Annoying question: Why?

[Nateskate]

Sorry, I was one of those antsy kids who asked "Why?"

This is a publishing/editor type question.

One of the issues that has come up multiple times is writing format. I completely understand "Font issues", because font makes things more readable. But honestly, I saw a font nobody uses that was remarkably easy to read. "Comic Sans". It causes no eye strain, and is actually fun to use.

I'm not questioning the Courier/Times Roman standards. I'll just accept that the industry prefers a particular font. What I question is the idea of underlining. I'm not saying the industry doesn't use certain mark-ups, but aren't they outdated in the computer word processor age?

Way back in the day of hand written and typed manuscripts, you had no means of showing an editor what you wanted unless you used mark-ups. Now, you can simply reproduce on a WP a paper exactly how you want it to look.

Is it possible that these mark-ups will go the way of the Dodo Bird, because WP can show an editor exactly what you want your story to look like?

Sure, I am admitting from the getgo, that I don't know all the ins and outs and facts here, so I'd be curious to know the "Whys" And hopefully it doesn't come down to, "I'm your mother, and I said so-so eat your mark-ups like a good boy"

[Kate Nepveu]

The answer you want is here:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=83076#post83076

[Medievalist]

Kate's link is the perfect answer.

But I'll expand, having been the poor typesetter, scorned by editors and authors alike <g>

There is no universal standard for italics in text/word processing. Even in terms of RTF, there are at least eight RTF variants.

Paper is universal.

Regarding fonts, it's to do with estimating page count.

[Nateskate]

The answer you want is here:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=83076#post83076


From that post: The typesetters are used to this system,

This relates to my point. Are you serving the system. Is it time for the system to face the facts that we now live in a WP society where a person can virtually self edit?

Work in law, or government bureaucracy and you learn that you do thousands of silly things because the bureaucracy demands redundancy. You fill out forms. Why? No one really knows. That's just the nature of the beast.

I'm just wondering if this is the case in publishing?

[Nateskate]

Kate's link is the perfect answer.

But I'll expand, having been the poor typesetter, scorned by editors and authors alike <g>

There is no universal standard for italics in text/word processing. Even in terms of RTF, there are at least eight RTF variants.

Paper is universal.

Regarding fonts, it's to do with estimating page count.

I understand it on one level, but my question is related to the need for all of these codes in a PC world. I'd imagine you need Universal symbols of some kind. But why write a squiggly line under your MSS when you actually have something written in italics in the first place?

Again, I'm not a typesetter and have no idea, but I'd imagine it has more to do with type-setting than editing. They are just used to seeing it in a certain way, and are programmed that way. And since people who submit manuscripts aren't all consistant, they are just used to this system.

But deep down, I think the system is not even necessary. Why not do the whole thing on a P.C, and a P.C transpose how to typeset it. Then you just need to teach people to submit things in a universal format to the editor. But without these mark-ups. Just use Italics where you want it.

[katiemac]

Nate, this is my thought on the process. Bear in mind I have absolutely no experience or authority on typesetting.

Yes, typesetters are used to the way things are now. In the computer generation, it's easy to make one click and change the look of your manuscript. However, it's not like your ms is just scanned into a computer and then printed off in novel format.

Typesetters are going to have to go through your work no matter what and arrange font format, lines, indexing, etc. When it comes to italics, once you've been staring at a large block of text for a long time, I think those can be easy to miss. Underlining, on the other hand, draws much more attention to the word or phrase than just italics.

[Jamesaritchie]

Sorry, I was one of those antsy kids who asked "Why?"

This is a publishing/editor type question.

One of the issues that has come up multiple times is writing format. I completely understand "Font issues", because font makes things more readable. But honestly, I saw a font nobody uses that was remarkably easy to read. "Comic Sans". It causes no eye strain, and is actually fun to use.

I'm not questioning the Courier/Times Roman standards. I'll just accept that the industry prefers a particular font. What I question is the idea of underlining. I'm not saying the industry doesn't use certain mark-ups, but aren't they outdated in the computer word processor age?

Way back in the day of hand written and typed manuscripts, you had no means of showing an editor what you wanted unless you used mark-ups. Now, you can simply reproduce on a WP a paper exactly how you want it to look.

Is it possible that these mark-ups will go the way of the Dodo Bird, because WP can show an editor exactly what you want your story to look like?

Sure, I am admitting from the getgo, that I don't know all the ins and outs and facts here, so I'd be curious to know the "Whys" And hopefully it doesn't come down to, "I'm your mother, and I said so-so eat your mark-ups like a good boy"

I think what it really comes down to is this: Even though it's the computer age, manuscripts are still submitted on paper, and are primarily still edited by hand, and you still have to read them with your eyes, so in this way, computers have changed nothing.

