PDA

View Full Version : Alert for those targeting Harlequin/Silhouette



Susan Gable
12-16-2005, 12:34 AM
A HUGE change in the word counts for the Harlequin/Silhouette lines, folks. The longer lines are being shortened so that we can give the readers bigger fonts and larger margins. This is definately going to affect your stories and your submissions, so I'm pasting the new word counts here for your information. As always, keep eHarlequin.com in mind for the latest information, too.

Here is the lineup:

(Thousand words) Book pages pages at 250 wpp count

Desire 50-55 192 pp 200-220 manuscript pages

Intimate Moments 60-65 256 pp 240-260 manuscript pages

Special Edition -65 256pp 240-260 manuscript pages

Bombshell 70-75 304 pp 280-300 manuscript pages

Love Inspired 60-65 256 pp 240-260 manuscript pages

Everlasting 70-75 304 pp 280-300 manuscript pages

American Romance 60-65 256 pp 240-260 manuscript pages

Blaze 60-65 256 pp 240-260 manuscript pages

Intrigue 60-65 256 pp 240-260 manuscript pages

Superromance 70-75 304 pp 280-300 manuscript pages

LI Suspense 60-65 256 pp 240-260 manuscript pages




To give you some idea of how much change this is, Supers used to be 80-85K. I usually brought mine in at about 85K. This means I now have "less room" to tell my story - so that means fewer subplots, etc.

However, the books will be 304 pages IN PRINT. They have been about 297-299 in print. So, the reader gets about the same number of actual pages in their book, but it's got a bigger font and bigger margins. (But, less story.)

Anyway, I just wanted to give you all a heads up if you're working on books that might be for submission to H/S. :) This kind of stuff is important information. :) Carry on.

Susan G.

Sonarbabe
12-16-2005, 12:53 AM
Thank you so very much, Susan. Currently, I'm writing 2 Blaze geared stories. :Hail: Thank you sooooo much for this update.

Cathy C
12-16-2005, 01:26 AM
I was going to post this as a separate thread, but since it's ALSO Harlequin, it seems reasonable to put it here.


Harlequin has announced to their existing authors that they will be beginning a paranormal category line -- 2 books a month, 75K words. Supposedly, it's similar to the old Shadows line that Maggie Shayne used to pub in. To me, that would mean gothic, dark and creepy, but no firm info on that yet. Supposedly (again) the line will have the first pub in 2007, so I would think that they will be signing manuscripts to contracts pretty quickly.

Susan Gable
12-16-2005, 01:29 AM
I was going to post this as a separate thread, but since it's ALSO Harlequin, it seems reasonable to put it here.


Harlequin has announced to their existing authors that they will be beginning a paranormal category line -- 2 books a month, 75K words. Supposedly, it's similar to the old Shadows line that Maggie Shayne used to pub in. To me, that would mean gothic, dark and creepy, but no firm info on that yet. Supposedly (again) the line will have the first pub in 2007, so I would think that they will be signing manuscripts to contracts pretty quickly.

Yes, Cathy, from what I hear, they're looking for paranormals that are dark and edgy. Not light, fluffy paranormals.

Susan G.

Sonarbabe
12-17-2005, 11:16 PM
Hey, Susan? I have a question for you. When do these changes go into effect? I popped onto eharlequin.com yesterday and their old word counts were still listed in the guidelines. I'm still about 4 months away from finishing my current WIP, but I'd like to submit it to Blaze when it's complete. Thanks!

Susan Gable
12-18-2005, 06:03 AM
Hey, Susan? I have a question for you. When do these changes go into effect? I popped onto eharlequin.com yesterday and their old word counts were still listed in the guidelines. I'm still about 4 months away from finishing my current WIP, but I'd like to submit it to Blaze when it's complete. Thanks!

