short story: 1st page format/incidentals

[gp101]

I understand that we don't include a title page when submitting short stories the way we do when submitting novels; we include vital info on page one of the story itself. But how is it formatted, how should it look? I'm not even sure what info is needed. Is it simply contact info along with title and word count? I've heard we need to include a byline.

Would this be appropriate (starting on the first line of page 1 of the story):

TITLE: Blah Bla Bla

AUTHOR: Joe Idaho
Idaho University graduate, minor in writing. Former
reporter for Idaho Times.

CONTACT: Joe Idaho
21 Cornstarch St
Cornrolls, ID 12345

jidaho@someservice.net
(860)555-5555

GENRE: crime

PAGES: 20

WORD COUNT: 4750


All this info (at doublespace, or with entire ms formatted at EXACTLY 25 PT with W/O off) reaches halfway down the first page right up to the first line of the story. And it just looks ugly. And wrong. Is it wrong? If not, is it appropriate to single space just this info on the first page while leaving the rest of the story properly formatted?

The guidelines for the magazine I'm submitting to offers no specifics on this topic, only that a query is not needed.

Thanks

PS the example I used above isn't displayed the way I want it because this is a post. In the manuscript, everything is indented/alligned past the capitalized words (TITLE, AUTHOR, etc)

[scribbler1382]

There's a Writing Short Fiction forum where this has probably been answered quite a few times. Search and fill yer noggin. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

You don't need most of what you wrote, and it shouldn't all be strung down the page. Proper format is much simpler than you're making it. Just write what I've done below, and nothing more. You not only have much more info than anyone wants, you also have much of it in the wrong place. The first page of a short story, or a novel, is very simple.


James A. Ritchie........................................... ........... 3,450 words
555 Nightengale Drive
New Haven In, 47362

Phone: 555-555-5555
E-Mail: Ritchie@ritchie.com



(Center Title and byline.)

Post Haste
A Short Story
By James A. Ritchie

.....Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, suddenly there came a tapping, as if someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

[DamaNegra]

someone posted this in another forum... hope it helps

http://www.shunn.net/format/story.html

[pdr]

The golden rule is follow the format the editor asks for.

That being said the 'rest of the world' format for short stories usually means including a cover sheet with all your story and personal details on it. This is, of course, a generalisation as I have had editors in the UK for example say 'no cover sheet' and a couple of American literary journals who asked for a cover sheet.

[Jamesaritchie]

The golden rule is follow the format the editor asks for.

That being said the 'rest of the world' format for short stories usually means including a cover sheet with all your story and personal details on it. This is, of course, a generalisation as I have had editors in the UK for example say 'no cover sheet' and a couple of American literary journals who asked for a cover sheet.

Not a cover sheet, a cover letter. In twenty-five years, I've never had an editor anywhere, in any country I've dealth with, beit UK, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Mexico, and three or four others, ask for a cover sheet to go with a short story. Nor have I ever seen guidelines, anywhere, in any country, that asked for a cover sheet to go with a short story. I'm sure there may be some editors who want them, and some guidelines that ask for them, but they're rare, and I can't imagine what an editor would do with a cover sheet? I certainly never found a use for them.

Cover sheets are useless, even for novels, let alone for short stories. With novels, some use cover sheets and some don't. I don't know any editors who care. Cover sheets are usually "lost or tossed," even with novels, and novel or short story, even if you include a cover sheet you must ALWAYS include the same information on page one.

But I have yet to have any editor ask for for cover sheets for short stories, and I've yet to see any guidelines that ask for a cover sheet, and I've yet to meet a pro writer who uses cover sheets for short stories. But the main thing is that I've yet to talk to an editor who cares at all.

At best, a cover sheet is one more piece of paper no one is going to read, and that you don't know what to do with.

[maestrowork]

I think cover sheets are okay -- an editor won't toss your ms. away because of that, but it's not necessary. Everything the editor needs to know is on the title page of the ms. If he's interested in your ms., he would contact you to get more information (credits, reference, etc.) Just make sure your name, contact info, etc. are on the title page. Make sure you put your name and the title of the story in the header of the following pages.

[Garbarian]

There's a difference between a cover sheet and a cover letter, as James pointed out. A cover sheet is pointless; a cover letter is de rigueur.

[arrowqueen]

I'm sure pdr is perfectly aware of the difference.

In the UK, a cover sheet is perfectly acceptable. I always use one for purely practical reasons. If I get a rejection with a coffee ring (or worse!) on the front, it saves me having to guddle through my disks to find the original and reprint the whole first page, before I send the story out again.

[pdr]

Thank you, ArrowQueen. Yes, I do know the difference between a cover sheet and a covering letter.