The problem with using italics is that the manuscript has to be edited. If the editor sees a sentence that is italicised and wants to change it, she must use a proofreader's mark. And if she sees a sentences that isn't italicised but should be, the only way she can indicate this is by underlining the sentence with a pen.

The same is true when you receive the copyedited manuscript and go through it. If you see a sentence you want italicised, you'll have to underline that sentence. There is no other way to do it on a copyedited manuscript.

So if you used actual italics in the writing of the manuscript, you now have two ways of showing italics, and are really doubling the chance that the typesetter will miss something. There's no consistency.

Comic Sans is a pretty font, but while the italics it uses are fairly easy to see on the screen, they can easily be missed on paper.

Ease of reading simply isn;t the issue. Ease of editing is the issue. Manuscripts aren't about being pretty, they aren't about looks at all, they're about being easy to edit in a manner that means nothing gets overlooked, and all parties involved see the same thing.

If submissions and editing every go completely electronic, it may be that proofreader's marks will go the way of the dodo bird, though it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. Some good electronic editors still use them. But if this happens it will mean using a standardized font is even more important, probably Times. Times is a pain in the butt to edit on paper, but it's perfect for electonic editing, and has a distinctive italic font that shows up well on the screen.

But as long as manuscripts are edited by hand, then sent back and forth between writer and editor, and then sent to other editors, proofreader's marks, including underlining, and the only way to make sure only one form of indication italics is used, that nothing is missed, and that the final product looks and reads the way everyone wishes.

That's teh thing. Many people will work on your manuscript. You'll have to go through it at least twice, and so will the editor. Sometimes you'll have to go through it making changes sveral times. The copyeditor will have to go trhough it, and so will the typesetter. There may even be another edior in line. And throughout this process, all the editing is done by hand, and by using proofreader's marks. So with all these people in the chain, consistency is very important.

I've simply never heard a good reason not to underline, or to use any font other than Courier 12. Doing so makes it easier for everyone, and not doing so has no advantages at all.

All this is less important with short stories because more and more editors are going to elctronic editing with short stories, but even with short stories there are times when a manuscript has to go back and forth between editor and writer a couple of times before it's ready to be edited/sent as an electronic version.

[Tish Davidson]

Writing and publishing have lots of conventions - the way we indicated dialogue in English for example. The conventions exist to make meaning as clear and universal as possible. I cannot understand why people waste time fretting about italics or underline. Underlining for italics in a manuscript is a convention, just like quotation marks are a convention to indicate dialogue. So learn it and use and don't give it another thought or or look like an amateur.

[maestrowork]

Read the guidelines. Some publications do accept electronic submissions and they'd ask for like Time Romans font (but not Comics San!) and also italics, because they do all the editing on PCs. But those are special cases. If you're not sure, stick with the convention.

[Nateskate]

Nate, this is my thought on the process. Bear in mind I have absolutely no experience or authority on typesetting.

Yes, typesetters are used to the way things are now. In the computer generation, it's easy to make one click and change the look of your manuscript. However, it's not like your ms is just scanned into a computer and then printed off in novel format.

Typesetters are going to have to go through your work no matter what and arrange font format, lines, indexing, etc. When it comes to italics, once you've been staring at a large block of text for a long time, I think those can be easy to miss. Underlining, on the other hand, draws much more attention to the word or phrase than just italics.

If they like the MS, why don't they just get the MS on disc from you and do it all on PC?

By the way, I don't plan to start a revolution. I'll do whatever they ask, and give them what they want. These are just "Why?" questions.

To me its like digital recording. Once upon a time, musicians refused to use digital recording, because at one time it was inferior, but eventually, "digital" capability increased dramatically. Now you can rarely find a studio that isn't mostly digital. Entire C.Ds are recorded that way.

This is a P.C world, and I can't comprehend a system that would seem to be increasingly become archaic?

[maestrowork]

They can, but they don't for various reasons -- computer viruses, file formats, computer platforms, etc. etc. PLUS nobody wants to read a 100K ms on computer screen. Most people would print it out first... so you're back to paper.

As for typesetters... you really must ask a professional typesetter. We can just sit here and ask "why don't you just use a computer file?" But until you sit with them day in and day out -- these guys look at texts all day -- you won't find out why they DEMAND certain things to make their job easier. Remember, it's your job to make their lives easier, not the other way around.

