John
C. McManus
is a native St. Louis author who has written several books about American
combat history. He has a PhD in American and military history from the
University of Tennessee. He currently works as an associate professor at the
University of Missouri-Rolla where he teaches courses on the Civil War, World
War II, Vietnam, Military History, and the American Combat Experience in the
20th Century.
His first book, The Deadly Brotherhood: The American Combat
Soldier in World War II, was originally published in 1998 and drew from
first hand interviews of World War II veterans he’d collected while working in
Tennessee as the assistant director of the Center for the Study of War and
Society. Since then he’s gone on to publish eight non-fiction books, with a
ninth scheduled for a June release, and he is a frequent contributor to World
War II magazine.
During the “Write
Time! Write Place! Write Now!” Conference, John will share his experience in a
breakout session, titled “Writing Non Fiction History: How to Start with an
Idea and End with a Book.” The session will provide an inside look into
dreaming up an original concept, doing the research, conducting interviews,
surmounting the challenge of actually writing the book and finding a publisher.
Sarah:
John, thank you for taking the time to give us some more information about your
upcoming appearance at the Missouri Writers’ Guild. We’re looking forward to
having you.
John: It is my
pleasure, Sarah. I am very much looking forward to the event.
Sarah: First, to get us started, where are
you right now as you type this?
John: I am sitting in my office at
my home in St. Louis.
Sarah: You’re an avid St. Louis sports fan
and you even play amateur hockey. So, tell me how did you go from working in
sports journalism and marketing to having a history-focused academic career.
Both of those involving writing, but I’d imagine its two very different types.
John: When I was an undergraduate,
my great dream was to become a sports broadcaster. This was the main reason I
attended the journalism school at Mizzou. Once I actually got into the J school
and began taking classes, I found that I enjoyed my history electives much more.
Nearly every time I had open hours, I took history. Eventually it dawned on me
that I was much more interested in a career as an historian than as a
broadcaster. I finished the journalism degree but went to grad school in
history. The interesting thing is that the writing skills I learned in
journalism school gave me a big advantage in the historical profession. I
learned so much about eliminating the passive voice, moving a story forward,
and staying on message. In grad school I was amazed to see how little effort
most academic historians put into their writing. In my opinion, they failed to
understand that good writing is the essential foundation of all good history. As
a result, academic histories tend to be dry as dust. My goal always was to
write not just for a scholarly audience but a popular audience too. My
journalism training helped me to do exactly that. I also learned useful
interviewing skills.
Sarah: From a writing/research
perspective, of all the books you’ve written, which are you most proud of? Why?
John: That’s a tough question to answer. It is almost like asking a parent
which child is his favorite! All kidding
aside, I would have to say I am especially proud of a book I wrote called Grunts: Inside the American Infantry Combat
Experience, World War II through Iraq. The research process for the book
was exhausting and mentally challenging but I think the end product made it all
worthwhile. The book was recently named to the US Army Chief of Staff’s
professional reading list and I think it contains many important—and
fascinating—lessons that can help today’s soldiers. I am also very proud of
another book I wrote called Alamo in the
Ardennes: The Untold Story of the American Soldiers who Made the Defense of
Bastogne Possible mainly because it revised the way in which historians
view the Battle of the Bulge. I was able to access so many incredible primary
sources and new perspectives. Plus, the story is so fast paced and pressure
packed that I like to think it reads like a military thriller.
Sarah: In addition to your books, you also
write pieces for World War II magazine.
Has that been advantageous to your career? In what way? Doesn’t it take time
away from writing your books?
John: The articles for World War II magazine have definitely been advantageous
for me as a writer and a professor. For one thing, I established a strong
relationship with the magazine’s editor. For another, the various pieces
enhanced my visibility in the profession, even though they do not count as
academic articles for a tenure dossier. For that, I have published academically
refereed articles in non-profit journals. Most of the World War II magazine articles
have dealt with topics derived from my books, so it has enhanced, rather than
taken away from the process of writing books. For instance, I wrote an article
for the magazine about the capture by the 7th Infantry Regiment of
Hitler’s mountain redoubt at Berchtesgaden at the end of World War II. The
piece debunked the myth, mistakenly propagated by Stephen Ambrose in Band of Brothers, that paratroopers from
the 101st Airborne Division had taken Berchtesgaden. In writing my
article, I drew directly from a book I had just published on the history of the
7th Infantry.
Sarah: You’ve obviously established
yourself as an American history expert. In your opinion, do you have to be an
expert on a topic in order to write about it?
John: I think it depends on the particular book you have in mind. If, for
instance, you are writing a book that delves into an ancestor’s experiences in
the Civil War or World War II, you do not necessarily have to be a so called
“expert” on those wars. History, after all, is for everyone. That’s what makes
it fun. James Nelson, though he had no particular reputation or training as a
World War I historian, recently wrote a fine book called The Remains of Company D about his grandfather’s experiences in the war.
