And so it ends; dear reader: I married it.

Actually, I married CC. But the book got published.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Weimar-Republic-Homosexual-Emancipation/dp/1442626577

50 Year Struggle for People's Morality

Even when I am feeling really down, I always feel cheered when I read 50 Year Struggle for People's Morality: The History of the West German Morality League from Its Beginning to Today (1885-1935) by Dr. Adolf Sellmann. 

“Now we sit in a swamp” and the best of our Volk feel “disgust at all of the disgracefulness and immorality that is taking hold everywhere....Our morality has collapsed; immorality has won the field. This is shown not only by the enormous increase in crime and the wildness of youth, but also by the moral filth in cinema and theater and the trashy literature.”

The Bad and The Sad

The Bad is that my book manuscript keeps getting reviewed by academic publishers who eventually, after "reviewing" it for a very long time, do not publish it.

The Sad is that since October of 2011, when I sent out the first proposal, to today--almost two years--I have been going nuts because:

a) many people in the academic publishing industry will not return your calls and/or emails, even when they have had your manuscript under review for, oh, say, a year.

b) bad news keeps rolling in

This sucks also for everyone around me because they have to listen to me weep and rant about the above. They have to listen to that for, like, years.

Reader, this is my story:

After circulating the proposal to about twelve publishers, the majority of whom rejected it, I got word from several presses that wanted to review the full manuscript. I picked one and sent it to them.
This part took: three months. 


The manuscript sat on someone's desk at that press, despite what editorial staff claimed in their very infrequent replies to my many emails. In the meantime, I spent my research leave, which is supposed to be spent revising one's manuscript, doing other projects. 
This part took: seven months. 

The ms. finally went for review. The editor, whom I spent over a thousand dollars to meet in person at a far-away conference, told me that everything was going to be fine and that I shouldn't worry.
This part took: four months.

One positive review came back. I told the editor that I needed the process to speed up, because of tenure. The editor told me to take the book elsewhere because the process could not be sped up. I began to send the proposal out again.
This part took: three weeks.

As I circulated the proposal for a second time, I learned that one of the presses that initially wanted the ms.--a press that was a very likely home for the ms.--now, for reasons that had nothing to do with the ms. but everything to do with the fact that a year had elapsed, no longer wanted it. But a new press was interested; the series editor emailed me directly and asked to see the proposal. And a second new press wanted it, too! I sent the manuscript for review to both of these new presses (with the knowledge of the editors) and pulled it from the old one that had had it for a year.
This part took: two weeks. 

The one of the new presses quickly got two readers' reports! The series and acquisitions editors were enthusiastic!
This part took: two months. 

The editor at this press suddenly stopped returning my emails. Then s/he told me that the manuscript needed to go to the press's editorial board before I began revisions per the two readers' reports, because there was a concern that the book might not be a good fit in the series. But everyone--people at my work, me, friends--thought this was just a formality. And in the meantime, I did revisions per the two reports. These entailed traveling to Berlin to do additional research. Then, editorial board at this press axed the project because they felt that the book was not a good fit in the list (despite the series editor's enthusiasm). Meanwhile, the second new press that had the manuscript under review stopped returning my emails and did not respond to my phone calls. I was back to square one.
This part took: two months.

I freaked out and began to repeat things like, "Before, when the first press sat on it for more than a year and then dumped it, this was a scenario where someone would possibly not get tenure, but now, this is exactly the situation where someone does not get tenure" and "I want to lose my job. I want the manuscript to go unpublished. If my career is going to go down in flames, I want it to go down spectacularly and completely, like the Titanic, not two-bit and weird, like Anthony Wiener's mayoral candidacy." CC got me to calm down enough to send the proposal out again because, as she helped me realize, losing my job would be bad for our joint financial situation, and in the future I would like continue to buy things like lattes and new pants. I sent the proposal out, for a third time.
This part took: two weeks.

But then something that seems like it might be good happened. A press that had initially been interested in reviewing the ms. back in 2011 responded right away to the new round of proposals and asked to review the ms., and even offered an advance contract. And then they agreed to use the reader's reports that the previous press got. So I am back to square two. So that is really good, right?
This part took: one week.

So that might be good. I will have to wait and see. For sure something could go wrong!

Peer reviewers defeat themselves, again!

Peer reviewers once again self-defeated their own objectives.

'Cause they were like, "this article is too speculative. You have all this speculative language, like "possibly happened" and "seems like." And you draw all these speculative conclusions. We do not like it! Too much speculation."

So I am going through and deleting all of the speculative language, but keeping the speculative conclusions. Now, instead of saying, "It seems like [totally speculative thing] may have happened," it says, "And then, reader, [totally speculative thing] totally happened! For real!"

Mwwaahhaaha!!!

And once again, peer reviewers are going down thanks to their own sucky-ness!  YEAH!

Pier review

I want also to say this:

Have you noticed how like two different peer reviewers will have totally different reactions to things?  Ok, Ok, often they both don't like the same thing.

But dudes. Often Reviewer A hates something and Reviewer B doesn't care about it, but hates something else. That happens a lot too.

I am just saying. Pier review is not all that helpful, I think we can all get behind that sentiment. But what about peer review?

peer review is censorship

Have you ever noticed in somebody's book where in the intro they totally disavow some term/concept, like, 'there is a literature on term/concept X, and some of it is relevant to this project, but X is also totally not applicable to the cases I'm looking at, and so I would never use term/concept X, I am not going to write X never, ever.'

And then in the chapters of the book they basically prove that concept X does indeed apply to their cases. But they never use the actual term X. You know?

That's because of peer review. The peer reviewers told them to take out X. So they did--sort of.

That is totally going to be me. 