Edit: as for digital music vs. print... even in music they have standards, e.g. MIDI, .WAV files... all their equipments handle the same formats. It's not like you can just send a studio an MP3 or AIFF... it has to be a format that EVERYONE'S computer can read.

The problem with publishing is that a HUMAN has to read the ms., not a computer. The computer can accept the file format and display it on screen, but a HUMAN still has to read the text. The formatting conventions are there to ensure that it makes it easier for the editors and typesetters to read the texts and do their jobs.

[Nateskate]

They can, but they don't for various reasons -- computer viruses, file formats, computer platforms, etc. etc. PLUS nobody wants to read a 100K ms on computer screen. Most people would print it out first... so you're back to paper.

As for typesetters... you really must ask a professional typesetter. We can just sit here and ask "why don't you just use a computer file?" But until you sit with them day in and day out -- these guys look at texts all day -- you won't find out why they DEMAND certain things to make their job easier. Remember, it's your job to make their lives easier, not the other way around.

Yeah, I can see your point. You are saving the editors. I like working with paper. When I do my re-writes, I print them out. Not only don't I like reading long text on a monitor, but I make more mistakes and overlook more errors.

[maestrowork]

Nate, I've been editing my ms for this publisher for weeks now. They prefer to do it electronically and with Times Roman font. Not conventional, but that's what they prefer. And I'll tell you it's a PAIN. It's so easy to miss things. In my experience, it is SO much easier to edit Courier... you almost never miss an error... until other proportional fonts.

[aplath]

If they like the MS, why don't they just get the MS on disc from you and do it all on PC?

By the way, I don't plan to start a revolution. I'll do whatever they ask, and give them what they want. These are just "Why?" questions.

To me its like digital recording. Once upon a time, musicians refused to use digital recording, because at one time it was inferior, but eventually, "digital" capability increased dramatically. Now you can rarely find a studio that isn't mostly digital. Entire C.Ds are recorded that way.

This is a P.C world, and I can't comprehend a system that would seem to be increasingly become archaic?

Nate, you are assuming that either:

1) Everyone uses the same or at least compatible word processing software.

and/or

2) There is such a thing as a standard universal format for formated text that is consistently readable by all WP software.

Neither of the above is true.

And also ... when dealing with eletronic files you suddenly have worries like bandwidth cost, virus in e-mail attachments, and other really annoying stuff. I guess editors think it's simply not worth it.

Andreas

[Nateskate]

Nate, you are assuming that either:

1) Everyone uses the same or at least compatible word processing software.

and/or

2) There is such a thing as a standard universal format for formated text that is consistently readable by all WP software.

Neither of the above is true.

Andreas

Uncle! I'm convinced.

[Jamesaritchie]

If they like the MS, why don't they just get the MS on disc from you and do it all on PC?

By the way, I don't plan to start a revolution. I'll do whatever they ask, and give them what they want. These are just "Why?" questions.

To me its like digital recording. Once upon a time, musicians refused to use digital recording, because at one time it was inferior, but eventually, "digital" capability increased dramatically. Now you can rarely find a studio that isn't mostly digital. Entire C.Ds are recorded that way.

This is a P.C world, and I can't comprehend a system that would seem to be increasingly become archaic?

I think you've touched on it. Right now it's still easier and more efficient to do the preliminary editing by hand, especially when two or three or four people are involved. It may be a PC world, but there are still things can be done easier, faster, and cheaper without a computer. There's nothing at all archaic about doing things in the easiest, cheapest, and most efficient way.

When a manuscript is going back and forth between writer and editors, and when editing is done during each trip, I find doing it all on a computer much more difficult and much more frustrating than doing it all by hand on paper.

But I do think Word is getting fairly close to the point where this will no longer be true. If a halfway decent programmer would do a bit of work, I think he could build a word processor with editors and writers in mind that would make the editing process very easy and very efficient.

The trouble, I think, is that word processors are programmed for writing and revsing, not for back and forth editing. But Word 2003 is, for me, at least, a big step in the right direction, and I think that if some programmer would sit down and listen to both a writer and an editor for just an hour or two, every last one of my objections would quickly vanish.

So, yes, I think we will go "digital" with manuscripts. I have no clue how long this will take, but I think it will happen as quickly as those in charge want it to. I don't think it would take very long at all to make the necessary changes in a word processor. It's just a matter of someone doing it, and then of getting publishers to use it. If it's cheaper, easier, and faster, they will, and I think it would be all these things.

[maestrowork]

Not to mention agents and editors don't read mss during office hours. They take them home or on the train to work or whatever. Nobody wants to read a long ms on a laptop screen. It's so much easier with a big binder and a red pen...

