Recently, I was editing someone else's book (no, I'm not that nice: I got paid to do it). In the process, I re-formatted the text from Times New Roman 12, single-spaced, with the default Microsoft Word margins of 1.25 inches, and inline italic and bold effects, to the manuscript format most publishers expect to see*. The writer had never seen it before and was very upset at the way it pumped the manuscript up from a slim 198 pages in Word before editing to 487 pages after editing. It took quite a bit of talking and referring to authoritative sites on the Internet to persuade the writer I wasn't being weird (though Word was--more on that later). I admit, I find the standard a bit annoying, myself, at times. It takes up tons of paper so it's heavy and expensive to ship and it looks pretty funky if you're not used to it. So, why the Hell do we do it?
Because it's always been that way and the standard word- and page-count calculations of the industry are based on it, among other reasons. Though a few things have changed in both grammar and publishing over the years, one thing that remains consistent is the way we see text. Editors stare soulfully into the face of text all day long, whether they are working with hardcopy or computer screens. If the format of the text is consistent, certain aspects of their job are simplified and some types of simple errors become easy to spot and correct. With a consistent, easy format, the trained eye has less visual noise to filter out while looking for the trickier problems. If the format of the text offers a lot of eye-relief and good contrast, the editor will be able to work comfortably for longer periods of time. And application of the standard sends the editor or agent the subtle sign that the writer has made an effort to follow the rules and make the job as easy as possible for the next person in the loop--a professional courtesy that doesn't go unnoticed, believe me.
There are a lot of grammar and punctuation points that come up for debate, but the physical format never changes. With shorter pieces, many publishers will accept inline font effects and proportional fonts, which are no-nos in formal manuscript format, but too much deviation from the standard--especially in a larger manuscript--usually earns the work a trip to the reject pile. No one will throw a manuscript in the trash for being too formal. Any impression that the writer is a bit of a fuddy-duddy can always be corrected later.
Ultimately, editors and agents prefer to work with writers who are pleasant, professional, and know the ropes--and it's very nice if they happen to write terrific books, too. Using the proper, traditional manuscript format implies that the writer is all those things, so that's one hurdle jumped and a cull avoided. A lot of writers don't realize that slush readers and agent's assistants aren't looking for great stories, so much as they are looking for ways to make the slush pile smaller so the great stories are easier to see in the first place. That means a lot of manuscripts end up in the reject tray because they were submitted on colored paper, had a bad opening paragraph, committed heinous crimes against English on the first page, or were so hard to look at and formatted so badly the readers gave up before the story could hook them. And you can't get published if no one will look at the manuscript.
So, having convinced the writer that the form was OK, I then had to wrestle with Word. Now, personally, I despise Word (the powers-that-pay-my-bills are probably squirming and calculating how to get rid of me, even though I just got the job, but... it's the truth). It has several "features" I don't care for, but the worst is that it makes very large files, yet has difficulty managing large files well and tends to choke on them, losing information, crashing, and pitching recursive fits, as wells as screwing up formatting in weird, non-deterministic and unreproducible ways. But Word is very common and it has a useful tool: Track Changes with Comments.
When you have to work in electronic form, having a way to mark up the errors and make notes or queries in the context of the manuscript is very useful (my kngdom for a print out....) But it adds a lot of data to an already-bloated file. I've noticed that Word files are usually three times as large as the same data in plain text or ODT, and may be one-and-a-half times as large as a Rich Text version (my fully edited version in Open document text format was a half-megabyte, while the same file in Word was 1.3 megabytes.) Now, add approximately 20% more information for the Track Changes data and you can understand why I'm not so thrilled with this temperamental, resource-hogging program. Editing marks, corrections and changes are made and preserved, along with all the original info, plus file data, time stamps, and editor identification for the entire file as soon as you turn Track Changes on, and accreted, compiled, and saved as you continue--which it does very slowly and with much complaining and asking if you're sure you want to do it this way. Toss in a bunch of comments, which also have a support-load of data, instructions, time stamps and ID, and you've got a behemoth looking for a place to wallow. Or founder.
So, having completed the editing, correcting, proofing, formatting and spell-checking on the formerly-slender file, what printed out, with Track Changes and Comments shown, was huge and it took forever to download in the first place. I can't blame the writer for being a bit put out. I certainly had been. Once the corrections were all made and "accepted" or "rejected," the file returned to its former size--in fact, we'd managed to weed out 600 unnecessary words in spite of my requests for additional verbiage in several locations.
So the edit was a success. And I got paid.
Alas, the formatting appears to have been done in vain: the manuscript is heading for a vanity press. But, at least the writer knows what to do next time. I do hope Word won't be the software of choice, though. It's really not suited to novel-length manuscripts. Rabid typewriters are more friendly. Myself, I think I'll stick to Linux for my own work and continue to keep the Windows partition reserved for the necessary evil of earning money for bills.
* Note: Chris Hogarty mentioned that I didn't say what the standard format is. I didn't want to end up dissecting the format, but, for reference sake, Courier 12pt (or Courier 10 pitch if you are using a typewriter), double-spaced, with 1-inch margins on white, 20-pound paper is the standard. Each new chapter should start on a new page, with the Chapter heading about 1/3 of the way down. Each page should have an information slug and page number in the upper right corner and the first line of each paragraph should be indented the standard 3-5 space tab with no extra line between paragraphs. Most small publishers will accept other fonts and margins for shorter works, but always double-space and check the publisher's guidelines before you submit your work. They often give instructions on what is acceptable. Take them at their word!
You'll find a few variations on the specific rules of formatting. Some experts say that margins up to 1.25-inch are fine, others will tell you to use different fonts or to use a cover page while others say "don't". Some things are a matter of personal taste and experience or specific need. You can get some very good information about formatting from the following sites online:
Vonda McIntyre's manuscript prep page with PDF example pages to look at
Proper Manuscript Format by William Shunn
Short Version with explanations by John Gregory Betancourt
Nebraska Romance Writers' page on why the format is what it is
The SFWA's FAQ for writers
And if you think some of this may not apply to you, read Sweeping Back the Slush Pile for a quick kick in the perspective.
Back to top of this page, please.