Sorry, James, but it is taught as standard for submitting to the UK and Commonwealth. You put a cover sheet on the front of your story. Their purpose? Well, I don't know, they were required!

A couple of small press editors in the UK I know say they are really useful for writing comments on. The sort of comments you daren't write on the actual story I suppose? Or maybe for comments just to keep the writer's copy pristine so that the writer can send it out again.

One of my woman's mag editors says they are useful for writing first impressions on and then filing away with the s.a.e. to ensure the correct story gets back to the writer!

I always e-mail everything now and don't have to worry.

Oh, I shall be so glad when I am permanently in one place and can source all my reference books and quote you chapter and verse on things like this.

[Jamesaritchie]

Thank you, ArrowQueen. Yes, I do know the difference between a cover sheet and a covering letter.

Sorry, James, but it is taught as standard for submitting to the UK and Commonwealth. You put a cover sheet on the front of your story. Their purpose? Well, I don't know, they were required!

A couple of small press editors in the UK I know say they are really useful for writing comments on. The sort of comments you daren't write on the actual story I suppose? Or maybe for comments just to keep the writer's copy pristine so that the writer can send it out again.

One of my woman's mag editors says they are useful for writing first impressions on and then filing away with the s.a.e. to ensure the correct story gets back to the writer!

I always e-mail everything now and don't have to worry.

Oh, I shall be so glad when I am permanently in one place and can source all my reference books and quote you chapter and verse on things like this.

I can only tell you I've never had a UK editor request a cover letter for a short story. Yes, editors do often write on and file cover sheets, but nothing on earth is lossed or tossed as often as a cover sheet, even with novels.

In the end, I don't think it really matters. US magazines do not want cover sheets, and no editor anywhere is going to reject a story because it lacks a cover sheet, or buy a story because it has a cover sheet. Some things just aren't terribly important, and this is one of them.

[pdr]

As you say, James:

In the end, I don't think it really matters. US magazines do not want cover sheets, and no editor anywhere is going to reject a story because it lacks a cover sheet, or buy a story because it has a cover sheet.

Yes, you're right.

I teach my writing students both ways of formatting so that they can follow the customs an editor is used to.

But what you say makes me wonder.

Maybe you haven't had a UK editor request a cover sheet for a short story because you are American. You're from America and used American formatting. Perhaps your requested story or unsolicited submission simply made the editor shrug and think, 'Well, he's American and they don't know to use our format.'

No, I'm not arguing. That doesn't alter the truth of what you said.

BUT
I am not American and if I submit my stories to an American magazine I am expected to know and use the American format. And yes, in my beginner days many years ago I had work rejected or sent back to be reformatted because my format and spelling were not American.

And that brings me to the sticky question.
Why?
If I buy a book by an American writer I expect it to be different. The spelling will be peculiar by my kiwi standards, expressions, and structures and cultural references will not be familiar. They are American.

If I buy a book by an Australian or Italian or Scot I expect to come across differences in word use, idioms and things cultural.

So why?
Why do American publishers insist that books by non-Americans are edited to have American spellings, words changed - trousers to pants, sweets to candy, handbag to purse - American expressions inserted and American cultural references included?

For example why does Reginald Hill's Yorkshire Detective Superintendent Andy Dalziel have to say 'He pled the fifth.' (A Yorkshire policeman and Dalziel to boot saying that?) in the American copy of 'Death's Jest Book'? And why are all his yorkshire-isms Americanised, the spellings changed and idioms altered?

For example why does R.D. Wingfield's Inspector Jack Frost, another English
policeman, in the American version of 'Winter Frost' have his favourite expression of 'arseholes', changed to 'bum holes'? Why is the vital missing 'handbag' changed to 'purse' and why does his obnoxious chief speak in Americanisms? Even some of the English police procedure is changed to American police procedures.

Why do my English students at the University when reading an American version of 'Jane Eyre' have to have the title changed to 'Jane Eyer'? And all the spellings and expressions have been Americanised and the Yorkshire idioms and cultural references turned into something more kin to the Southern States than Yorkshire?

I did, at a Writer's conference, have a long discussion with an American editor from a large American publisher. She said they changed things because they believed that their American readers wouldn't understand and so they couldn't sell these foreign books.

A friend countered with: "Then if that's so and it helps to sell the books then why don't you change your American books into New Zealand English or British English when you sell them here."

She didn't know and as she was a guest and a very nice lady to boot we didn't press but took her off to enjoy some night life!

But I am still left with the question why? Why must New Zealand or British writing be altered to fit the American culture and format but American writing coming to New Zealand or Britain is not?