They go into effect NOW. :) Even authors who are in the process of doing revisions on purchased mss are having to cut them back. So make your WIP fit the new word count that I listed. See, that means you suddenly have less to write. :)

I'm not sure that I think that's a good thing for all the lines, but hey, what do I know? <G> :Shrug:

Susan G.

Sonarbabe
12-18-2005, 08:14 AM
Aye Caramba! I'm long winded by nature. This is going to hurt, but I'm sure I'll come out okay...I think. <G> I told Mama Sonarbabe about the word cut (a Blaze book club subscriber) and she was a bit disheartened that they were cutting 10-15k words from her books. Note to self: Don't tell Mama Sonarbabe anymore tidbits like this!

Thanks, Susan for filling me in. I will most definitely keep this in mind.

Cathy C
12-18-2005, 09:51 PM
Would it be okay if I passed along this information to a couple of my RWA chapters, Susan?

Susan Gable
12-19-2005, 12:36 AM
Would it be okay if I passed along this information to a couple of my RWA chapters, Susan?

Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, writers, all of them, including those who are aspiring to write for HQ, need this information.

Susan G.

Cathy C
12-19-2005, 01:22 AM
Thanks, sweetie! :kiss: I'll spread the word!

reph
12-19-2005, 12:20 PM
Apparently there are two reasons: as the population ages, readers need larger print, and the type was running into the gutter. One author comments here:

http://www.joleigh.com/blog/

Susan Gable
12-19-2005, 05:42 PM
Apparently there are two reasons: as the population ages, readers need larger print, and the type was running into the gutter. One author comments here:



Reph, I believe that's what I said:
To provide bigger fonts and larger margins.

However, there are other ways of accomplishing this. For example, they HAVE been releasing books recently in Larger Print editions. I know, because my last book was offered in a Larger Print edition. It was WONDERFUL! The font size made it so much better on the eyes.

It was 80 printed pages longer than my normal Supers, and Harlequin was selling them for .25 more.

Sooooo, what happened with that? It was the same story (i.e. same length story 85K words), only in bigger print with bigger margins, making it easier to read. The consumer paid a bit more for them (reasonable enough since there were 80 pages more in there!), but I think they would.

But even the retailers didn't know this form of my book was available. I went in to my local Waldens, asked them if they had customers who prefered Large Print books (they DID/DO, of course.) and then told them that my book was available for those customers. They'd had no idea that HQ was now offering this option. So, you can't sell what your retailers don't know is available for their shelves. And you can't tell if more readers would buy the larger print if it wasn't on the shelf as an option for them. (Sort of like PA books, right? Can't sell what's not on the shelf, right?)

So, there are/were other options to provide the aging readership with books that are easier on their eyes. Chopping word count was/is only one option. Of course, that's the option they're going with.

And yes, you're going to see some authors rahrahing this choice, just like they would any choice - some people will agree, some people will disagree, some people will spout the party line no matter what they really think - it's a protective mechanism.

As for me, my personal opinion is this wasn't a good option to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish. :Shrug: That's just my opinion. However, I can see from the company's POV why it's a good decision based on the bottom line. I totally understand it. Makes logical business sense. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or like it.

But I do understand it. This is a business, first and foremost.

Susan G.

Cathy C
12-19-2005, 07:02 PM
The totally cynical side of me says that this is all about the money that they pay to authors. You don't have to increase advances to match single title if you lower the word count... (:o Oops, did I say that out loud?)

reph
12-19-2005, 10:55 PM
Reph, I believe that's what I said:
Yes, it is. The author's blog I linked to gives additional information. It says why they want bigger type and wider margins.

Possibly (warning: pure speculation ahead) they're thinking that readers will finish a book faster and want another one sooner. Or possibly they haven't thought of it, but it'll happen anyway. If so, they'll be buying as many words from writers as they have been.

Robin Bayne
12-20-2005, 04:04 AM
Thanks Susan!! :)

Sakamonda
01-04-2006, 06:52 AM
Silhouette Desire is still listing its length requirement as 57,000 words. Is this still correct, or should we do 50-55,000 as Susan states above? Anybody know?

