useful when applying for grants to finish the book.

[flotsam]

Also, and you may be a lot more motivated than me, I found that having the advance contract -- with its clearly established "delivery date" -- kept me on pace.  I was once working on a book without such a clear deadline, and it's still a back-burner, work in progress; two other books, which each had an advance contract, are now out and on the shelves. 

[mickeymantle]

I'd read the advance contract carefully to see if it's a definite commitment or "we want first dibs, but reserve the right to reject." 

[janewales]

I'd read the advance contract carefully to see if it's a definite commitment or "we want first dibs, but reserve the right to reject." 

The latter describes most of the advance contracts I've seen. Even contracts that are offered after approval of a full manuscript usually contain some weasel language about the press's right to refuse the final version, if it isn't delivered on time, or if it doesn't somehow pass muster.

[octave]

That's right, but you can probably proceed with confidence.  At my press, we don't grant advance contracts unless we think it's extremely likely we'll publish the book, and we consider the contract to be a commitment in principle to publish.  I can't, off the top of my head, think of any books to which we granted an advance contract that we didn't end up publishing, except for a couple where the authors gave up on the book (and one more where the author signed the contract and then took the book to another press...).

[flotsam]

I'd like to second octave's point, and also note that you probably should be happy with the policy that states "an advance contract does not mean a guarantee of publication."  After all, would you really want to publish with a press that will expressly agree to publish anything they get, regardless of quality.  Obviously, the publisher found your proposal strong and wants to publish the book, but there needs to be review of the final manuscript before publication.  Thank goodness.

[astoryteller]

I agree with the other posters (who I'm sure have more experience than I) that an advance contract can do you a lot of good but no harm. And, with some presses, there's not much difference between an advance contract and a final contract. I was offered an advance contract for my book, then after the review process, that advance contract continued to serve as my final contract. It had all the details laid out in it, besides the final manuscript submission date, which we agreed on my email.