Working on the “Fragments of Evolving Manhood” series has pretty much convinced me that I want to give the book on manhood and masculinity that I started writing in the 1980s another try. It will be, obviously, a very different book than the one I was working on back then, if only because I am twenty years older and so my view of the overall subject and of the material I already have written will be correspondingly different; but the idea of the book itself, a series of personal, literary essays that explore, from a feminist perspective, in intimate detail, a man’s experience of manhood, remains compelling to me. As far as I know, there was no book like it on the market twenty years ago; and, as far as I know, there is no book like it on the market now; and I think we need such a book. (Whether or not the book I want to write will ultimately prove to be that book is a question that is not for me to answer; I just know that I want to try.)
I have also decided that, just like I did the first time around, I want to try to find an agent to help me sell the book. In preparation for going through that process again, I recently read through all the correspondence I have saved from the agents and editors who read my proposal during the six years that I or my agent–because I did have one for a brief time–were trying to sell the manuscript. It’s been an instructive experience, both encouraging, because of all the seriously supportive things people had to say about my work, and discouraging, because with very rare exceptions everyone’s bottom line response expressed, more or less, the same sentiment expressed in the title of this post.
I don’t remember what I felt receiving these responses back then, but reading them now, it’s hard for me not to feel that all the people who wrote to me or my agent had gone to the same committee meeting, where they’d all been given the same instructions for how to respond to proposals like mine. My point is not that any of these agents or editors were being dishonest or insincere. Rather, the consistency of their responses suggests to me that the state of the market was indeed as they described it, though I did find one agent who was willing take a chance on me. Hers was the second response I received in 1994, when I first started sending the proposal out. The first one, though, turned out to be the prophetic one:
This is a good piece of work you’ve sent me and one that well deserves to find its way into publication. But unfortunately I am already involved with one men’s issues book which I will admit to having trouble with so rather than take on something else which is a bit competitive I think I’d best concentrate my efforts and wish you the best of luck in your pursuits.
I don’t have anymore the acceptance letter I received from the woman who became my agent, but I do have some of the responses she received from editors. The first was from Pocket Books:
It’s a powerful, unrestrained, philosophically intriguing and potentially controversial examination of the issues of male socialization and sexuality. As intriguing as it is, however, it doesn’t quite have the huge commercial potential that would make it right for Pocket Hardcover.
The second response was from Putnam. “The book is strong stuff. Ether you like it or you don’t, and although I am interested in the ideas, there is no chance that this would succeed at Putnam.” The letter did not say specifically why, but in context, it was clear that the reason was the editor’s lack of confidence in the book’s commercial potential. Basic Books had a similar response, “I read portions of the material with great interest. Newman is a good writer and this is an interesting subject. However, I am skeptical about the commercial prospects of such a work.” Finally, after a year without success, without even so much as a nibble, my agent gave up. She, after all, had a business to run. This is what she wrote me:
The men’s books I’ve worked on this year have been met with nothing but resistance and “there is not market” and “all the men’s books, even Bly [Iron John] and Keane [Fire in the Belly] did not do well.” I think it is therefore wise for me to stick with what publishers know me for, that is books about and for and by women.
To hear over and over again how compelling the sample chapters were and how timely the topic was only to be told, Sorry, no. We just don’t think the book will sell, was not only frustrating; it was also confusing. I was perfectly willing, within limits, to revise the book to make it more commercially viable, but no one seemed interested in even asking me to try. So, to give myself some distance and the opportunity to look at it again with fresh eyes, I put the proposal away for about six months and devoted my time to working on other projects. Then I revised it, developed a new list of agents and editors to try and started sending the proposal out again. The answers I received were tellingly similar to those I’d received during the previous year.
One agent who responded positively asked me to make some changes, which I did, but even after revising the sample chapter in the way I was asked to, this is the response I received:
Reading over the revised proposal that was sent to our office, which was careful and respectful of our comments, I was quite impressed. However, upon a second reading, it became clearer to me that we are not the right agency to represent a book like yours. One of the aspects of your chapters that I admire the most, the intelligent linking of pivotal autobiographical moments to major currents of thought and important thinkers, is what makes them inaccessible to the kind of audience that publishers we normally work with cater to.