Sonarbabe
01-04-2006, 06:58 AM
I would follow the new guidelines. I asked a similar question a few posts back wondering when the new word counts went into effect. As of now was Susan's response. Kinda poopy that we need to cut so many words out. Ah well. Enough procrastinating... back to writing!

clara bow
01-04-2006, 07:06 AM
wee! I'm kind of excited about this news, because it was going to be a stretch making my paranormal WIP longer than 75K. It's kind of gothic and dark, too. Not that I'm assuming it'll automatically be snapped up by Harlequin, but it's nice to dream! Thanks for the info, girlfriends!

L.Jones
01-04-2006, 05:43 PM
The writer in me can live with the changes because I always come in under word count anyway (I tend to use lots of white space and dialogue). My editor was a bit anxious when I turned in my latest Mira at 440 pages then I explained it was actually way under the contracted computer word count and all was well.

And as a bookseller (worked at BAM this past year to fill in for contracts that had to be moved out) this is a trend in bestselling big names - shorter books, more white space, a cleaner look to the scanned page. It seems to me Harl is just trying to keep up with the marketplace in more ways than one.

Annie/
Luanne Jones
Heathen Girls (MIRA) Available now

Susan Gable
01-04-2006, 08:06 PM
Okay, well, I don'tknow how or even if this applies accross the lines, but my senior editor told us that what they're doing is changing HOW they count words.

They're moving to using computer word count.

I don't know. All I can go by is that my last Super was 340 pages, which is 85K by the OLD method of counting. When I looked at the computer word count, it was 71K. My senior editor told that was just perfect, and I should continue on as I have been.

:Shrug:

So, I don't know what to tell you anymore when it comes to word count. I'm sorry. I probably should have just been quiet. <G> That's what i get for trying to be helpful.

Susan G.

clara bow
01-05-2006, 03:30 AM
This information came from Cindi Myers' (http://www.cindimyers.com/) newsletter.


"In the wake of the announcement about the cancellation of Signature came news that Harlequin has plans to launch a new paranormal romance series, to be overseen (at least initially) by Executive Editor Leslie Wainger out of the New York office. Ms. Wainger is looking for all kinds of 'dark' paranormal -- but more than just vampires and werewolves. The paranormal elements should be integral to the story, and not just a frame work or window-dressing for a traditional romance. The sensuality may vary, but no erotica, please. Manuscripts should be 75,000 words. No word yet on a targeted debut date, number of titles to be released, or name for the line. Anyone know anything more about this? "

heh heh. I think i'm going to take a shot at this.

clara bow
01-06-2006, 01:39 AM
The query letter is in the mail. I'm sure I'll be posting about the rejection in a few months.

but it was fun to try!

Jamesaritchie
01-07-2006, 09:32 PM
It may be that the editor side of the business is also behind this move, at least to a degree. The shorter books are, the fewer editors you need to edit them, and this alone can save a remarkable amount of money.

L.Jones
01-08-2006, 02:50 AM
The shorter books are, the fewer editors you need to edit them, and this alone can save a remarkable amount of money

I can't even imagine them having LESS editors at Harlequin. Honestly. They cut to the bone a long time ago and work very lean. All editors take work home and work off the clock, I believe. They use freelancers to do a lot of the CE stuff, so no benefits, office space, etc. They are an amazing team.

And in the end it really seems to be more housekeeping than real changes. Trying to get some kind of continuity in manuscripts, perhaps. As Susan has said, authors are being told not to sweat this, just to keep doing what they are doing so for people who already write short, no biggie, those who push the limits might have to cut some.

Annie
Heathen Girls (MIRA) available now
Luanne Jones

Susan Gable
01-08-2006, 03:17 AM
I can't even imagine them having LESS editors at Harlequin. Honestly. They cut to the bone a long time ago and work very lean. All editors take work home and work off the clock, I believe. They use freelancers to do a lot of the CE stuff, so no benefits, office space, etc. They are an amazing team.

