Naldiin
patreon
December, 2022 Research Update
🕑 Added 2023-01-01 07:19:13 +0000 UTCAmici! It is now 2023!
In addition to the holidays and such, this month was also dedicated to the book project. I ended up somewhat behind where I wanted to be, but I have three chapters ready to show (I had hoped for four, but I hit a fairly major snag in one that delayed things) and so I going forward with my plan to begin sounding out publishers.
I've decided to start targeting Oxford University Press. I've picked them for a few reasons. Obviously OUP is one of the most prestigious academic presses and given the uncertain fortunes of the job market, a book contract with them would be extremely valuable if I am still on the market next year. But more importantly, I think there are a few good reasons why OUP makes a good home for this project:
- The book sits at the center of several longstanding strengths at OUP. OUP has a strong presence in publishing on both the ancient economy and Roman military history, both obvious topics of relevance. But OUP also has a strong material culture presence (more so, I'd argue, than CUP, HUP, etc.) and in general military history publication. My work builds quite a bit off of J. Landers, The Field and the Forge, which is an OUP book and so I think the project would be at home there.
- Second, while this is first and foremost a scholarly book for other scholars in the field with a big 'intervention' (effort to shift a scholarly debate), I anticipate that it can pull a broader audience. A lot of academic presses are really set up for producing very small-run books at very high price points (this is the model, for instance, at Brill, leading to the joke about 'Brillionaires' being anyone who can afford their volumes, generally $80+). But a big press like OUP can print and market a book for a wider audience (and the more copies, the lower the price point, which in turn increases market appeal). I think I have a really good argument to make that I can reach a larger market because of my public writings and the fact that my book is Why the Romans Always Won (a topic of general appeal), so a big press is ideal.
In any event that is my plan. I am hoping to use SCS/AIA (the big annual classics conference, Jan. 5-8) as an opportunity to meet with OUP's classics acquisitions editor and gauge interest in the project. To that end I put together my book proposal (an 8-12 page document detailing the book's scope, structure, methods, and your timeline for producing it) and requested to set an appointment to talk about it to the editor at the conference (where they will be).
As with article submissions, this is a case where if the first press isn't interested, we simply move on to the next until someone is. My plan at least initially is to stick with big presses (with Cambridge University Press probably being the next choice after OUP). So wish me luck with that!
Meanwhile on the job front, the news is mixed. I've had a couple of interviews and there are a few searches beyond that which I know haven't picked their 'long short' interview list yet, so there are still a few very good 'live' opportunities, but I admit I was hoping for a bit better of a year. That said, I only need one job, not half a dozen, so this a process where I only need to get lucky once (even if discipline-wide placement rates of less than 10% suggest how hard getting lucky once is). In any case if it doesn't work out this year, obviously my hope is that next year I'll have a book contract, which should make me a very strong candidate (to the degree that it matters anymore given how random the process becomes at such low placement rates.).
Meanwhile I'm also presenting at SCS/AIA as part of a panel on 'New Directions in Roman Republican Warfare' organized by Jeremy Armstrong and Sally Mubarak and also with Dominic Machado, Michael Taylor and Jessica Clark. I'll be posting my abstract (the brief description of my paper) to the blog as this coming Friday's blog post while I'm away.
And then I am hoping for January to be back to more 'normal' blogging fare. I do want to note that I do not intend to make a habit of posts like those responding to Noah Smith or about Antigone; I know they turn some folks off. And while it is my blog and a forum for my thoughts, they also generally aren't particularly fun to write. Nevertheless, they were things I thought needed saying (in the former case because I was 'called out' by name and in the latter case because, well, someone needed to) and so I said them on the platform I have.
In any case, I hope to spend January and February getting back to more normal stuff. We're going to start with some more Rings of Power (armor, smithing, ships, etc.) and then hopefully move on to some basic descriptions of ancient civic governance ('How to polis' and 'How to Roman Republic'). I also want to tackle modern maneuver warfare and the 'modern system' of war more directly - we've touched on those concepts a bit, but they deserve direct discussions, especially given events in Ukraine. And beyond that, I'm hoping to tackle how leather and textile armors actually worked, as distinct from how they appear in pop culture. I also plan to have our next ACOUP Senate poll up fairly shortly after I get back from SCS/AIA, to throw some new topics into the mix.
Thanks for sticking with me through 2022 and continuing to make my efforts both here and in my research scholarship possible. This has been a tough year with a lot of changes (moving house, which I mentioned here, but some other things as well; not bad things, just stressful things) and surprises, but also by far the best year for ACOUP, with 4.12m views (to last year's 2.7m).
Comments
Kit Finn
Also - strange question but.... Is your 'How To res publica' going to be specifically about Rome or about other Latin/Central Italian cities as well? I'd be interested to see how (or even if) Rome's internal governance differed from that of it's immediate peers.
Kit Finn
Happy new year to you too, Bret!
dirtside
Looking forward to those blog posts; I'd also be interested in a post about dates and calendars, specifically along the lines of how historians target and define ancient dates. E.g. when you say something happened in Rome in "46 BC", that obviously isn't the number the Romans used for that year (and also didn't their calendar start at a different time of year? I believe it started around the vernal equinox?). If we're talking about events that occurred in "late 46/early 47 BC", we're using those as reference points in a modern calendar, but those events could have happened within the same calendar year *from the Romans' perspective*, right?