[Jamesaritchie]

As you say, James:

In the end, I don't think it really matters. US magazines do not want cover sheets, and no editor anywhere is going to reject a story because it lacks a cover sheet, or buy a story because it has a cover sheet.

Yes, you're right.

I teach my writing students both ways of formatting so that they can follow the customs an editor is used to.

But what you say makes me wonder.

Maybe you haven't had a UK editor request a cover sheet for a short story because you are American. You're from America and used American formatting. Perhaps your requested story or unsolicited submission simply made the editor shrug and think, 'Well, he's American and they don't know to use our format.'

No, I'm not arguing. That doesn't alter the truth of what you said.

BUT
I am not American and if I submit my stories to an American magazine I am expected to know and use the American format. And yes, in my beginner days many years ago I had work rejected or sent back to be reformatted because my format and spelling were not American.

And that brings me to the sticky question.
Why?
If I buy a book by an American writer I expect it to be different. The spelling will be peculiar by my kiwi standards, expressions, and structures and cultural references will not be familiar. They are American.

If I buy a book by an Australian or Italian or Scot I expect to come across differences in word use, idioms and things cultural.

So why?
Why do American publishers insist that books by non-Americans are edited to have American spellings, words changed - trousers to pants, sweets to candy, handbag to purse - American expressions inserted and American cultural references included?

For example why does Reginald Hill's Yorkshire Detective Superintendent Andy Dalziel have to say 'He pled the fifth.' (A Yorkshire policeman and Dalziel to boot saying that?) in the American copy of 'Death's Jest Book'? And why are all his yorkshire-isms Americanised, the spellings changed and idioms altered?

For example why does R.D. Wingfield's Inspector Jack Frost, another English
policeman, in the American version of 'Winter Frost' have his favourite expression of 'arseholes', changed to 'bum holes'? Why is the vital missing 'handbag' changed to 'purse' and why does his obnoxious chief speak in Americanisms? Even some of the English police procedure is changed to American police procedures.

Why do my English students at the University when reading an American version of 'Jane Eyre' have to have the title changed to 'Jane Eyer'? And all the spellings and expressions have been Americanised and the Yorkshire idioms and cultural references turned into something more kin to the Southern States than Yorkshire?

I did, at a Writer's conference, have a long discussion with an American editor from a large American publisher. She said they changed things because they believed that their American readers wouldn't understand and so they couldn't sell these foreign books.

A friend countered with: "Then if that's so and it helps to sell the books then why don't you change your American books into New Zealand English or British English when you sell them here."

She didn't know and as she was a guest and a very nice lady to boot we didn't press but took her off to enjoy some night life!

But I am still left with the question why? Why must New Zealand or British writing be altered to fit the American culture and format but American writing coming to New Zealand or Britain is not?

You're probably right about cover sheets and Americans. This probably is why UK editors haven't asked for one. I have found that most editors allow writers to do things the way the do them at home, simply because it causes less confusion and lets the writer concentrate on the writing.

Novels such as Jane Eyre are an exception. Jane Eyre is published in both UK and American versions here, and with both spellings.

I don't think American versions are changed as much as you think. Some of the changes you list make no sense. "Arseholes" is an American word, but "bum holes" is British. We don't use it in America at all, except as rare slang in a few cities, and I doubt 99% of Americans would have a clue what it meant. The only time I've ever heard "Bum holes" used by anyone was in London. Definitely not an American expression. We never, ever call a rear end a "bum." But maybe this is why the change was made. Maybe the writer or the publishers wanted a British phrase, rather than a common American phrase. I sincrely doubt this was an American change. Americans wouldn't know to make this change. "Bum" and "Bum hole" are strictly British expressions.

"Trousers" and "Pants," well, I can see the sense behind this. I've noticed that British publishers usually change "pants" to "trousers" because "pants" has a very different meaning in most of Britain. "Vest," too, can have a completely different meaning, and the way the British often use the word "vest" makes absolutely no sense to American readers. The word is a different article of clothing here, and would be confusing to anyone. British publishers make the same change, in reverse, in American novels.

Words are changed because the same word means something completely different here. Idioms usually aren't changed, except when the writer himself makes the change, thinking it will work better. You'd be amazed at how often a publisher gets the blame for something a writer does in this area. Though idioms can be changed when the words therein give it a completely different meaning here. British publishers also make such changes to American novels.

As for why our books aren't changed when published in other countries, well, they are. It depends on who the publisher is. When a British publisher releases an American novel, they do, nearly always, change spelling, punctuation, and word choice, to fit the British reader.

