Falling outside of the normal approach...

A quick (well, it's not that quick sadly) question to garner some thoughts about the whole agent/publisher approach with a nonfiction book.

I am currently ploughing into a book about gardening. Now, before anyone tells me I'm an idiot and I should simply send out a proposal rather than writing the thing first, I think I need to explain why I have a dilemma.

The book is about gardening, and it covers a serious and proven approach that is somewhat outside of the norm. That said, the approach is slightly anarchic and does allow a great degree of freedom as to how it's adopted. The book isn't a 'how to' type affair; it's more about state of mind (calling it 'a philosphy' would be seriously over-gilding the lily). That said, it does have serious nonfiction content. By serious, I mean credible, not serious...

The book is humorous. It's not about funny gardeners or littered with gardening puns. It's got more a black comedy thing going on. It has a degree of sarcasm, a decent dose of irreverence, a smattering of iconoclastic thought, and some knob jokes, obviously.

I would not say that it's a comedy book with gardening as a theme, nor is it a funny gardening book!

Many of the principles core to the approach aren't explained directly as gardening-based examples. A variety of sources - political, religious, cultural, surreal - are used to make the points, with the Khymer Rouge rubbing shoulders with St Paul, werewolves and Ken Hom. There is also a thread of autobiographical anecdotes that focus upon life's little disasters.

It's written in an informal, almost chatty, style with an almost directness between the voice and the reader.

Thus far I've had parts of it read by a diverse range of readers - including non-gardeners - and the general reaction is that they want to read more, which for now I'm taking as a positive. The idea is sustainable because I've been working on it in various forms for four years. I think it works.

Here's the issue. Because of the structure and voice, plus the way the content is delivered, I can't see that a basic proposal will really convey what the book is. There are almost too many 'buffers' that it could hit in a publisher's mind.

I'm more than happy to be rejected if they don't like it or think it's viable as a product, but I am aware that it could also be rejected because the mix isn't usual. I am equally aware that stepping outside of the submission guidelines for nonfiction publishers will get it spiked quicker than something which will get work spiked quickly.

Trying to get an agent on-board could be a route, as many nonfiction agents do want sight of a number of chapters before committing. At least that way I can be happy that I'm being shown the door because the book is garbage rather than because it falls outside of the normal nonfiction expectations.

Anyway, I'm blathering, so any thoughts would be truly appreciated.

Tazlima: Thanks for the reply. I think you're right in that the title will actually pin down the central thread of the book. I haven't really pushed that passed the 'general idea' stage because my experience is that publishers often have input on that and there will be reasoning behind their thinking. You're right, however, that the juxtaposition between the gardening and comedic elements will have to shine through. Some of the core is based upon radio slots so that'll have to be reflected as well. Thanks.

Siri: Thanks for your feedback. You obviously know the challenge of pushing something through that falls between two camps. I appreciate that it limits the options, but I'm happy to put the time in; I'm not in any great rush!

Fruitbat: Thanks for the comments. You've hit the nail on the head; it's going to be written anyway and I have a number of potential routes to market through other media if I choose to go independent. I agree that this is a case where it might be better to decline to follow the path of a traditional nonfiction proposal, simply because it won't sit comfortably within the mainstream market segment it targets.

Old Hack: Thanks for the comments. You make some good points, which is why I asked the question about pushing a nonfiction work some other way other than a proposal. By that I specifically meant a 'nonfiction' proposal as opposed to a fiction or creative proposal. It's my fault; I didn't make that clear. Whilst the work is nonfiction, it is, at heart, a creative narrative. That said, the core content is certainly credible nonfiction, and therein lies the dilemma. The distinctions between narrative nonfiction and core nonfiction, and narrative nonfiction and fiction are blurred. I'm just thinking about which way to push it.

Buzhidao: Thanks for your comments. I'm not too fussed about the focus of the proposal. It's more a question of whether I slant it towards a core nonfiction proposal or a narrative/fiction proposal.