Formatting Question

How would you format the following:

Subchapters. Meaning a chapter that is broken into lots of small chapters/scenes (each subchapter with its own heading). And how about formatting the headings for those, too?

Example (right/wrong)?:

Chapter 1

**

Subheading 1

*

Paragraphs, etc...

*

Subheading 2

*

Paragraphs, etc...

Breaking a chapter into many subchapters is not advisable. Two or three is the most you should have. Otherwise the reading becomes a chore, and you never want to annoy the agent or publisher or whomever.

If you have many subchapters, then you need to actually create separate chapters.

Subchapters should never be named, however, even if you name your main chapters. just use three asterisks (* * *) or extra blank lines to separate the subchapters.

Subchapters should never be named, however, even if you name your main chapters. just use three asterisks (* * *) or extra blank lines to separate the subchapters.

Click to expand...

It's best to use the actual proofreader's mark, which is a single # centered on the page. This is what copyeditors are trained to look for. They may understand three asterisks, or even an extra blank line, but they may not, or may just miss it.

In proofreader parlance, a # centered on the page means "scene break."

It's a good idea to get a list of proofreader marks because you'll likely need to know most of them when working on a copyedited manuscript.

What exactly is a sub-chapter?

The closest I can think of is a structure David Morrell uses. For instance, in Brotherhood of the Rose, it begins with


then on the next page,


and then the first chapter.

There's fifteen chapters in thirty pages, and then


Another sixteen chapters and then a blank page and


and so on.

He's written that while he doesn't use titles for each Book anymore, he still uses the same structure to create small sections (about 50 manuscript pages) that the reader can finish in an hour and then begin the next section fresh.

Breaking a chapter into many subchapters is not advisable. Two or three is the most you should have. Otherwise the reading becomes a chore, and you never want to annoy the agent or publisher or whomever.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that? I like books that have some visible structure to them. It gives the designer something to work with to make your book look attractive. It gives the reader some breathing space by breaking up the monotony of solid text. When you pick up a book with a bit of visible structure it almost invites you to browse, and of course, once you start reading bits and pieces, you're more likely to want to go back to the beginning and read it from the start.

I always break down my chapters into their individual scenes, which usually means I get a break of some sort roughly every four or five pages. And I don't find an extra line gap between scenes all that distracting.

Here's how I organise it:

Part One: The Brain-Twisting Title of Intrigue

Chapter One

blah blah

#

blah blah

#

blah blah

Chapter Two

...

Is it normal or acceptable to have a novel organized as a collection of three or four separate stories, if they are all related and share the same characters?

Not sure how normal it is, but The Women of Brewster Place, by Gloria Naylor, is one.

related stories

Hearts in Atlantis by Stephen King.

One of his non-horror reads. The first story is the best imho. And was movieized with Anthony Hopkins in the lead. I recommend the book first, movie later.

formatting/typefaces

In the dark ages of TrueType, I worked with Monotype typographers at Microsoft.

I was required to study a book on readability of type. The book title escapes me.

Pertinent to this discussion re Times vs. Courier is readability. Have you noticed some novels offer a tribute to the typeface in the back? Bembo is popular.

Why? Because when serifs curve just so, and widths of parts of glyphs are graduated just so, the face becomes imminently more readable.

The book I read offered experiments and psychological studies proving reading comprehension and speed improves with certain serif typefaces.

Ok--this is a wordy crazy post trying to say: Times is easier to read than Courier. I know Courier is the standard, and I know why. I hope one day it changes.

I read and write all day and most nights. Courier is torturous for my eyes. There is so much waste in those glyphs.

Still, manuscript standard demands Courier. We play along.

Is it normal or acceptable to have a novel organized as a collection of three or four separate stories, if they are all related and share the same characters?

Click to expand...

Is it normal? No. If it were, you wouldn't even think to ask the question.

Is is acceptable? That is up to the strength of your writing. The example of Hearts in Atlantis was given... but even if no one had ever done it up to now, somebody would have to be the first, so the better questions to ask are: does this format best serve the story you have to tell and did you do the best job possible to tell it?

William Faulkner used this technique in two of his works: The Sound and the Fury, and As I Lay Dying.

There are worse authors to model.

- Anatole

What I don't understand is why trying something different when writing novels is so wrong. So I change the format of a book... does that automatically mean that publishers/agents won't read it or that people should shoot down the idea without thinking the format might actually be perfect for how the story is constructed? At one point in time, everything was "different" until someone took a leap of faith and proposed it and made it something common. I would rather write a unique book with a unique story and unique format and have it sell a limited number of copies than to make millions on a book with a structure like all the others. (Just my opinion)

EGG, you can always self publish. What I mean is, book publishers and sellers are in to SELL books -- lots of them. Not a lot of them are interested in "experimental" books as you say: "unique story, unique format." There are some, I am sure, and it's your job to find them. The perfect match, a publisher who is looking for or interested in your project. But probably 90% of publishers out there are following some types of business model, and they want to ensure that their books will sell -- lots of them.

I think that's the thing that separates the writers and the publishers. The mindset. Writers sometimes don't understand why a publisher won't want their books. Every writer think they have something great and unique to say, and they should be able to express themselves freely (the artist in all writers). Publishers are mostly business people who are in the business of selling products. They are not emotionally attached to your work. There's a gap there. And as writers we need to know that gap.

The thing for us to do is to narrow and fill that gap. That means either a) write something that 90% of publishers would want (a techno-thriller? a hot romance?) or stay true to yourself and find a publisher who understands you. Then you have to think of markets. Who will buy your book? And how do you reach them?

The trouble with movies as a business is that it’s an art. And the trouble with movies as an art is it’s a business. And every one of us who makes films struggles with that every damn day.
- Charlton Heston