dr_phil_physics: (Default)
[personal profile] dr_phil_physics
The one thing about standards is that (a) almost everybody uses them, (b) said standards are not always specified or implemented consistently and (c) not everybody uses them. Which brings me to:

Standard Manuscript Format

Submitting one's writing in Standard Manuscript Format is a tremendous advantage. It means consistency in printing, page and word counts, readability. I know from reading hundreds of papers from my students, that if one doesn't have to think about the formatting, then you can concentrate on what's written. And that non-standard papers usually have more flaws than just not following the assignment's formatting guidelines. (grin)

Of course, the standard does vary. The one I use is Letter-sized, 1" margins all around, double-spaced, Courier 12-point, contact information single-spaced in upper left of page 1, word and page count on upper right of page 1, and Author / Title / Page# of Total# in upper right margin of all subsequent pages, with three asterisks *** centered on their own line signifying scene breaks. To some European markets I will reformat and print with A4 paper. And some markets prefer Times Roman instead of Courier, etc. Some want one pound symbol # for scene breaks, etc.

Fine, I understand that. And it's my job to recheck the guidelines before sending to make sure my manuscript is in the format they want.

New Guidelines

Today I happened to run across a new market, Darwin's Evolutions, twice in one day. That was sufficient for me to look them up and see what they had to say for themselves. When I got to the Guidelines, they had a link to their own Manuscript Formatting 101. Now before I go off on a mild rant, let me first say absolutely that every market has the right to request that submissions be made in whatever manner they want them to arrive. But...

... calling something Manuscript Formatting 101 sure makes me think that this is not just this market's recommendation but The Formatting.

The following rules comprise a generic professional guideline to formatting a manuscript for electronic submission. Individual publications may vary depending on how they plan on processing received submissions or by editor tastes. However, manuscripts formatted according to the below listed rules will always present professionally.


While this will look neat, to some extent, I know a lot of other editors who would right away dispute that their recommendation will "always present professionally", because their use of Times New Roman is problematic as a proportional font. Courier isn't just a throwback to the days of typewriters -- as a non-proportional font it can make editing and proofreading a lot easier, as well as size determinations. Rules 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 would all require tweaking of my Standard Manuscript Format.

Maybe I'm Overreacting

Probably am. Maybe they're just giving out a suggested formatting for people not used to doing this. Fine, I can understand that. And for e-submissions, it certainly is pretty easy for people on both sides of the submission to change type fonts on the fly. But forgive me if my kneejerk reaction is to feel a little bit irked about coming up with such not-quite-standard-in-my-book specificity for a publication which isn't appearing to pay anything at the moment. The second non-paying new market I've across this week, which includes talk about paying "someday", rather than just making even a token payment to their authors from the start.

NOTE 6-1-2008: Yup. Cranky + Overreacting = Missed Something. Check this thread in the comments for new information.

Guess I probably won't be sending anything their way just yet.

Okay, and they have pretty cool looking cover art and Issue #1 is out this very day!

Never mind.

Dr. Phil

Date: Saturday, 31 May 2008 22:49 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] redwill.livejournal.com
rant> I really hate reading equal-width fonts, espEcially Courier.

'nother rant> Come to think on it, I hate having rules applied to anything creative. Why limit expression in any way?

My apology for ranting in your journal, but it was such a fine opportunity. :D

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 01:14 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com
That's the great thing about rants -- everyone can play. (grin)

Look, when I am writing I use fonts which are pleasing to me, varying between several depending on the mood of the piece: Book Antiqua-12, Bookman Oldstyle-12, Garamond-14, Century Schoolbook-12. However, switching to a printer format with Courier-12 gives me a different look and that equal-width you complain about makes finding errors and typoes much easier.

