I spent the morning calling office supply stores.

Edit: Well, I do print for editing. It helps to see a story on paper in order to look at it with fresh eyes. But I'll use the cheap stuff for that.

quote:

---

2) Is it on the right kind of paper? Back when I was a prize writer, I used to make sure that my stories were sent in on an 80-pound bond paper. I went so far as to hunt through stocks, looking for just the right color of white. I wanted my story to feel "substantial" in the hands of the editors and contest judges. This tactic worked well for me. The year that I won the Writers of the Future--1987, I won first place in every contest that I entered. My writing had something to do with it, but making a good presentation, I feel certain, may have pushed me over the top in a couple of cases.

---

Hmmmm I may consider bond then although, as you correctly say, not all publishers like bond. Something to think about.

And, yes, it was David Farland who said that. I tend to follow his advice pretty closely. Time to make more phone calls to Office Depot. I was thinking I'd go with 28lb 115 whiteness printer paper. But maybe bond would be better. I'll have to do some comparison.

I'm still pondering the whole question of paper. 80lb bond. Heck I can't even find that. Even the 60lb is hard to find.

For submissions I prefer a plain opaque white bond paper. The 24# "copy" paper I prefer is a standard generic bond paper. The main reason for submitting on good quality paper is so that a manuscript can be easily and readably photocopied and distributed to the various readers and reviewers in-house. To test suitability of paper for submission I place a page of printed matter behind a blank one and run it through a scanner and a photocopier. If artifacts from the back page or the front page show up in the image or the photocopy, it's no good. Never, ever use a rice paper, most of them are translucent. Inexpensive and inobtrusive, 20# or 24# bond copy paper is not objectionable to most publishers. Some brands aren't opaque or "white" enough for good photocopying, though.

Subtle weight differences might make a slight difference in perception; however, publishers have seen every trick in the book to get a manuscript noticed. They might think thicker paper is an eager novice's ploy and reject it unread. 32# bond is half again as thick as 20#. Personally, I think it's like a placebo effect. The writer who's confident in their writing might go the extra expense. However, the confidence comes to the publisher through the writing, not the weight of the paper.

Every advice I've heard from publishers and editors has been to use standard plain white opaque paper and package it in a plain manilla envelope. In the publishing marketplace plain submissions stand out more than exotic ones.

For a basic survey of various paper dimensions and weights see;
http://www.casepaper.com/pdfs/CasePaper_AverageCaliper.pdf

Note that the papers are basis weighted in different dimensions. 20# bond is similar in thickness and in actual letter-sized page weight to 80# book and cover and 50# offset.

Edit: extrinsic, I think I will try to use something that is beyond "not objectionable." I personally don't think my degree in creative writing (hardly unusual in these parts) makes me more knowledgeable than Mr. Wolverton nor do I know of any standard that makes heavy-weight white bond "exotic."

Of course, you'll use whatever you think best. I'll take Mr. Wolverton's advice.

80# bond is a peculiar notion. I'm not familiar with bond in that weight. If any paper maker manufactures bond in that weight, 80# bond would weigh four times as much as 20#. Higher weight; higher postage. I've read postage anecdotes in author biographies dating back hundreds of years. Postage costs have always been a concern for starving writers.

A paper as heavy as 80# bond is bound to draw attention to itself, to the point of distraction, I think. Anyone who handles paper on a frequent basis will notice the nonstandard weight. An editor who expects a standard weight paper will, at the least, be disconcerted by its nonstandard heft and stiffness. I've heard a few anecdotes from slush readers who despised stiffer paper because of the greater risk of paper cuts.

Bond papers are bank paper, stock and bond certificates and checks and the like are printed on bond. For security reasons, most bond papers have watermarks that show up in photocopies. It is a nuisance to read text obliterated by photocopied watermarks. Letterhead and stationary papers are typically bond, again, lighter weight for lower postage and lower handling costs are the primary considerations.

