Some non-fiction questions...

Eddyz Aquila said:

1. How long should a non fiction book? Is there a minimum?

Click to expand...

Depends on the subject matter and other factors. Assuming you're talking about word count, it could be 35,000 words to 500,000. Since you're talking history, consider Shelby Foote's books on the Civil War. They're really long, really thick books. But very complete. Then Undaunted Courage, about Lewis and Clark. That's not short, either. So, in the case of history, it can be as long as it needs to be.

2. How do you deal with the quots from other authors writing on the same subject? Do you ask for their permission beforehand?

Click to expand...

I think this question is answered in another thread in this same forum. See this thread here.

3. How well would personal opinions bode inside a non-fiction book? Constantly backing up your arguments with sources and quotes is obviously the way forward, but what about own personal opinions based on the research you've done?

Click to expand...

Personal opinions can create author bias, which can turn off readers or professionals reading your book. "The author fills his book with his own opinions." Constantly backing up your sources then elevates the book from "book" to "academic treatise." Personal opinions based on research, that's tricky to say. Nonfiction books are written to educate, as well as entertain, so I would think if your opinions are logical and backed up by fact, then you'll be okay. If you're a fan of Star Trek, I'd suggest you take a look at Harlan Ellison's book, The City on the Edge of Forever, a very opinionated book about what he went through during and after the episode he wrote for Star Trek.

When I wrote my first book, a nonfiction historical account of a subway built in my city but never used, I tried to remain completely neutal throughout, so I wouldn't take a side. It seemed to work for me.

I've always been interested in the Byzantines, and Manzikert was quite the disaster for them.

Anyway, I think it depends upon your audience. A scholarly monograph needs oodles of notes, the word count of which can rival that of the text itself. But those are things written by scholars for scholars, usually involving primary sources as well as secondary ones. It doesn't sound like that's what you're writing. What you're writing sounds more like what professional historians would call popular history, and relying on secondary sources only. There's nothing wrong with that, and the documentation needs are less.

The important thing to getting the book published is making your book different from anything else out there on the market. A unique hook would also help interest an agent. That is, why should anybody care about the battle?

Then, in my personal opinion, if you're doing a book, you should discuss the battle and what came after. Now your book would be a comprehensive study that would include its long-reaching repercussions.

In the end, it would be interesting reading for both the general reader and student studying that battle.

I think non-fiction is every bit as diverse as fiction. So any general question really has to be answered with "it depends".

My NF is 87,000 words (if that helps.)

Like a novel, NF is as long as it needs to be to communicate the story. If you haven't already, begin writing some chapters and/or start your book proposal. Both of those should give you a sense of the structure/content and possibly the length.