If, by contrast, you envision writing an authoritative new book on the US
experience in Vietnam, or the Battle of Stalingrad or the role of women in the
Revolutionary War, it does help to have some acknowledged expertise. Publishers
will take your proposal a bit more seriously and, once your book is published,
reviewers will probably treat it with more kindness. I do want to underscore,
though, that you do NOT have to be an academic expert to write history. After
all, even if you don’t have the academic training, you can always train
yourself to master nearly any historical topic. Again, that’s the beauty of the
field.
Sarah: Of the various steps in the book
writing process – idea, research, interviews, writing, etc – which one is the
hardest for you? What do you do to keep motivated when you’re in that stage of
the process?
John: I would say the writing process is the hardest part. Ideas are
seldom a problem for me. I always have more ideas for books than I can actually
write. And I absolutely love the research/interviewing process. That is
definitely the most enjoyable part for me. The actual writing can sometimes be
a hard slog. It takes a lot of time and mental energy. For me as a professor,
it means devoting most all of my non-campus time to writing the book. The
biggest challenge is how to shape the vision I have for the book into actual
reality. I also sometimes get frustrated that I simply cannot utilize all of
the vast amounts of research material I gather. This means prioritizing and
tightening the scope of my book. This is one hundred percent necessary but it
also means making tough editorial choices.
Sarah: In your breakout session, you’ll
talk about the interview process for non-fiction books. How do you know if you
need to conduct an interview? Could you include an example or two of how an
interview could add to a book?
John: I think interviews are important for anyone doing modern history or
journalism. Ask yourself if the documentary sources truly tell the whole story
or if the perspective of someone who participated in the event would add to
your book. The answer is usually yes. It never hurts to pick the brain of a
participant. It doesn’t mean that they should dominate your narrative or that
you take everything the interviewee says as one hundred percent truth. The
interview is just one source among many available to you. It might loom as your
most crucial source—as in investigative journalism—or as a complementary source
as in some administrative histories. I believe that interviews have added much
to my books. One good example is the Guam chapter of Grunts. The focus of the chapter is on a massive Japanese banzai
attack against U.S. Marine lines a few days after the Americans invaded Guam in
July 1944. Through a veteran’s association I was able to locate and interview a
large number of veterans who had fought the Japanese on that hellish night. Their
memories were incredibly vivid, honest and accurate. The chapter was based on a
rich blend of sources such as after action reports, unit journals, personal
memoirs, letters and the like. But I think the first hand immediacy of the
interviews brought the event to life like nothing else could. This is the
advantage of the modern historian—to actually interact with your subjects. I
recommend making use of that.
Sarah: You’ve targeted your breakout
session toward historical writers. Will all writers of non-fiction benefit from
attending? Or only if they write historical non-fiction?
John: I think the session can offer something useful for all non-fiction
writers. Obviously self help is different from military history or true crime. But
I think all non-fiction authors can relate to the process of conceiving a book
and tracking down a good publisher.
Sarah:
How long does it take to write & research a non-fiction book? From
the original idea to submitting it to the publisher?
John: For me, on average, it takes about two or three years, from the
proposal stage to publication. I spend the bulk of that time doing the
research.
Sarah: For non-fiction writers, how is the
process of getting a publisher different from the process that fiction writers
go through?
John: Fiction is tougher because most every writer thinks he or she can do
it. Thus, there is a huge amount of competition for good agents and/or good
self publishing deals. Non-fiction topics tend to narrow themselves down by who
is interested and qualified to write about them. Fiction writers have to worry
so much about story structure, character development and the like. For
non-fiction writers hoping to sell a proposal, the main challenge is to
demonstrate a clear market for your book and sell the publisher on the notion
that you are the ideal person to write a good book to meet this demand.
Sarah: If someone is interested in writing
non-fiction, would you recommend that they get an agent? Why or why not?
John: I think for eighty percent of authors, an agent is the way to go. If
you are very business savvy; if you enjoy negotiations; if you understand
something of how publishing contracts work; if you don’t mind the idea of
canvassing a large number of publishers and dealing with direct rejection, then
you don’t really need an agent. If you are like most writers, who are better at
creativity than business acumen, an agent can really be a godsend. Your agent
can save you a lot of time and trouble, not just in tracking down a publisher,
but in refining a marketable book concept. It is important to have a good agent
who can tell you frankly “That concept won’t sell” or “That idea is a good one;
let’s develop it.” The agent can focus
exclusively on the business side while you work on the production side—writing
the books. Moreover, once it is time to work out the details of the contract,
you will almost always get a better deal with an agent at your side, especially
if you are a new author. On a personal level, the first person I pitch any new
idea to is my agent. He tells me which ones are worth pursuing and which ones
are not. In twelve years, he has seldom been wrong.
Sarah: What are some of the tips you’ve
developed over the years for writing a non-fiction query letter?
John: I think a good query letter should be short and to the point, maybe
a couple paragraphs at most. Explain to the editor the market for your book,
why your particular book will benefit their bottom line and why you are the
person to write this particular offering. Perfect a courteous, confident and
professional tone.
Sarah:
John, thank for taking the time to answer my questions.
Don’t forget to register. If you’ve learned something from
author John McManus, please consider attending the 2012 Missouri Writers Guild
Annual writing conference. We would love to see you there.
Click
here to learn more about the Missouri Writers Guild 2012 Conference or to
register!
.jpg)