[SRHowen]

My agent once said, Shawn, get a better printer, the ink runs in the tub.:eek:

Umm, OK--so they do read them in strange places.

Shawn

[Jamesaritchie]

Not to mention agents and editors don't read mss during office hours. They take them home or on the train to work or whatever. Nobody wants to read a long ms on a laptop screen. It's so much easier with a big binder and a red pen...

Yes, there's always that problem. But if they're electronic, you can do the editing almost anywhere, if you own a laptop. Though I'm pretty sure laptops and bathtubs are not a good combination.

[maestrowork]

Shawn, your ms has seen more (flesh) of your agent than you do.

:)

[SRHowen]

Shawn, your ms has seen more (flesh) of your agent than you do.

:)

Yup, esp since he and I have never met face to face.

One thing to always consider, you can't go wrong with industry standard or conventional fromatting, but you can with things outside that.

So why take the risk?

Shawn

[maestrowork]

Because people hate following rules... especially those they don't understand.

[SRHowen]

Ok, I get that. But it seems that no matter how often it is explained --- oh never mind, I'm in a mood tonight.

Shawn

[Denis Castellan]

If I were to get a letter from a publisher I'd definitely like a "your story is quite original" better than a "your ms. format is really original"

Although I'm not really concerned at this time, I've started to notice that french ms. format is different from I've been reading around here. For instance, I'm not sure a french publisher would accept a ms. in loose (?) sheets (I mean all manuscripts I've seen had a "glue-binding" if that makes sense.)
I've started searching for publishers's guidelines, but it seems that they all kind of assume everyone knows how a ms. should be formatted.

[Nateskate]

As much as I'm the kid looking for the exception (my nature), I realize I have to conform here. I guess that non-conformist bent might be interesting in some places, but with the competition to get published, the last thing I want, is to be annoying.

In fact, I saw so much advice that said the same thing, that I've gone back and restructured my entires story to make it more conventional. (hope it works, because it took 3 months)

[JanaLanier]

I've read that many slushpile readers will simply toss your submission if it isn't formatted correctly. Which means it can be brilliant, but that doesn't matter, because they won't even read it. I guess they they figure that if you won't take the time to use correct manuscript format, then you probably won't take the time to write grammatically correct sentences, etc.

I know we've hashed this one to death, but I think it bears repeating that if you don't format correctly, your chance of getting out of the slushpile goes from slim to zero.

Jana, hoping for slim

[Tish Davidson]

My agent once said, Shawn, get a better printer, the ink runs in the tub.:eek:

Umm, OK--so they do read them in strange places.

Shawn


I got one back saying Sorry about the sand. I was reading this at the beach.

[SRHowen]

I've read that many slushpile readers will simply toss your submission if it isn't formatted correctly. Which means it can be brilliant, but that doesn't matter, because they won't even read it. I guess they they figure that if you won't take the time to use correct manuscript format, then you probably won't take the time to write grammatically correct sentences, etc.


It's more along the lines of--if you can't even be bothered, or you think you are above the "rules" then they can be pretty sure you are going to be hard to work with.

Shawn

[Mistook]

I think the main thing is that they want all manuscripts to look the same, and for that format to be very plain, because if a story and a writer can stand out under those conditions, they really have talent.

At the manuscript stage of the game, the only things that are important are the words themselves. If we started allowing for all the glitzy whizbangs that MS Word can give a document, then very shortly, it would become a competition of looks, and every writer would be expected to have perfect fashion sense and the money for the best software in addition to their writing skills.

I hope that day never comes.

[Medievalist]

The reasons for the ms. format in terms of margins, font and point size, and leading/spacing is that you need to be able to estimate the page size of the printed book.

The reason for the hard copy with the copyeditor's marks, and the proof reader's marks (they're two sets of marks), the other editor(s), each in a different color, is that it's really much easier to deal with as a type setting than having to look at multiple digital files, or deal with converting some odd computer file format (to do this correctly is not trivial--you'd be amazed at how many variables there are).

In terms of doing the whole thing digitally, that's not a lot of fun. Most of the consuemr computer book publishers have gone all digital, using MSWord as a universal platform during the editing stage, and using the Track Changes and Comments features.

I really hate it. In a ms. you'll have the authors text, the project editor's comments and changes, the technical editor's comments, the copy editor's comments.

And the more changes you track, the more comments, and the more illustrations, the more likely you are to have file corruption.

And then there's the virus problem.

Me, I like paper. I am probably an oddity in that when I'm doing a technical edit, I print out the ms. I mark it up, and then transfer my comments.

And I think that's why I see things that maybe the copyeditor missed, because I don't think they're working off hard copy at that stage.