Amen, Annie. I was going to say the same thing. Our editors have been stretched to breaking-point thin already. I certainly hope they wouldn't consider making the editorial staff any "leaner" than it already is. They work their fingers off now as it is.

Susan G.

Sonarbabe
01-09-2006, 04:26 PM
Okay, well, I don'tknow how or even if this applies accross the lines, but my senior editor told us that what they're doing is changing HOW they count words.

They're moving to using computer word count.

I don't know. All I can go by is that my last Super was 340 pages, which is 85K by the OLD method of counting. When I looked at the computer word count, it was 71K. My senior editor told that was just perfect, and I should continue on as I have been.

:Shrug:

So, I don't know what to tell you anymore when it comes to word count. I'm sorry. I probably should have just been quiet. <G> That's what i get for trying to be helpful.

Susan G.

This is going to sound absolutely crazy, but what font do you use? I know the standard is either Courier 12pt or Times New Roman 12pt, but Times takes up less space and you need more words to cover the same pages. I ask because that's what I'm using TNR and the old method has me at 34,750 word on my current WIP and the computer word count has me at over 41,000. Thanks, Susan!

Sakamonda
01-09-2006, 05:55 PM
So what you're saying is, that Silhouette Desire, for example, STILL wants 57,000 words, but wants 57,000 by computer word count, not the old 250-words-a-page rule? (Computer word count is what I've always used, anyway).

Susan Gable
01-09-2006, 06:34 PM
This is going to sound absolutely crazy, but what font do you use? I know the standard is either Courier 12pt or Times New Roman 12pt, but Times takes up less space and you need more words to cover the same pages. I ask because that's what I'm using TNR and the old method has me at 34,750 word on my current WIP and the computer word count has me at over 41,000. Thanks, Susan!

I always use 12 pt Courier New, with 1.2 in margins all around. I turn on the line numbers, and that way I can see that I'm getting 25 lines per page. You're mileage may vary. I also make sure I have Widows and Orphans turned OFF, or else it messes things up.

Don't use Times - it's a nonproportional font. (Or maybe it's a proportional font. I get them mixed up. Anyway, Times doesn't make its letters the same size like Courier does.) I know it's nice to read. But it's harder to count.

I know, this is just more confusing than ever. I apologize for making things less clear.

Consistancy! That's what we need. Clear, concise, precise instructions. Wish I had some for you. <G>

All I can tell you is my personal experience. I use my 250 word pp method, and turned in a ms that was 340 pages long - exactly 85K by those standards. According to the computer word count, it was 71K. So I was good.

For Desire, I'm going to say if you put it into Courier 12 pt, with the margins and such so that you're getting 25 lines per page of about 10 words per line (that would be IF you filled the whole line, which obviously you often don't.) and you send them a ms of about 200-220 pages, you will be fine. Desire wasn't making any changes.

I would stick with that. I KNOW that method works for them. The other stuff, I have no clue about. Get yourself in the ballpark with a really good story with compelling characters, and you'll be fine. :)

Ugh. I hate all this word count/how to count confusion. It makes my head hurt. <G> Oh, wait, I think that's my sinuses. LOL.

Susan G.

Cathy C
01-09-2006, 07:40 PM
Don't use Times - it's a nonproportional font. (Or maybe it's a proportional font. I get them mixed up.

You were right the first time. And what the heck, let's take this opportunity to teach the difference! :D

A proportional font is one where each letter on the page takes up the SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE. So, a lower case "i" has the same width from edge to edge as a "g" or an "m". Now, as you can see, in the forum preference of Verdana font, this is not the case. Look at the difference

igm (in Verdana)
igm (in Courier New)


See the difference in width? The spacing is identical, but notice how much longer the line is in Courier New.