I appreciated this agent’s honesty, of course, and I appreciated as well the way in which the changes he asked for improved the proposal overall, but I still did not have a publisher and his comments about audience depressed me, since I began to wonder if all of the publishers the proposal had been sent to catered to the same kind of audience. Another agent confirmed this for me when she wrote, “It is a rich blend of personal, philosophical, and political elements, but I ultimately came away from it deciding it didn’t work for me. As others have told you…the blend of elements I’ve just mentioned also makes it more analytical and academic than what most larger publishers are looking for.” She then went on to suggest that I try smaller presses or university presses, where I could submit an unagented manuscript without a problem.
I had decided after my agent dropped me that I would be perfectly happy to publish with such a press, and I had a list of potential publishers ready to go. So, in 1998, I gave up searching for an agent and started sending the proposal to small and university presses. The first response I received was from Indiana University Press. “Although the project looks very interesting and exciting, I do not feel that your…book fits in with our current list. You might want to try a commercial publisher.”
The small presses to which I sent the proposal were either otherwise committed or not interested in the book because they didn’t think it fit their list. Then, with a referral by someone with some influence, I submitted the proposal to Temple University Press, and the editor liked the proposal enough that he sent it out for anonymous review. This is how university presses vet the projects that are sent to them. Academics in the field read the proposal and make recommendations to the press about whether they think the manuscript ought to be published. There were either two or three reviews of my proposal, I don’t remember exactly, but I do remember that, in addition to the very positive one of which I still have a copy, there was a completely negative one that I wish I had saved.
The man who wrote the negative review rejected completely the entire premise of the project, since I was not calling for the end of manhood, the end of gender. The man who wrote the positive review, on the other hand, not only had some wonderful critiques and suggestions for how to make the manuscript better; he also completely got what I was trying to do:
This is an attempt to harness the current memoir craze to politically correct effect–that is to write the memoirs of a profeminist man. To my knowledge this is a first. I think that the market is ready for a male confessional that specifies the ways in which “typical” male socialization involves coercion, brutality, and a significant amount of pain–without ever losing sight of the larger issues of privilege and patriarchy.
Unfortunately, because the reviews of my project were so mixed, Temple’s editor did not feel he would be able to persuade his board to publish the book and that, near the end of 1999, turned out to be the last straw. I just did not have the strength to go back into the material one more time to figure out how to revise the sample chapter and the proposal, and so I decided the market was simply closed against me. I put everything into a folder and turned my attention to writing poetry, where, as it turned out, I had a good deal more luck getting published. The Silence of Men, which deals in verse with a lot of the same ideas I was writing about in Evolving Manhood, was published by CavanKerry Press in 2004, and I became as well a translator of classical Persian poetry. So far, I have published two books of my own and one as a co-translator.
It has been more than ten years since I set Evolving Manhood aside, and, as I said above, I am ready to try again to publish it. My own sense is that the book will sell, but that it is more likely to sell by word of mouth than anything else, which would seem to make it a perfect fit for a small press, and I will try small presses again. I want first, however, to try one more time to find an agent. Obviously, there are advantages to me as a writer, financial and otherwise, if I do and he or she can sell the book; but I also like the way the process of finding an agent forces me to be at the top of my game in terms of the sample chapter(s) I submit and in the way I articulate what I have to say in the book proposal. It is a lot of work, and, frankly, the possibility for a greater financial return that exists with an agent helps to make all that work worthwhile, even if, in the end, I don’t get an agent and the press that publishes the book is too small to be worth an agent’s while.
Wish me luck!
Cross-posted on It’s All Connected
Richard,
I am certainly interested in reading this book, whenever you complete it.
Regarding publishing and publicity, though, have you considered releasing it under a Creative Commons license in digital form, in addition to selling physical copies? I admit it’s a bit unorthodox, but it has been a successful model for some authors, and I can imagine might be particularly successful for a book that would require more word-of-mouth to get things rolling.
Anyway, just an idea. As a free culture advocate and professional artist, it would certainly be pleasing to me if you feel you could take this route. But if not, of course that is understandable.