But it's the publisher of a given country that makes any changes. If there is, for example, no publisher in a given country that has the money and time to completely edit and republish a book, then changes aren't made because they can't be. American publishers do not change their own books to fit other countries, and neither do British publishers. It's the responsibility of a publisher located in a given country to make changes that fit that country.

British publishers are usually big enough that spelling and punctuation do get changed. Punctuation gets moved outside the quotes in Britain, instead of inside as they are here, and "Flavor," "color, etc., get changed to "flavour" and "Colour." And "pants" gets changed back to trousers, because pants does not mean the same thing at all in Britain as it does here. "Vest" also gets changed.

British publishers do usually expect American writers to use British spelling, and words should be spelled the same as they usually are in the country where the book is being published. British publishers used to insist that I change my spelling dictionary over to British before submitting anything, but lately most have said not to worry about. Electronics makes it easier for them to make the changes.

All in all, I think American publishers do a very good job with changes, and so do British publishers. And British publishers do make a LOT of changes to American novels.

And American publishers usually make changes only where necessary. I think my favorite novels from the UK are the Lovejoy novels by Jonathan Gash. They're changed hardly at all, other than spelling and punctuation, which means taking the "u" out fo many words, and moving punctuation inside the quotation marks..

But American writing coming to New Zealand and Britain is changed considerably. They make the same basic types of changes that American publishers make. When a word means a radically different thing, that word is nearly always changed. But you have to read both the American and the British version to see the changes.

When changes aren't made, it's nearly always because there is no British or New Zealand publisher for the book, and the readers are actually getting the American version. Or because the British or New Zealand publisher doesn't have the money and resources to make the changes, so they simply republish the book as is.

All in all, I think publishers do a very good job with the changes, and I think most are necessary, and make the reading easier, clearer, and far more pleasant.

[pdr]

I appreciate your detailed answer, James. But it has been one of those weeks where a whole series of small things all slid into place and leave me wanting more answers.

‘Jane Eyre’ is published in both UK and American versions here, and with both spellings.

I can see the purpose of changing spellings of some words and the odd nouns, but that version of 'Jane Eyre' I saw was not edited just for spelling and the odd noun problem. It had been mutilated. The original text had been so tampered with that I doubt Charlotte Bronte would have recognised it.

And why change the title which is the heroine's name? If I spend time in the States would my surname be altered in all the hotel registers and immigration documents if it were Eyre. Would I be asked to write Eyer?

Some of the changes you list make no sense.

That's what I felt about these changes. And it's what some of my writer friends felt after seeing changes made to their novels in the American publisher's version.
Changing spelling and those tricky nouns like 'pants' is understandable, although personally I think the idea of reading a book written by a foreign writer is to experience their world, nouns and spelling included.
Being asked to change ***** to lady dog seems a little precious.

"Arseholes" is an American word, but "bum holes" is British.

Actually I thought that Americans said *** and we Kiwis and other Standard English speakers said ARSE. But I'm not quibbling about that or overly concerned about it.

I mentioned Bum holes because the author himself made a comment about this. He was asked about how he felt having his books on the American market and he made the usual answers about the financial advantages. When asked about any changes to his novels he said something like he couldn't understand some of the changes. He didn't like his tough old inspector being made to say the childish Bum holes instead of Arseholes. (I think he meant that children might be the ones to say Bum hole because they'd be in trouble if they said Arsehole! ) He went on to mention the Americanisation of British police procedure and being told that the American publisher insisted on this although he, as writer, had protested.

When a British publisher releases an American novel, they do, nearly always, change spelling, punctuation, and word choice, to fit the British reader.

Yes, I understand this, and that it's:

the publisher of a given country that makes any changes. If there is, for example, no publisher in a given country that has the money and time to completely edit and republish a book, then changes aren't made because they can't be.

Fine. Makes sense.
What doesn't make sense are the changes beyond spelling and nouns.

I'd be interested to know if you've had problems with changes to your novels in the UK? Was something basically American like the examples I gave of police techniques and procedure altered to something quite different but British. How did you feel about it?

And where should the line be drawn? Where does editing stop being editing and become tampering with the text?

Having a British detective say: 'He pled the fifth.' is senseless. That's not part of the British justice scene.
Having a story about something that happened in a non-American, southern hemisphere school being altered for the American market to the northern hemisphere American system makes a nonsense of the story and turns the plot in to gibberish.

All in all, I think publishers do a very good job with the changes, and I think most are necessary, and make the reading easier, clearer, and far more pleasant.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't think it's a publisher's job to alter a writer's work just to make things comfortable for his readers. So smoko, mana and kina aren't words commonly in use in America. If their meaning is fairly plain from the context why change them? If a novel or story is about a non- American education, justice, social services, whatever system why try to make it American? That's not what the writer wrote.