On the other hand, book paper does come in 80# weight and has about the same physical properties as 20# bond. Book paper is off white to ease eye strain yet photocopies well and typically doesn't have watermarks. Book paper also is more opaque than bond of similiar thicknesses. Personally, I prefer reading text on book paper. Bright white bond paper strains my eyes. Book paper is calendered and sized differently than bond. Bond will accept printer ink as well as book, but book is rougher and less receptive to other inks and graphite; it's not ideal for pen or pencil writing.

Slightly heavier paper manuscripts might be the least exotic submission packaging, but I don't think it's that much different from pastel colors, figured or textured paper, scented paper, or unconventional dimensions.

quote:

---

I'm not one who considers bearding the lion good sport. Unless there's a risk to life or limb from a proffered misconception, I generally won't engage the lion. In this specific case, however, credibility is suspect and precisely following the offered advice may lead to embarrasment.

---

So... let's see. According to you, David Wolverton's credibility is suspect. He won and judges the Writers of the Future contest, has published more than 50 novels including numerous best sellers, has in the past worked as an editor and has taught college level creative writing as well as teaching the Writers of the Future workshop.

Hmmmm I really am suspicious of this man's credibility.

Let me make it plain that no one said you have to follow his advice. Do whatever you please. IB and I were discussing how to follow his advice not telling you or anyone else to.

Robert, I disagree that this says that ONLY the paper matters:

quote:

---

My writing had something to do with it, but making a good presentation, I feel certain, may have pushed me over the top in a couple of cases.

---

At any rate, this afternoon I'm swinging by Staples where I found a bond that I think will be what I want. I'll have to look at it to be sure. It's a 67 lb bond. I want to be sure it's bright enough though since it doesn't have the brightness scale printed on it. I prefer a bright paper so that the text "pops."

IB, did you end up buying something? I'm curious what, if you did.

I've searched the internet: I don't think anyone makes paper that heavy, e.g.

http://www.thepapermillstore.com/customer/paper-weight.html

Why submit on light card? Won't it be inconvenient to handle? Jam up the photocopier? Be annoyingly stiff in the hands while reading?

From this discussion I've learned that the USA paper weighting scales depend on the size of the paper, and can lead to confusion. The European system is grams per square meter, or gsm.

Are you sure there isn't confusion between 20lb bond and 80lb text? Or even 80gsm? These would all be moderate to high quality papers, all roughly the same weight per square meter.

Cheers,
Pat

Robert, I don't think that's the implication at all. I think he's just sharing what he believes gave him an advantage and why. I was sharing it for the same reasons--as well, it's the same reason that JeanneT started this thread.

extrinsic, it's only advice--take it or leave it.

The more important point than the exact weight is that he believes (and remember he's on the receiving end as a judge now so is in a good position to know) that using a good, substantial feeling paper helps your submission to stand out. I picked up some 67 pound bond today with a smooth finish that is a bright white. I must admit that printing on it really pops out and it has a nice feel in the hand.

If nothing else, I think it gives the impression that I take my writing seriously--surely not a bad impression to give. Obviously, it won't sell anything that's not good quality. But it happens so often that a publisher or judge has to choose between a few who are pretty similar in quality, anything that gives even the slightest edge isn't to be taken lightly.

I got a rejection just yesterday from a semi-pro publication that had notified me two months ago they were holding my submission for a vote. The rejection said that the editors had enjoyed the story but that there "just wasn't room." That was a nice way of saying that something else made a slightly better impression. That's when these details--using the right format and having printed on a good paper--could just possibily make a difference.

Edit: Talespinner, the weights of paper can be confusing. I noticed that your link it doesn't list 32lb which is very commonly used so I thought that was odd.

But the paper is a bit light and a faintly creamy colour, not so contrasty. I thought that SF editors, with their green awareness, would recognise it for what it is and favour it over heavy paper that devours trees and, with the bleach for white, does something nasty to the atmosphere.