For what it’s worth, in the past decade masculinity studies has been a growth field in academia. You might have a better response from university presses now. And at this point, they’re particularly interested in books that have commercial potential. Some of them–Oxford is an obvious one–even have commercial arms. With university presses, it’s always useful to get a patron to approach the editor first, someone on the editorial board or an eminence grise who has published with them before. It can make editors much saner about weird readers’ reports.
Cessen:
I have indeed considered this, though it is not my first choice, at least as much because I don’t have the money to print physical copies–and I know POD is quite reasonable and because I just don’t have the extra cash–and because I don’t, right now anyway, have the time (or money) to invest in designing the book, etc. as for any other reason, though that might change by the time I’m done with the manuscript. Depends on where I am in the process of finishing up other projects to which I am committed.
Yusifu:
Thanks for that. It has been my sense of things, though I stopped a lot of the masculinity studies-related reading I was doing when I set the book aside, and so my picture of what’s going on has been, of necessity, less well-informed than it had been. One of the ironic things about what happened with Temple is that I did, indeed, have an eminence grise–though I am not sure he’d published with them before–initiate things. When the editor finally rejected me–and I remembered this only now; it probably belonged in the post–one of the things he said that stuck with me is that, “Part of the problem with a book like yours is that everyone thinks they know what masculinity is, but no one can seem to agree about it.” He was trying to be helpful, and I think, at the time, he was probably, in some way, right. Perhaps, as you say, things might be different now.
While you may have better fortunes this time I get the feeling that this, “Part of the problem with a book like yours is that everyone thinks they know what masculinity is, but no one can seem to agree about it.” is still going to be a roadblock you will encounter.
And frankly I think it might be worse now than before. Say what you want about the Male Studies concept but one of the biggest “criticisms” were from disciples of Men’s Studies smuggly claiming they’ve already explored that territory and acting as if there is nothing else to be said about it. I myself an big on men speaking up for themselves so I hope you get your book out there regardless of whether I would agree with the material or not.
Danny:
I wonder if you’d be willing to elaborate on this. I don’t quite understand what you mean. Thanks.
Actually I think I may be wrong by pinning this solely on disciples of Men’s Studies but from what I saw of people who were criticising Male Studies the critiques pretty much fell into two camps. Those who claimed the Male Studies was not bringing anything new to the table and those who declared it anti-feminism.
In short the idea that that one discipline has fully explored the study of men/boys and there no need for anyone else to try and say anything else on the matter.
This is actually the type of attitude that I’ve run into on my own blog and in conversation a few times. People declaring there is nothing wrong with men and masculinty. I’m just not a fan of the idea that man/boyhood and masculinity have been fully explored and there’s not else to say. (And related to that I also don’t like the idea that being a man automatically means one has nothing meaningful or useful to say.)
Edit: Yes Mandolin that would be the one.
Okay I tried to edit that but for some reason in the edit screen every time a second ticked off the clock the comment would scroll up one line.
should be:
Self-publish on Amazon for e-books. You need only the most elementary of layouts and a clean copy.
Are you referring to this specific male studies program?
Okaaaaay. Well, you know, people might have a different reaction to a male studies program that doesn’t include as part of its argument that “feminists are just irritating.”
I never said the reaction was invalid but I trying not to get into that part as much as the idea that a single entity has already covered all there is on a subject. (But I’ll be more than happy to go into the anti-feminist thing in the Annex version of this post once I get home from work tonight.)
Danny:
I don’t understand the first part of this sentence, but I don’t think anyone anywhere has said that feminism, men’s studies, gender studies, queer studies–have I left out any academic “studies” discipline that has something to say about manhood and masculinity?–“has covered all there is on a subject.” Trying to establish “Male Studies”–and I have to say the name sounds pretty ridiculous to me–as a new discipline seems to me to have more to do with academic turf and/or the desire to escape a certain kind of scrutiny than with the actual substance of what is being studied.
ETA: Robert: Just wondering, have you used Amazon’s services? Or do you know anyone who has?
The first part of that was addressing Mandolin’s: “Okaaaaay. Well, you know, people might have a different reaction to a male studies program that doesn’t include as part of its argument that “feminists are just irritating.”. I was trying to say dismissing Male Studies as antifeminism is not totally invalid, which I agree with, because while there are harsh elements in feminism that does not warrant writing off the entire movement as irritating. (But I really don’t want to get into the “is it just antifeminism?” thing here because I think it would go into offtopic territory, but as the OP you’re free to declare otherwise.)