Much of this difference is because Courier New is what is known as a "Serif" font. Verdana is a "Sans Serif" font. The difference? The little tags on the edges of the letters. i versus i. The serifs are what allow a font to be proportional without looking odd.

My lesson of the day... ;)

Sonarbabe
01-10-2006, 01:17 AM
Okay! I got'cha now. I swear, if I ever get this story published, it will be a bloody miracle. lol Thanks for clarifying, Susan and Cathy!

IHeartWriting
01-10-2006, 01:22 AM
Cute kids Cathy!

katee
01-10-2006, 02:25 AM
You were right the first time. And what the heck, let's take this opportunity to teach the difference! :D

A proportional font is one where each letter on the page takes up the SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE. So, a lower case "i" has the same width from edge to edge as a "g" or an "m". Now, as you can see, in the forum preference of Verdana font, this is not the case. Look at the difference

igm (in Verdana)
igm (in Courier New)


See the difference in width? The spacing is identical, but notice how much longer the line is in Courier New.
Hi Cathy, I'm sorry, but you've got the wrong terminology.

A proportional font is one where the letters have different widths (like Verdana). They're called proportional because their width is proportional to the amount of space the letter requires - m requires more space than i.

Fixed width fonts have exactly the same width for each letter (like Courier New). They're called fixed width because, well, each letter takes up exactly the same amount of space of the screen/paper.

Wikipedia confirms this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface#Proportionality

Cathy C
01-10-2006, 02:35 AM
Boy, not according to my dictionary! Webster's Unabridged says: "a) type face corresponding in size, degree or ratio; b): having the same or a constant ratio between letters, one to another."


Interesting! I'll have to find a third source to break the tie! :D

katee
01-10-2006, 02:44 AM
Curiouser and curiouser!

I've never heard that definition for proportional font but don't have my dictionary handy to see what it says (though it's not the same one as yours). I've always understood it to be the definition given by Wikipedia.

I asked Google to define it for us:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+proportional+font&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

But I'm keen to hear about other people's sources...

Susan Gable
01-10-2006, 03:15 AM
LOL- Well, see, I'm not the only confused one. But I don't use Wiki - I mean, when anyone can rewrite it, I don't trust the accuracy of the information.

Anyway, we can sum it up like this - use a font where all the letters take up the same amount of space, from i to w to o, etc. That's the kind of font you want to use for accurate space counting. :)

Susan G.

Sonarbabe
01-10-2006, 04:27 AM
Heh heh. Susan, I am going to be the bane of your existence, I'm sure. I have one more question for you. (go ahead and sigh, I deserve it) Quite a few agents (and I think some editors too) prefer 1" margins all around, but to conform to the new word count, you suggested 1.2" margins. How should I do it? My luck, I'd get dinged for not having correct margins. lol Any advice? (I just converted my Times New Roman to Courier New and boy, did that ever make the page count jump!)

Thanks for not having me tarred and feathered!

reph
01-10-2006, 05:53 AM
Katee is correct that a proportional font has letters of different widths. Times Roman is proportional. Courier isn't.

pdr
01-10-2006, 07:03 AM
Clear this up for me, please.
In NZ, the UK etc we use different terminology. So I have got my head round it correctly haven't I?

Serif font = proportional font
San-Serif font = fixed font.

katee
01-10-2006, 08:36 AM
Serif and sans-serif fonts are different to proportional and fixed-width fonts.

"Serifs" are the embellishments added to letters. A google search shows a long list of 'proper' definitions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+serif&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

A sans-serif font is a font without these embellishments.

For instance, Verdana is a proportional, sans-serif font. Times New Roman is a proportional, serif font. Courier New is a fixed-width, serif font. I don't know of any fixed-width sans-serif fonts but they can technically exist.

Verdana: This is a sentence
Courier New: This is a sentence
Times New Roman: This is a sentence

Notice the little hooks hanging off the capital T (among other letters) for Courier New and Times New Roman? They're the serifs. "Sans" is French for "without" and notice how the sans serif font Verdana doesn't have any hooks hanging off the T?

