How to Structure Your First Nonfiction Book
You’ve nailed down your book’s thesis, done your market research, and created a list of supporting ideas. Now comes the tricky part: figuring out how to order those ideas.
While it’s tempting to dive right into drafting, taking the time to establish a provisional structure before you get too deep into writing can save you the headache of reorganizing later on. Here are some basic principles for organizing ideas at the book or chapter level and making it clear how each of those ideas connects to the others.
We’ll talk about books in this article, but these strategies work equally well with other nonfiction pieces, such as essays, reports, and dissertations.
Narrative or Exposition?
The first step is to determine whether you’ll organize your content as a narrative (story) or exposition (explanation or argument). Most nonfiction contains elements of both, but one or the other usually dominates the book’s organization:
Narrative is more appropriate when the book’s subject is an event, person, or place. Narrative is also appropriate when the primary goal of your book is to engage or entertain.
Exposition is more appropriate when the book’s subject is an idea or phenomenon. Exposition is also appropriate when the primary goal of your book is to inform or persuade.
Today we’ll focus on exposition (a future article will discuss narrative).
What’s Your Argument?
Every piece of expository writing needs a thesis, even if it’s a loose or implicit one. It’s not enough for a book to have a topic. Dig deeper: What do you want to say about that topic? What is your unique position or point of view, the controlling idea that makes your book on this topic different from every other book on this topic?
We’ll call this your “argument” or “theory.” If your book doesn’t have one yet, take some time now to brainstorm options and identify a rough thesis that best represents your goal in writing the book.
Your argument may change during the writing process—that’s normal, and it’s a good thing: It means you’re carefully and rigorously testing your theory and revising it as you go. And the more refined and thoughtful your argument is, the clearer and more convincing your book will be. But even though your argument may evolve, it’s important to have at least a provisional one before planning your book’s structure.
Inductive or Deductive?
Exposition generally flows in one of two directions: inductive or deductive.
Inductive (“evidence first”): A book following inductive reasoning starts with the specifics, like the evidence for a theory, then builds to the thesis or conclusion. This is how most mystery novels are structured: The reader follows along as the detective gathers evidence and then constructs a theory about who committed the crime (or how they committed it) from that evidence.
One pro of this structure: You’re less likely to be accused of cherry-picking your evidence to fit a theory (a relatively common complaint about popular science writing) when you start with the evidence rather than the theory.
One con of this structure: It can be harder for readers to follow this organization because they have to piece together the clues along with the author. This is hard work—if you don’t hold their hand, you risk losing them!
Deductive (“thesis/conclusion first”): A book following deductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction, starting with the thesis or conclusion and then offering evidence to prove to the reader why that conclusion is true.
One pro of this structure: It’s easier for readers to follow because they know the argument’s destination from the outset and can slot the evidence into the theory’s framework as they read.
One con of this structure: It can lend itself to cherry-picking evidence.
Both inductive and deductive reasoning are valid approaches to structuring a chapter, but because many authors find deductive reasoning easier to implement (and because it’s often easier for the reader to follow), a deductive org is often a good place to start with your first nonfiction book (you can always rearrange the pieces later).
Variations of the Basic Deductive Template
Within the larger framework of deductive organization, there are lots of options for structuring a book, chapter, or section. Which is best will depend on your material (you can also combine two or more variations to create a structure that’s tailor-made for your argument or content).
Let’s look at a few of these variations:
Counter-thesis/thesis format: Often, a thesis or argument is reacting against or building off of a prior theory. If that’s the case, explain that prior theory first. This helps situate readers and ultimately allows them to appreciate the book’s argument more than they would if they didn’t understand the intellectual backstory.
An organization following this format might look something like this:
The question the book is answering
The prevailing theory (i.e., one potential answer to the question)
Sub-arguments, evidence, and examples that support this theory
(It’s important to “steelman”—i.e., present the most generous interpretation of—an argument before attempting to dismantle it. Otherwise, you risk being accused of the straw man fallacy, oversimplifying an argument to make it easier to refute.)
Sub-arguments, evidence, and examples that call this theory into question (alternatively, this section could be nested below, under “your new theory”)
Your new theory (i.e., your answer to the question)
Sub-arguments, evidence, and examples that support your new theory
Conclusion (i.e., which argument—the prevailing theory or the new theory—gives the best answer to the question posed at the start of the book, chapter, or section?)
Objection/refutation format: Create some dramatic tension by imagining your reader is arguing with you. You present your thesis, but your reader has objections (e.g., “What about X?”). You address each objection in turn.
Following this format, the organization might look something like this:
Theory
Objection 1: The theory says X, but how do you account for evidence A?
Explanation addressing Objection 1
Objection 2: What about Study Y that said B?
Explanation addressing Objection 2
Conclusion
Chronological format: Move from “known” knowledge or previous theories to new knowledge.
Investigative format: Share your investigative process with the reader. How did you arrive at the argument your book, chapter, or section is making?
Following an investigative format, your organization might look something like this:
Introduce the subject
Give relevant background information
State your theory
Explain the approach that led to the theory’s formation
Give the evidence or results
Discuss the results and conclusion
Nesting-dolls format (general → specific): This structure works best when a book or chapter contains multiple interrelated claims/theses.
Thesis A (the broadest thesis)
Thesis B (more specific than Thesis A; it depends on Thesis A to make sense, so it must come after Thesis A)
Thesis C (the most specific thesis; it depends on Theses A and B to make sense, so it must come after Theses A and B)
Final Pointers
Regardless of the format you choose, keep in mind these general principles for making a clear, persuasive argument in your expository writing:
Preempt the reader’s “Why?”: When making an argument, we tend to stop after explaining it. But the reader won’t just take your word for it, no matter how qualified you are. Tell the reader why the concept is true and, furthermore, why it matters.
Make the logic that connects ideas explicit. How does the idea relate to the idea we just discussed? How does the idea relate to the book’s main argument? Is the idea a supporting point? If so, what argument is it supporting? These kinds of logical connections may seem obvious to you, but they often aren’t obvious to the reader.