While what I saw were mostly individuals here and there I’ve seen just that sentiment in some places. Asking why they don’t just line up with Men’s Studies and stuff like that. And as for this: “the desire to escape a certain kind of scrutiny than with the actual substance of what is being studied.” Yeah in the end you might be right. But I do think there is some validity in escaping certain kinds of scrutiny (which would depend on what kind of scrutiny we’re talking about).
Not getting into the merits or flaws of the their viewpoints, but I think the current mayhem of the masculine side of gender issues is indicative that there is a desire to talk about these things now – more than there used to be.
Maybe it’s my perspective because I was so much younger, but in the ’90s things seemed much more black-and-white – you either were a feminist or you were a conservative or you just didn’t give a crap. If you were a feminist, men’s issues were only discussed as they related to women’s issues. Otherwise, you were a conservative or you just didn’t care. There didn’t seem to be any of the modern secular center-left MRA we have today (see Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrel et al) and the apolitical misogynists were a lot more quiet too.
I think that anti-feminist backlash came from a confusion about our place in the modern world, a sort of ideological vacuum for non-conservative men… and while only a small number of men react to that confusion by throwing their chips in with the MRAs, I think a very large number of us feel kind of lost.
I think men interested in having this conversation now.
That and word of mouth is incredibly power these days.
If it’s as good as I imagine it is, you’ll find your market.
Richard, I think you should try the agents-and-publishers route again. You’re an amazing writer, and you’re especially powerful on this subject. Trying to get a book published is never certain, but I’d bet you have a much better shot than most. It’s obvious your work would be in the top 1% of any slush pile of submissions, which is a huge advantage. (The trouble is, of course, that publishers publish less than 1% of the submissions they receive.)
(This time, when you make the proposal, argue that you already have a blog following; maybe that’ll help. It helped me, fwiw.)
If you do go the self-published route, I would have some design-minded friend check over your book layout before you finalize it; small choices (in things like gutter size and font choice) can make all the difference between a professional and amateur looking book.
(Sorry if I’m telling you what you already know!)
Actually, Danny, I would be very interested in having an informed discussion about the academic study of men, manhood, masculinity, etc. One that does not rely on the kinds of vague assertions you have made here–and I say that not as a criticism, but as an observation. I recognize that this was not the main topic of the post and that your vagueness may have come from not wanting to go off topic. So if you have something substantial to say, backed by evidence and informed by more than a vague emotional response–again, an observation, not a criticism–let’s hear it; and the same goes for anyone else reading who might have something to add.
Silenced is Foo: Thanks. When I get done with the book introduction I am now writing, which I need to get done by the end of next week, I will be going to back to the “Fragments” series.
ETA: Amp, I have actually been thinking about your “blog-following” point and wondering if, when I am ready, there is a way for me to get access to the stats for the relevant posts, since I know agents, etc. would love the hard numbers. And thanks, really, for the kind words and the advice. :)
Richard, I don’t think the stats we have tells us about individual posts, just about the site as a whole. (Also, looking at individual posts will exclude a huge number of actual readers, because it won’t include either folks who read it from the front page or those who read via RSS).
I’ll email you the info I have so you can take a look at it yourself.
Ditto – I would buy the book you’re writing, hands-down. You’re a brilliant, sensitive writer. I always feel like you’ve opened a door into a hidden place where a lot of introspection has come to fruition, sort of like the secret door under the stairs – the space under the mundane structure that is seldom visited but absolutely vital. I wish there had been a gender studies class with a book like the one you’ve excerpted here.
I think your blog posts and statistics can absolutely show that there is an audience for your work, and people who are invested in spreading the word about it.
Buena suerte!
An excert from a letter from a letter from Michael Kimmel of NOMAS to Paul Elam of Men’s News Daily (the post I link is not only the letter itself but Paul’s response as well):
I suggest looking into J.A. Konrath’s blog (jakonrath.blogspot.com) for info about self-publishing as an ebook through Amazon; he points out that it’s especially well-suited for books that are well-written but outside traditional publishing niches. (Also, he’s paying his mortgage off with midlist books at $2.99 or less each. Including some that he has for free on his website–they still sell well as Kindlebooks.)