Bearing in mind that F&SF editors are often running dystopic stories and essays on our environment, isn't there a possibility they will not like heavy paper made from virgin woodpulp and buckets of bleach for brilliance? Farland is writing of submitting in times less sensitive to environmental issues.

To put it another way: If I write a story about a future destroyed by our current environmental excesses, what does it do for my credibility to submit on the kind of paper that contributed to planetary misery?

Curious,
Pat

But if you're more comfortable using other paper, I don't know that anyone is going to try to convince you that you should do otherwise. He was only talking about something that might give a story a slight edge. However, I doubt that that future dystopian story will sell (or not sell) because of your credibility either. Mostly, the question isn't whether it is on heavy paper or light, or whether it's dystopian or not, or whether you're REALLY an environmentalist or not but is: Is it that rollicking good story?

I'm perfectly willing to use heavier paper and pay a few cents extra postage for even a tiny possible help in a world where competition is a step beyond fierce. I know it won't sell a story that isn't good, but if it will help on that day when an editor or judge has to choose between two stories that are roughly equal--I'll take it. But that's me.

Edit: By the way, he didn't say a thing about it being bad to use paper that used recycled products and as you point out it is perfectly possible to get good quality recycled paper, but isn't all paper bleached no matter what the color? That's my very non-expert understanding.

I was looking for something on R. A. Konrath's blog (an interesting one by the way and I recommend it). He recently judged a pretty major contest and said in his blog that you should avoid paper that is thin enough that you can see the lines of print through from the page below which you can with 20lb--that it was hard to read for judges who were reading hundreds of submissions and just annoying and hard on the eyes. I can't find the entry where he posted that (and he doesn't seem to have a search) but this was somethng that was already on my mind which probably has to do with why I decided to immediately act on it.

Heh. It's funny. I didn't think anyone would be interested in this except maybe IB.

The thing is that the exhibitors are of the mind that unless they spend a fortune on fancy show halters, saddles, bridles, and fancy show attire for themselves that the judges won't think they care enough about the class to be worth a look from the judge. And the culprits that push this? The horse magazines whose main advertisers sell the equipment and attire that the experts say you need to win.

I've proven this wrong a couple of times. In pleasure driving, I've won on regional level shows with just a homemade jog cart and an Amish made show harness. This cost me all of about $1200. Most of my show clothes for this class came from a K-mart store. The people I was showing against had several thousand dollars invested in their turnout, and I beat them not once but several times. Why? Because I had the better horse.

I've always been a firm believer in that if you are within the guidelines of any contest or competition, then you should get just as fair a shake as the next competitor. After all; To me a writing contest should judge your writing skill. They want to see if you know your craft. The paper should be secondary as long as it fits within the guidelines.

My husband is unemployed, and I earn a modest living in a factory. With the soaring prices of gasoline, which in turn is driving the prices up on groceries among other things (our budget heating bill is now over $300 a month!), I can't afford to spend a fortune on paper. With plain old white office paper and the ink for my printer, it runs me around $15 just to print out my one manuscript that's 480 pages... and I'm sure the prices have gone up since then. Everything else has.

I learned as a software engineer that attention to detail helps deliver great product. To me, presentation matters. Not as much as the story of course, but as Jeanne remarks, in a competitive world every little detail can help. (Also, the aesthetics of paper and presentation please me, so the discussion's interesting anyhow.)

I'm not focused on competitions, but on submissions to paying markets. I don't know editors, haven't met any. But I do know from my experience that when I have had to sift through lots of resumes to decide whom to interview, small things like presentation have served as useful indicators of who's likely to be suitable, and who not. Fair? Perhaps not. My task was not to be fair, just to find the best candidates for the job in the shortest time.

I think slush pile readers are the same. Much to do, too little time. Their job is to fill a magazine efficiently. For that they don't need the best, nor to be fair. They just need enough stuff that's up to their standard--and writers who are easy to work with.