There's a Wikipedia article all about this if you want more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif

(Aside: I know some people don't like Wikipedia because anyone can edit it, but I've generally found the information to be correct in the articles I've read on topics I know. Plus, when you use an encyclopedia, you don't know who's written the article.)

Susan Gable
01-10-2006, 05:18 PM
Heh heh. Susan, I am going to be the bane of your existence, I'm sure. I have one more question for you. (go ahead and sigh, I deserve it) Quite a few agents (and I think some editors too) prefer 1" margins all around, but to conform to the new word count, you suggested 1.2" margins. How should I do it? My luck, I'd get dinged for not having correct margins. lol Any advice? (I just converted my Times New Roman to Courier New and boy, did that ever make the page count jump!)

Thanks for not having me tarred and feathered!

I use the 1.2 setting because that what it takes for me to get my 25 lines per page. Oh, and I use AT LEAST 24 pt in the spacing. I don't set it for DOUBLE. But if you think about it, 24 is double 12 pt font. <G> Look, I don't know WHY these settings work, but they do. <G> I also know that other people working in Word have had to play with the margins to get those 25 lines per page. That's why you need to turn on the line numbering - so you can see what's going on. Just don't forget to turn it back off before you print the ms to send it out -- the editors like clean margins w/o line numbers so they can write in them.

And really, I know we want to do everything perfect (or at least as prefect as we can) but I PROMISE you, no agent or editor is going to get out a ruler, measure your margins, and say, "Ah HA! She has 1.2 in margins all around. I don't care if I do love this story, I'm rejecting it!"

If the story sings, then they will NOT reject it. Honest. Cross my heart. :)

Susan G.

Susan Gable
01-10-2006, 05:21 PM
(Aside: I know some people don't like Wikipedia because anyone can edit it, but I've generally found the information to be correct in the articles I've read on topics I know. Plus, when you use an encyclopedia, you don't know who's written the article.)

I might not know the name of the person who wrote the article, but I know that Encyclopedia Brittanica (or whatever publisher) stands behind it, and they have people who fact-check their stuff. What would be the point of putting out an encyclopedia that hadn't been fact-checked?

But when anyone can change the article, it dillutes the "authority" of the piece. I do know that people have written wrong stuff on purpose.

Truth is, I've never even looked at the site. I guess I have other references that I prefer. :)

Susan G.

Sonarbabe
01-12-2006, 05:12 AM
Susan and/or Cathy:

One more question and I promise to leave you guys alone. :)

When beginning a chapter and such, do you start at the top of the page or further down? I've always started at the top of the page and no one has said anything when I've submitted, but is there a rule of thumb? If I can start at the top, then I can give myself an extra 5 pages come the end of the ms.

Thanks!

(See what happens when you've been there, done that and received the t-shirt? You get nitwits like me pestering you about formatting! :) )

pdr
01-12-2006, 07:09 AM
Thank you, katee,
I was brought up with serif and san-serif fonts and the publisher's advice back then was to always use a san-serif font. Now I have to add proportional and fixed to my overcrowded memory. Sigh! It's easier to tell my students to use Courier and ignore the Why? questions!!!

Susan Gable
01-12-2006, 04:31 PM
Susan and/or Cathy:

One more question and I promise to leave you guys alone. :)

When beginning a chapter and such, do you start at the top of the page or further down? I've always started at the top of the page and no one has said anything when I've submitted, but is there a rule of thumb? If I can start at the top, then I can give myself an extra 5 pages come the end of the ms.

Thanks!

(See what happens when you've been there, done that and received the t-shirt? You get nitwits like me pestering you about formatting! :) )

I put my chapter header (CHAPTER ONE, CHAPTER TWO, etc.) on line 9, and begin the actual text on line 10. (That's my "double spaced" lines, so it's about a third of the way down the page.)