Self-publishing is a much more viable option now than it was even a decade ago. Mainstream publishers are struggling to sort out how their business connects with the internet, and ebooks, despite having been around commercially for over 10 years, are a fledgling business–that traditional book publishers have mostly snubbed.
Simple Truth: Thanks!
Danny: And your point is?
Trying to say that there are those who presume that there is nothing left to say and I don’t agree with that.
Danny,
Well, see, this is where I start to lose interest in having this conversation. Kimmel says no such thing, at least not in the quote you have given here. Rather, he says there is no need to presume that a new discipline of “male studies” needs to be started. If you don’t see the difference, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Fine by me then.
I do not ordinarily comment this blog, but I thought I’d come out of lurkerdom to express support. I have been looking for such a book for years and will be one of the first in line if and when yours gets published. Good luck.
As a scholar who teaches gender-themed courses and does some writing about literary critiques of masculinity, I share Yusifu’s sense that academic presses would be more open to a book like this now than they were a dozen years ago. Kimmel’s right that the field is strong and diverse.
Josh:
I am wondering if you’d be willing (Yusifu too) to list some titles that you think it would be worth my while to look at. I have not kept up my reading in the field since I put Evolving Manhood aside.
I teach in a women’s and gender studies program that wants to put together a course on masculinity. We’ve not done it yet, and one reason is that there isn’t a reader that’s really satisfactory. So if I were to design a course, I’d want to cobble together a few books on different aspects of masculinity and then supplement them with some articles. Yours sounds like it would be a terrific choice – highly readable yet academically sophisticated, and a great discussion-starter.
I’ve enjoyed every essay you’ve written on your experiences with masculinity. I hope this project comes to fruition. Feel free to tell potential publishers that at least one WGS prof has said she’d love to assign your book for a course! Email me if you want a real-life name & credentials to attach to my testimonial :-)
Richard @ 12 – Yes, me. Works great. A monkey could do it.
Downside, of course, is that there’s no promotion until you go do it.
I second Barry’s opinion about the value of a positive visual image. It’s worth it to look good. You also have to watch your own quality – no friendly editor working overtime to make you look smart. Unless you hire one, or are one – but the latter has pitfalls.
Rotten luck, RJN, but as other commenters have said, I think the atmosphere around gender studies has changed and conversations and examinations of men and masculinity are becoming more and more prevalent and important. As feminism evolves, I see it as becoming more of a movement for exploring, critiquing, and actively engaging with ALL gender role scripts and cultural expectations, and that means the inclusion of men as fellow travelers and not “the enemy” of the most notorious of the 2nd wave fem cartoons of hairy-legged lesbian manhaters. Scholars like Michael Kimmel and C. J. Pascoe and bloggers/writers/professors like Hugo Schwyzer have found an interested audience as well as critics.
As for the academic presses and negative reviews, your experience with one positive/one negative during the peer review and being rejected for the one negative is sadly common. I’m in science, which is supposed to be more objective, but there will always be those who pooh-pooh the work of others or find it easier to pull apart than to give a more balanced assessment. Sometimes it’s a difference of opinion, sometimes it’s bad luck, sometimes it’s bad timing. I’m willing to bet that The Feminine Mystique was the kind of book proposal that could have gotten rejected outright for years and then at the right time…bam, timely and of wide interest. The men’s side of gender studies is starting to hatch and I, for one, am all for it!
Robert, just to second what other’s have said: your writing is wonderful and I think you should try to get your work published. I remember looking for books in the 90s that examined/critiqued masculinity in ways that you have here at Alas. I simply couldn’t find them. What I found were angry, woman-hating rants by MRA types. It’s nice to see this kind of examination of gender being done in a far more caring, socially aware way.
If you publish, I’ll purchase. :)
Timberwraith (and everyone else who’s commented): The support you all have offered really means a lot to me. Thanks.
Oh, and Timberwraith, it’s Richard, not Robert. :)
Oh dear. I’m sorry I messed your name up.