Could be worse

Just to update this situation: the book manuscript suffered disaster in the wacky, wacky land beyond the Misty Mountains that is the academic publishing industry. But not nearly the worst kind of disaster.

I have heard much worse. I should not complain, really.

Things are bad for book manuscripts in the land of academic publishing.

 Yeah, that bad.

(For anyone who does not recognize that volcano, it's in Mordor. Recent conversation with CC while watching a certain HBO series:

Me: Do you know what is going on even though you did not watch the books? Do you want me to say who that guy is?

CC: No, I know.

[long pause]

CC: Is this the one where they are going to meet elves to get some kind of jewels?

Me: Uh, do you mean rings?

CC: Yes!

Me: No. This is the other one.)

Running with cows

Some stereotypes about cows are wrong. (Based on my experience running with cows.*)

Cows--the cows I run with**, that is--do not really like humans. They really, really do not want to be petted.

Some are aggressive. By "some" I mean, about half of them. And not only the "male cows"--are they actually bulls? I think someone did cut off their nuts. I hope they are not bulls, whatever that means, because I am running with them and I do not want to run with bulls at this point--also the female cows.

*Like swimming with dolphins!
**One of said cows pictured above. Actual photo taken while running.

No words necessary

Ack

Found out that they hadn't even sent it out to readers yet. Reports due back in the new year, ACK!

What will I do until then?

Pumpkin in the library--happy halloweeeeeeen!

Only pumpkin left in town sneaks into the library as dusk gathers on Halloween, floats by ghostly paintings and Latin books full of spells. Spoooooky!

Now

Now I have still had it, but somebody nice said, 'Hey, they procrastinate and procrastinate for a year, but they did to me--they always do. Just make a list of the changes you think they'll want, and go ahead and make them!'

Now have really had it with this

The readers have had my manuscript for six months.
For a long time, I tried really hard to have a good attitude about this. But now I have had it. I do not have a good attitude about this. This sucks.

People out there in the world, readers who are supposed to write reports, why do you take for friggin ever to review a friggin manuscript? If it gets rejected from this press, I could like, not get tenure because this took so damn long ('cause I wouldn't have time to send it to a second press.)

Don't you care about that, oh manuscript readers? Doesn't that matter to you? OK, maybe you do not like my manuscript (if that is the case, you are a fool, because my manuscript is not that bad! fucker.) But even if you do not like it and are a fool--even if you are going to reject it--do you really want me to get fired? Really? I mean, I assume the readers are people who are somewhat sympathetic to the kind of history that I write and were therefore selected by the editor for this task. Do they really want me to lose this job?

In short,

People in other countries don't understand Halloween

Some years ago I was in Berlin on Halloween, eating in a burger shop and feeling sorry for myself. A crowd of teenagers, a few of whom wore odd elements of what might pass for costuming, came into the shop. They essentially said to the people working at the shop: 'We are trick-or-treaters. Give us french fries." At first, the people behind the counter ignored them. The teenagers responded by milling rowdily about and insisting that they be given fries, blocking the route to the counter for other people. Finally the burger-workers relented. The teenagers felt, however, that the fries they received were not in a large enough quantity. I think that eventually the burger-workers gave over some actual hamburgers.

Yesterday, I was in a coffee shop in Oxford, UK. Two children under the age of twelve entered, both dressed in what were obviously Halloween costumes, with face paint, and carrying plastic pumpkin buckets. (Note: yesterday was October 21.) The children went diligently from table to table doing the following: First, declare "trick or treat," then hold plastic pumpkin bucket toward person sitting at coffee shop table working on laptop, then stand plaintively looking at said person, holding bucket. Remain in that position. 

I said to the older child, "It is not Halloween." She said, "We are going to visit our uncle and he does not observe Halloween."

Only the creepy guy on the sofa in the back of the shop gave them anything. He gave them some change.

Somewhere out there in the universe

Some thing about readers' reports that I am thinking may in fact be the case--

They always take too long to come back. Your manuscript's reports are taking for ever, way longer than you thought or anyone said. Yeah. That always happens. Ask around.

Some thing about readers' reports that is weird--

Somewhere, out in the universe, my book ms. is sitting on someone's desk or something, stressing them out because they were supposed to read it months ago but they didn't. Maybe sometimes they put their coffee or tea cup on the cover page and now it has a few stray stains. But I don't even know who these people are, and there's no way to tell. Where is the desk upon which the ms. is sitting stressing someone out? In a warm place? In a rainy place?

Maybe the person is not even stressed out about it. Hmm. A few times I have said to senior people that my readers' reports are months overdue, and the people said, 'Oh, that reminds me, I am supposed to read this ms. and the report was due months ago. I really should try to get to that soon.' But they did not sound at all stressed about this.

Amazing fact about the Weimar Republic

Two Jewish women (that I know of) were elected to the German parliament under the Weimar Republic: Toni Sender and Adele Schreiber-Krieger.

People

The gay Nazi, people. It doesn't get much more sensational in an academic book.

I am just saying. It doesn't get much more like a major summer blockbuster. Why don't you want to publish it?

I mean, there was the time that a giant squid attacked the Puritans who were sailing around the Atlantic fomenting revolution with their pamphlets. But that was a one-time thing.

The gay Nazi changed gay history. The Puritan-attacking squid did not change squid history.

Evolution of a cover letter

(Cover letter to editor to be mailed along with book proposal.)

Four months ago: "This book makes three important scholarly interventions..."

Today: "This book has a chapter on the gay Nazi (enclosed)."

Failure to befriend sheep

At long last: victory over funding agency

CC found a run-on sentence in the instructions of a funder to whom you have probably applied for money more than once, and if you are like me, have been rejected multiple times, despite spending hours of your and your loved one's time ensuring that your proposal contains no run-on sentences.