With some research, I located three book directed toward revising dissertations into book manuscripts. I've read these, and I wanted to give brief reviews of each.
1. The Thesis and the Book by Harman, Montagnes, et al. U of Toronto P. 2003. 2nd Edition.
This text has seven chapters written by the various editors of the collection. The general claim of the book is self evident: do not send out a manuscript that is very close to your dissertation. Of the three books that I read about the topic of preparing a manuscript for publication, this book is the least useful. The chapters by Robert Plant Armstrong prove particularly annoying, condescending, and useless. For example, his first entry (Ch.2: The Dissertation's Deadly Sins) begins thusly: "The dissertation system must have laid at its door an enormous squandering of creativity, youth, time, and money each year upon the execution of prose works that do not communicate significantly and are therefore dysfunctional" (11). Neither of Armstrong's chapters will give you a hug. On the contrary, I wanted to punch his smug face.
This book gave me the impression that nothing would be worth bringing to a publisher. In fact, I would be embarrassed to submit even a query letter. Editors are gods, and I am a mortal sinner by earning a PhD. Having submitted and published short stories, I know rejection well enough--but also some success as well. Never in all the years of submitting stories did I feel discouraged to the point of giving up, but if I'd read The Thesis and the Book prior to entering a doctoral program, then I might have been ready to call it quits.
I understand the importance of revising one's work and allowing a span of time between writing and submitting, as I assume most graduate students, nevermind junior faculty, would recognize. So what is the payoff in reading The Thesis and the Book at any point? The benefit would be that other junior faculty will abandon their projects and, in turn, open up publishing opportunities for the rest of us. Otherwise, this book serves as a venting outlet for editors. The parallel would be me telling undergraduates in composition class that each of them should drop the course now, and those that want to stay enrolled, I have no time for you. Only those that already have the skills should stay. Behind the claims of this book is an indictment of our mentors and committee members. They misdirected us. They misinformed us. They, perhaps worst of all, misrepresent us to the scholarly community in which we want to enter.
Call this book a test of faith, but you should avoid reading it. There are books that will be advantageous and encouraging for your project, but The Thesis and the Book is not that book.
2. Revising Your Dissertation: Advice from Leading Editors. Luey, Beth. Ed. U of California P. 2008 Edition.
Like the other books on revising one's dissertation, Luey's text stresses revision and reality. part of the introduction, Managing Graduate School, is particularly useful for new doctoral students to read either before starting a PhD program or early after starting. Luey suggests a pragmatic approach to structuring your classes, committee, and writing. Think of graduate school as part of the professionalization process, especially with the goal of publishing the research that one does in graduate school.
Part I: Rethinking and Revising contains five essays that follow a loose chronology of what one's steps might be in considering your dissertation for publication. This section would also be helpful for preparing for job interviews. The more your dissertation begins to sound like a book, one's professionalism will be apparent. Essay 2, What Is Your Book About by Luey is very helpful. On page 34, she includes a passage where one imagines that Terry Gross or Charlie Rose is asking question of you and your research. Good questions lead to your opportunity to answer additional questions, and in turn, you can be prepared to writing chapter summaries or a cover letter. Other essays in this section offer practical but vague suggestions on revising: trimming text, bringing a voice to your writing, and writing with clarity. These are suggestions that most of us will probably already be aware of using as guides.
Part II: Disciplinary Variations will be of limited use for us. Chapter 6: Caught in the Middle: The Humanities is the appropriate chapter for us because it focuses on the peculiars of our discipline and addresses publishing trends. The chapter contextualizes many of the issues from Part I of the text in light of Humanities research and publishing. Another short chapter, Planning Tools, will be of use as well. Although not a checklist, it will aid in structuring a schedule, which depends on how one assesses their own dissertation. Ultimately, one must ask objectively: what stage is my dissertation at? No easy feat. For example, how many quotations is too many? Is this chapter too long? Is the review of the literature unnecessary?
These ideas made me think of my own pedagogy. Am I vague when I tell my students to "support your thesis with specific example"? I do, however, offer examples that are concrete, and I have also begun to mandate elements of a research paper, for instance. A paragraph must have at least one supporting quotation, I demand. Most students will do this, but what I contend with is the reason behind doing this. I try to explain that typically a research paper with have x, y, and z aspects to support a thesis. One trick is motivating students with global ideas behind their writing and coercing [which I think might be appropriate] them into following a formula to support the global view substantially. They look to us as experts.
Nevertheless, these first two books did not provide me with detailed suggestions behind the global principles, but I might be looking for a formula! Of the two texts, the Luey text carries a balance of practical and global recommendations. Read Part I and Chapter 6 of Part II, and make a copy of the Planning Tools section to pin up on your calendar.
3. From Dissertation to Book. Germano, William. U of Chicago P. 2005.
Of the three books that I reviewed, I found Germano’s book to be the most useful. This book offers a balance between encouragement and pragmatism. Chapter 5 serves as a guide to “Reading with an Editor’s Eye,” where Germano illustrates the distinctions between a dissertation and a book project and the process an editor will take in reviewing one’s project. Germano explains that “the dissertation is the historical record of other’s ideas, supplemented by your own important insights; the book is the narrative of thinking on the subject, but primarily it’s your thinking, even though it is supplemented by the historical record of other’s ideas” (64). Page 54 details a flow chart of the editorial process of acquiring a manuscript, which is useful to plan one’s schedule as each step is passed.
Chapters 6 [Planning and Doing] and 7 [Getting Into Shape] work well together in terms of seeing the big picture of the project and figuring out what needs to be done. Germano breaks down revisions into “the present and future shape of the work, and the structured time in which work is to take place” (67). However, this seems self-evident, and another division he makes of revisions proves helpful: “cosmetic and deep” (69). In addition, he offers timelines dependent upon where your manuscript falls in the cosmetic/deep revision spectrum. Chapter 7, which might be read effectively before Chapter 6, provides practical suggestions for thinking about and presenting the overarching idea of one’s project to an editor—similar to the how one prepares for job interviews. Germano advises a “throughline” [or plot] and narrative approach to the book project. For example, create an outline for the book and title chapters with an eye on a TOC that follows the “throughline” of your book project.
The final chapters are marginally useful, unless this is the only book one reads on the topic. A perplexing aspect of all three reviewed books is the approach to voice. These three books suggest a voice that is geared toward a general audience. Germano seems to take the a conservative attitude, which means that authors should lessen footnotes, passive sentence constructions, and block quotations. This appears a reasonable strategy. The other two books lean toward writing that will attract a general audience. To me, I hear “textbook,” course materials, or trade softcover with this approach—and it contradicts information I surveyed from The Chronicle of Higher Education and MLA guides and forums. Here, first-book advice [for tenure or career movement] steers toward serious UP publishing.
Perhaps, a middle ground exists, but I have not seen it illustrated yet as a proposed model—or maybe I have not been able to figure it out just yet, which might be due to the fact that I have not been through the entire process just yet.