I can imagine a reader of my iffy first 13 wondering whether to turn the page or not, noticing my environment-friendly paper and thinking it's not contrasty enough, or it's too flimsy, either way too hard to work with. So, just in case, to give the piece its best chance, I'm going to find some heavier, whiter paper; less green perhaps, but more suited to the handling and copying I hope it will get in an editor's office.

It's a decision I'll take once, then continue working on my stories and first 13s to make 'em less iffy.

But anyone who is interested in advice from a professional -- David Farland's list is great. He has recently been going over details that can make a difference but he covers everything from how to plot to how to make sure you get a good contract. Great advice from a best selling author.

Someone could certainly ask her opinion. I already have the opinion of several judges and editors which is sufficient for me to make up my mind.

Regretfully, offhand, I can't think of anything Dave Wolverton wrote. I know the name---I know I've seen his name on things---I just don't remember them, or remember reading them. Perhaps I remember something he wrote without remembering he wrote it---but tracking that down would be tedious in the extreme, without guarantee of success. So how seriously should I take his opinions?

The above isn't some Wolverton-phobic rant---all the editors and publishers one deals with are just people, not gods, and the decisions they make and the rules they come up with are often questionable. And I've come to question any number of them when they come up.

Editors, I believe, are basically looking for something they can read without too much eye strain---a cheap paper might produce blurry printing, particularly in this day of inkjet printers. I see it all the time with mine---I've looked half-heartedly for better printers but haven't found one I liked.

A good-quality paper for a traditional mail-in submission is a must---you should see what postal sorting equipment can do to cheap paper. I see that all the time, too.

The point is that the paper should be good quality, that it takes the print well, has good contrast and isn't flimsy either to the hand or the eye. All of this should lead to it being easy for the editor (or in some cases judge) to read and making a good presentation.

As for whether you are acquainted with David Wolverton's work either under his "real" name or his pseudonym which IB mentioned, it would be easy enough to look up but I don't know that it matters. Obviously, there are some of us who think highly of his opinion. And while I might argue that respecting someone's opinion as knowlegeable isn't turning them into a god, again, I don't know that your opinion that this is what is being done matters.

JeanneT, I haven't had an opportunity to get the 67pound paper yet. Hopefully, soon. Every time I try to do something, lately, I get hit with a mountian of work.

quote:

---

I'm not recommending that you use a certain bond of paper, just pointing out what I did as a new writer.

What I'm suggesting is that when you send your work out, that you consider the presentation of your work. Not only should you write well, but make certain that your story looks as if it was written by a professional.

---

When I was younger, I might've taken some opinions at face value...now, I tend to take everything with a grain of salt, as they say. I've grown deeply suspicious of a lot of common literary practices, from picayune things like bond paper and typefaces, right up to issues with copyright restrictions.

This spills over into all areas of my life, not just the literary area. I tend now to examine opinions...compare them against what facts I do know...then either (a) incorporate the opinions into my own, (b) reject them, or (c) come up with an alternate opinion of my own. (Option (c) is the hardest.)

I think I have a different opinion of professional editors and publishers than most people here. (Also semi-professional on down, but that's another issue.) Near as I can tell, most people see them as, (mmm, how would you put it?) superiors who are worthy of respect. I've come to see them more as barriers between me and my potential readers. A lot of my opinions spring from that position.

quote:

---

Thanks, Kathleen. That's pretty much what we were saying (I shouldn't really speak for JeanneT, though), just in a shorter statement.

---

IB, in this case you are quite safe in speaking for me. That is what I was trying to say and what I understood Dave to be saying.

Is Dave still the WotF coordinating judge? I know he was at one time.

Some of his points I've believed for a long time but haven't acted upon.

In a private email to me Dave commented that he is a rarity in writing and liking both science fiction and fantasy and commented at that at one point Jerry Pournelle "chewed him out" for writing fantasy.

There isn't another writer on the panel who I personally would consider a fantasy writer although a couple have brought in fantasy elements at times.