That's the way I've heard to do it. Chapters aren't supposed to start at the top of the page in the ms - they don't start at the top of the page in a book, either. :) So, sorry, but you have to give up those "extra" five pages. <G>

And I don't think you're a nitwit. Nitwits WANT to know answers but are too afraid to ask questions. <G> When I started out, I asked a million questions.

Susan G.

Cathy C
01-12-2006, 08:38 PM
And see, I've NEVER gone down more than a single double space with the chapter heading and, until recently, I'd never heard of this "rule." Then, again, I and my editor also use computer word count for the ms., so maybe the "dropped chapter head" thing goes along with the "25 lines per page" thing. :Shrug:

Still, I've never heard a single word about where I start my chapter headings from anyone I ever submitted to, and the copy edits I receive back start at the top of the page, too.

I don't really think it matters much, frankly, in single title. I'll defer to Susan for category! :)

Susan Gable
01-12-2006, 08:52 PM
And see, I've NEVER gone down more than a single double space with the chapter heading and, until recently, I'd never heard of this "rule." Then, again, I and my editor also use computer word count for the ms., so maybe the "dropped chapter head" thing goes along with the "25 lines per page" thing. :Shrug:

Still, I've never heard a single word about where I start my chapter headings from anyone I ever submitted to, and the copy edits I receive back start at the top of the page, too.

I don't really think it matters much, frankly, in single title. I'll defer to Susan for category! :)

Yes, single title is def. more open about word count, so maybe it doesn't matter as much to be so precise.

Cathy, what's the "going rate" these days for a single title? Still 100k? I keep hearing 90K bandied about.

Susan G.

Cathy C
01-12-2006, 09:03 PM
Well, from the various publishers we're looking at right now, it seems to be a 100K "median" with 90K being the low end, and 120K being the high end -- at least for the fantasy/paranormal lines. Maybe annie can jump in with women's fiction requirements.


annie -- L.Jones? You out there? What's the scoop on lengths?

Sonarbabe
01-13-2006, 01:10 AM
Susan,

Turns out, that's exactly where I put my chapter headers in the story I'm working on. Well, now that I'm properly formatted, I should prolly get to writing the rest of that story. :)

Thanks for all the help.... and not thinking me a nitwit. ;)

Sakamonda
02-28-2006, 08:18 PM
Anybody know if these shorter word counts are still going into effect? eHarlequin shtill shows longer word counts in their writing guidelines.

Josie
03-01-2006, 03:06 AM
Hi http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I'm a newbie, unpublished novelist mostly paranormal. A long time lurker tho.

I wouldn't rely on those eHarlequin writers guidelines as to total words. They never get to those too quickly. It's better to go to whatever line you want to write for. ....Or go to search on AW for H/S wordcounts, which if I remember correctly is right on.

Use the Courier 12 for your story...use the computer counter....Much better and at least it's under the count page count is done, and so you are pleasantly surprised if they go back to page count.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/e2hammer.gif
What did I just say ?

dragonjax
03-03-2006, 04:09 PM
Here's a question: what does the Courier/Times New Roman question really matter? CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE (15th Edition) says that TNR is an acceptable font for manuscripts...and it even says we don't have to underline if we want to use italics!

If you are really concerned about the minutia, then you should call the publishing house (or agent) that you want to submit your work to, and ask what the preferred formatting style is.

For what it's worth, when I was pitching my last book -- which got me an agent and then a multi-book offer from Kensington -- I used Times New Roman, 12 point, with one inch margins all around, chapter heads at five returns from the top of the page and the text two returns after that. I used italics where necessary, and I used a header of flush right: Name/WORK/page. And I went by MS Word's word count. So far, no one has asked me to do anything differently.

Cathy C
03-03-2006, 08:29 PM
You raise a point here. Interestingly enough, my editor at Tor just addressed this very issue on her blog earlier this week. If you want an editor's take on the issue, go here: http://alg.livejournal.com/73920.html