From time to time, I have been asked to read a nonfiction manuscript and give a professional opinion of its strengths, weaknesses, and suitability for publication by the assigning publishing house. At least to me, this is not a light task, especially since it is always understood that my review will be both read by the assigning editor and forwarded to the writer as feedback. On the one hand, I want to encourage other writers and help their growth along, and I don't want to crush someone with harsh criticism. On the other hand, I have a duty to the publishing house to provide an honest assessment as to whether the manuscript is worth persevering with and what changes need to be made to produce something worth the house's time and expense; they aren't paying me to be wishy-washy.
At this stage of the publishing process, it's not my job to help the writer clean up punctuation, spelling, and grammar; that will come later, at the copy editing stage. What I am being asked to do is to assess how well the manuscript answers a number of questions related to writing quality and the needs of the publishing house. They include but are not limited to the following:
Obviously, there are other questions that could be asked, but these are some of the major ones. For those of you who are engaged in writing, considering these questions in advance of submitting your manuscript and answering them to the best of your ability can save both of us a fair amount of trouble.
At this stage of the publishing process, it's not my job to help the writer clean up punctuation, spelling, and grammar; that will come later, at the copy editing stage. What I am being asked to do is to assess how well the manuscript answers a number of questions related to writing quality and the needs of the publishing house. They include but are not limited to the following:
- Does the manuscript shed new light on a topic, address a new subject, or otherwise fill a niche in the publisher's lineup and the larger market for similar books that has not previously been done? Most publishers aren't in the market for a book that essentially rehashes other works that are already out there without finding a new angle.
- Does the manuscript fit into the types of books that the house normally produces and the target audiences that the house appeals to? This is not simply a matter of genre or subject matter, which will get a great many books weeded out without ever needing to get to the beta-reader stage; it can also reflect the level at which the book is written and the type of treatment the subject matter is given. A university press, for instance, usually expects a solid level of research and scholarship in the works it presents even if they are intended for a popular-level audience; a publisher of books suitable for middle-school children needs less academic detail and a writing level that can reach children without talking down to them.
- Speaking of writing level, is it suitable for the target audience? Is the vocabulary appropriate? Does the writer use technical terms clearly and appropriately, without either talking down to the audience or assuming greater knowledge than the audience possesses?
- What drives the structure of the manuscript? Is it thematic, chronological, topical, or organized around some other principle? Does it remain self-consistent?
- How well does the manuscript's structure support its purpose? Is it logical and easy to follow? Should the material be rearranged to improve reader interest and/or comprehension? If so, how?
- How well does the manuscript engage and maintain reader interest? Ideally, if there is an introduction or prologue, it should establish three main points: what the topic is, what makes the topic interesting or important, and why the reader should care about it. After that, the book should deliver on what the intro promises. If it doesn't, where is it falling short? How can the problem or problems be corrected?
- Do subtopics support and enrich the main narrative/subject without becoming rabbit trails? Are they adequately developed without becoming places where the manuscript bogs down?
- How are historical figures treated? Are they developed in a reasonable and interesting way that is consistent with the source materials?
- If citations and notes are part of the manuscript, has the writer used credible sources and documented them appropriately? Has eyewitness material been cross-checked with other types of evidence? (While eyewitness information is invaluable for addressing emotional issues and the human side of a narrative, human memory is notoriously fallible---and the reasons why an eyewitness's account doesn't match other evidence can be very interesting in themselves.)
Obviously, there are other questions that could be asked, but these are some of the major ones. For those of you who are engaged in writing, considering these questions in advance of submitting your manuscript and answering them to the best of your ability can save both of us a fair amount of trouble.