Manuscript formatting

[julesjones]

I've just had a personal demonstration of why standard manuscript format matters...

As I've mentioned previously, one of the gentle ironies of my life is that although I am published by an ebook house, I do not normally read ebooks for pleasure. I'm one of the unfortunates for whom ebooks are physically more difficult to read than dead tree format, and the gap is large enough that it's simply not worth it for me, other than having a couple of familiar classics loaded on my Palm for when I'm stuck in a train station.

I also don't do much crit/beta reading for other writers these days, for related reasons. However, I *am* on one friend's crit group filter on LJ, and over the weekend I read the latest iteration of his current manuscript. (A month late, for various reasons, but no matter.) I think it's currently 60,000 words. And I happily read my way through half of that in one morning, on a screen, without having the issues that bug me with ebooks.

There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that it's work. Highly enjoyable work, but it's still mentally filed under "job". Which means sitting looking at a computer screen isn't really an issue for me as long as it's a decent screen, whereas I really don't like having to sit at a computer to read a book for pleasure. Books get read in all sorts of places, which means I don't want to be tied to a computer, sitting in one place and sitting in the appropriate posture. (Current handhelds do not do it for me.)

And the other reason is Standard Manuscript Format. I'm one of the folk who write in SMF even in a word processor. I'm used to looking at it. It is invisible. And it seems that it's invisible when I'm looking at someone else's manuscript. I'm not spending clock cycles on trying to interpret the layout.

I've known this for a long time, because it's one of the reasons I much prefer mailing lists and Usenet to web forums. I can set the appearance to what's comfortable for *me* and then forget about it. From then on everything looks the same, and I can run through at speed without having to consciously work out who said what. But this really drove it home to me. If the layout is effectively invisible, it makes it ever so much easier to read the text, and if you've been reading 12 point double-spaced Courier etc for years, then it's invisible. Even if it *is* ugly.

And someone who's going through umpty-ump manuscripts in the slushpile needs every little bit of extra reading comfort they can get. As ever -- formatting guidelines are not there because editors like messing with writers' heads. They are there to make the editor's job that little bit easier. RTFGuidelines, and follow them. Whatever format the editor wants, give it to them. And if it's not stated, assume the standard 12 point double-spaced Courier yadda yadda. Yes, it's boring and it's ugly. It's also invisible to most editors, and that's what you want if you want to make that editor just that little bit happier when they look at the first page. Editors are human. They will smile more kindly upon your attempt at fame and fortune if they don't get a headache simply from trying to read the thing.

Comments

[ally-blue.livejournal.com]

Amen to that. The putting-in-requested-format, that is. Myself, I have to up the font size. It gives me a headache to try and read in 12 pt LOL. I end up writing in 17 pt Times New Roman then reformatting for submission. Guess I'd make a crap editor :D

I've heard the occasional author complain about having to format to fit submission guidelines. I've never understood that. It's no big deal to put the text in the format the pub wants, and change the font type and size to what they want, fix the margins and all that. It takes less than a minute. Making the editor happy is a good thing!

[julesjones]

I just set the word processor to use 12 point Courier, then set the display zoom to whatever feels comfortable to read. What that is depends on the monitor...

Some editors prefer TNR (mine, IIRC, but she says just send her a sane document format and she'll change it to exactly what she wants), but Courier is always acceptable. :-)

[lorrilynnebrown.livejournal.com]

Hear! Hear!

As an editor, I can tell you that if your manuscript looks funky - bookman or something, I'm going to have trouble reading it. Font size - eh, if I need to I just increase it.

Yes I could reformat it if I really want to - but if you can't follow the directions - why would I want to work with you? It's your job to hook me, and make me want to edit your book. Not following directions is a good way to un-hook me quick.

[julesjones]

I think there are a couple of problems baby writers have. One is that they really can't get their heads around just how many manuscripts there are in a slushpile, and don't realise that the editor may have to multiply that minute or two by hundreds or thousands; and the other is that they *do* have an awareness of the existence of the slushpile, and have a desperate desire to stand out. Unfortunately they pick the wrong way to stand out.

I started my pro writing career at an advantage -- not only had I already been conditioned to seek out and follow the formatting guidelines in my non-fiction publishing career, I had edited conference proceedings for an in-house technical conference and several fanfic zines. Being on the other side of the slushpile rapidly teaches you a few things about how and why not to cause unnecessary annoyance to editors...

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

Courier was designed to be readable. It's a superior screen font, making it easy for the eye to recognise the shape of letters, which means you can concentrate on the content of a text.

I mostly write in 1.5 spaced courier, with the occasional foray into Palatino. For all the thousands of fonts that I use when I feel fancy, there is only a handful that I find useful for longer texts.

[brooksmoses]

Heh. I was going to say that I didn't use Courier on-screen much at all, but then I realized that the reason for that is that I use a Courier-derived font in a plaintext editor and I think of it as "unformatted" rather than "Courier". And because it's white-on-dark-gray rather than black-on-white, it fits in a different spot in my mind for some odd reason.

[ceciliatan.livejournal.com]

Actually, courier is not invisible to me, though maybe it is for editors who started back when most of what they got was actually coming out of typewriters. I hate it and think it's ugly, but not enough to put in my writers guidelines that I want Times or something else. I feel asking people to write a good story and then at least give a decent try at standard formatting is enough of a demand.

But Times really is easier to read, and wastes less paper because it is so compact.

[julesjones]

Ellen Datlow's another one who prefers Times, IIRC. Courier's the safe option if no preference is given, but if an editor says they want something else, they'll get it from me. I'd rather stand out by being the person who read the guidelines and followed them. :-) I've seen guidelines that say something along the lines of "Courier or Times or another _sensible_ font, in a size large enough to be kind to my eyes."

[ravenmcknight-1.livejournal.com]

Hallelujah, O Wise One. You know me -- I dink around with the settings until I get exactly what I want. But that's on mss I've either already accepted or know I'm likely to be accepting, so the dinking around just counts as part of the editing process. When I'm trying to get through a random submission, I hate having to mess with the settings just to be able to comfortably read the story. Will that alone make me turn it down? No. But it does run the risk of making me cranky, and the sane writer should know that making the reviewing editor cranky is probably not the best way to tip the odds in their own favor. I'm blind as a bat and am working on a laptop -- the format guidelines are there for a good reason, not as a display of editorial powertripping.