This is a question that, as a Commissioning Editor, I was asked with some frequency. It’s easy when your job is to commission books to take it for granted that writing and publishing books is a good thing to do. As a bibliophile my instinct is to see books as a self-evident good. That said, I do think there is value sometimes in taking a step back to ensure that the path we are on is a sensible one.
So, why should you write a book?
Space
It’s an obvious point (most of these points are, in fact) but books are just about the longest form of writing there is. Think of all the other things you might write – a journal article, a blog, a report, a social media post – none of these are routinely over 20,000 words and fewer still in the 60-80,000 word range that encompasses the majority of books.
In a world where brevity is so often emphasised over nuance, context, detail, or breadth books give you as a writer room to breathe. To fully explain your ideas, to bring together multiple case studies to illustrate a broader point. To provide more background detail and explanation. To include a few sidebars and interesting detours and still have time to get back to the point.
Is that always what you want? Of course not. But when it is, the book is unrivalled as a vehicle for longform writing.
Consolidation
Alongside the breathing space offered by a book comes the opportunity to consolidate. The length of books compared with other kinds of publication means they tend to take more time to write. Intuitively this can seem like a negative thing, but in fact it brings considerable advantages.
Taking time to put a book together largely precludes their use for quick topical responses to the news of the day. They have to be written with at most one eye on current events (if these are relevant) and the other eye on posterity. The very sensation of time passing as you write builds in the sense of how things can change over time.
As a result, the form lends itself to the consolidation of research, analysis and thought. Taking the time to synthesise a range of elements and provide punctuation to what might otherwise be a stream of research papers or other shorter publications.
Shelf-life
And this sense of punctuation, of synthesising, summarising and consolidating your work is related to another benefit. Books tend to age well by comparison with other kinds of publication.
In almost all fields of study books outlast journal articles, blog posts, presentations reports and any other medium. We all know this instinctively, we’ve all read books older than us. For that matter, most of us have read books written centuries, in some cases millennia, before we were born. I grant you that few of the books published today will still be read in centuries’ time, but it illustrates the longevity of the form. All other formats, even the most prestigious, highly ranked, highly cited journal articles are ephemeral by comparison.
It strikes me that this is one of the reasons we still tend to overwhelmingly read books in print, whereas other forms have either always been digitally native or are now very much digital first. It feels like a problem to subject a book to the vagaries of future file formats digital storage and device capabilities in a way that just doesn’t worry us so much with other types of publication.
Authority
There is a reason why the English expression that someone “wrote the book on” a subject is metaphor for having a high level of expertise.
In almost all fields, writing a book is part of how we establish expertise and authority. Even, sometimes especially, in fields where book publication is less of a standard part of the academic process. Some of this is a residual attitude, but it remains true that because writing a book takes time and effort, and implies a mastery of your subject sufficient to sustain for tens of thousands of words, we justly respect people who are able to do it.
There is simply no substitute for having literally written the book on the subject.
Audience
There is an inherent accessibility to the book form that other kinds of publications lack. It is much easier for a non-specialist to get access to, and read, even quite a specialised book than for them to access and read research papers. To some extent the same applies in comparison to blog posts and reports.
This is before taking into account any actual steps taken by the author to make the book accessible. The format is familiar and so are the places we go to find books. They can be accessed without subscriptions and without knowing how to navigate the byzantine network of platforms on which many other publications are stored.
All of this means that books are one of the best formats for reaching a non-specialist audience, because there are simply fewer practical and psychological barriers to accessing and reading them.
Aesthetic Object
This is one of those points we’re sometimes reluctant to articulate, because perhaps it sounds a bit shallow. If it were the only reason for writing a book, it would not be particularly compelling. I’d maintain, nevertheless, that for many authors it is indeed part of the mix of motivations.
We like books as physical objects. In fact, if you’re reading this then I’d wager you probably like books as physical objects more than the average person, which is saying quite a lot. It’s a physical thing you can show people, and keep handy on a shelf. It looks and feels substantial and is thus satisfying in a way that other kinds of publication just can’t match.
Quite honestly, writing a book is very often something you know you want to do, and then find reasons to justify. Not least because you really have to want to write a book in order to make that commitment to doing it. So what we’re really doing here is helping you understand why you want to do something you probably already want to do.
If after reading this, you’ve convinced yourself you do want to write a book, or even if you just feel like it’s something you’d like to explore a bit more, please do drop me a line at simon.bates@tbarnpress.com.