As far as limiting expression -- that's silly. No one is changing your words, at least not without your permission. On the other hand, every market has limits in what they want to buy, limits in word length, etc. And if a market buys your story, they aren't going to print it or put it on the web according to your formatting choices. Why wouldn't you want to make it easier for an editor to evaluate your story? (grin) Otherwise, if the whim takes you, submit your stories in OldDreadfulNo7 BT in any size you wish, on any color paper you wish -- or in any file format if it's an electronic submission. (double-grin)

Dr. Phil

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 02:55 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] redwill.livejournal.com
Well, I had a poem published in trade paperback format, and one of the lines, which required printing exactly as I formatted it in order to have the proper effect, was broken up into one full-width line [still too short], and two shorter lines which had breaks in the wrong places and which made no sense relative to where the sounds and ideas demanded for correct expression. One of the lines only had one word in it. The sense of the phrases was completely broken up and the music of the words was destroyed. So, yes, I want to control the published format exactly. Later, I was able to get the long line broken into two lines that at least did not destroy the meaning and sound entirely. I was not paying for the publication and was only one of several writers in it, so I didn't have full control. The only place where I can pretty much get that is to publish online.

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 19:21 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com
Poems, as well as stories with special non-traditional layouts, are another matter entirely -- as you well know. (grin) And anyway that's what proofs are for. As well as clear instructions from the author. If the editor didn't supply you with proofs and/or ignored your directions, then as a friend of mine says, "Poop on their brains."

The poetry business is murky and sad at times and rife with issues. Fortunately, I have no muse for poetry on speed dial, so I don't have to deal with that. (double-trouble-grin)

My general comments on submitting manuscripts for stories, though, still stands.

Dr. Phil

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 23:26 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] redwill.livejournal.com
This book was done on a very restricted budget and contained brief works of at least a hundred authors, so proofs were just not feasible. Unfortunately, a run of 600 volumes were printed up before I saw one and reported the error.

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 23:28 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] redwill.livejournal.com
[Proofread first, thEn submit.} 'were' should be 'was'.

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 04:23 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alphastk.livejournal.com
Thanks for the link-back to Evolutions. I appreciate all the exposure we can get at this point.

Our excellent covers are all the fault of our incredible art director, Kevin Wasden. He's a wizard at locating beautiful original art for our covers and contracting capable creative minds to illustrate each story.

The second non-paying new market I've across this week, which includes talk about paying "someday", rather than just making even a token payment to their authors from the start.

I don't think you're talking about Evolutions here, but I wanted to be clear. For fiction, our minimum pay-out is $20, with a per-word rate of $0.015 per word. Our terms of remittance is to pay for rights upon receipt of a signed or accepted contract, not "someday". If our cash flow is constricted but we find a story we like in slush, we will offer a $20 "Option Buy" to hold the piece until the cash becomes available to purchase it. I've done that for five stories so far, and all are now contracted and paid for.

It's not SFWA "pro", but I can tell you as the person who's over $1000 in the hole on fiction alone to populate-ahead a mere four issues, it doesn't feel "token".

We also encourage readers to donate not just to the magazine, but to also "tip" authors and artists directly. Thus, our initial rights buy could conceivably be only a portion of what a contributor might receive if our operating model comes to fruition.

As for submitting, I will re-iterate here that our Manuscript Formatting 101 page is a guideline. You're free to ignore it if you like. I've yet to reject a submission because it didn't meet those requirements.

Regards,

Darwin A. Garrison

We Regret The Error

Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 18:06 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com
Whoops. Sorry, I didn't see anything about pay at the moment I read the Guidelines. This time I saw the line:

Details on each kind of submission along with pay rates can be found by following the links on the left.


I clicked on several links on the left before FINALLY finding under New Fiction, which turns out to be not New Fiction but New Fiction Guidelines (http://www.darwinsevolutions.com/newfictionsubs.html), that:

We offer $0.0125 per word for new fiction with a minimum payout of $20.


So, excellent that you pay, a small minus for making one dig for it. And for the record, a token payment is like a buck -- your minimum is therefore twenty tokens, which isn't token. (grin)

My quibble with Manuscript Formatting 101 had more to do with the one statement which I felt was possibly not good advice -- MF 101 has a very authoritative ring to it and I didn't want to mislead newbie writers. (evil-grin)

Anyway, apology for the error and double-plus marks for your covers -- I saw the ones for issues 2 and 3 on your blog, too!

Dr. Phil
Edited Date: Sunday, 1 June 2008 18:07 (UTC)

Profile

dr_phil_physics: (Default)
dr_phil_physics

April 2016

S M T W T F S
     1 2
3 4567 89
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Links

Email: drphil at

dr-phil-physics.com

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Thursday, 17 July 2025 20:16
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios