He says "Garamond 10pt". Is 10 pt the same thing as size 10, because it seems awfully small to me?

How do you put the smart quotes back in? Specifically, I have straight quotes throughout. Is there a simple way to replace them all with curly quotes?

Similarly, how do you replace the "--" with real em-dashes? (I turned all those options off a long time ago...)

Thanks a lot,

Do you feel good about this market?

Anyway, to answer your question, 10pt is the same as size 10. There is no easy way to replace the curly quotes. The closest you'll find to easy is to turn the smart quote option back on and then find each instance of " and retype it. Find replace doesn't work because of the how the macros function.

There is a mostly simple way to restore smart quotes in MS Word.

1. On the menu bar, select Tools > AutoCorrect

2. Choose the "AutoFormat As You Type" tab and check the "straight quotes with smart quotes" box (i.e., make sure it's ticked). Click OK.

3. On the menu bar, select Edit > Replace.

4. In 'Find What' type a double quote mark: "
In "Replace With' type a double quote mark: "

5. Click "Replace All"

I've tested this and it works fine. It doesn't take long to do. Mostly simple. To do the opposite, or to replace smart quotes with straight quotes, simply reverse the procedure in step 2 (or make sure it's unchecked). The above also works for replacing smart single quotes ' ; simply modify step 4 with the singe quotes instead.

For actual writing and printing out of manuscripts I use WordPertect 5.1.

One thing to watch out for with smart quotes is that, if you have a word like " 'tis ", the apostrophe will invariably get placed the wrong way.

It would be better to switch to Times New Roman than to use 10pt. That said, I find it difficult to comprehend a word processing program that does not allow you to switch font sizes.

TNR and Courier are the two standard fonts. Of the two, the reason Courier is still more widely used is because, as a mono-spaced font, it is very easy for the editor to use existing formulas to figure out how many pages a story will take up in a magazine by looking at the manuscript. (I can go into a lot of dull detail about this.)

It's one thing for a magazine to require an e-submission to be in such-and-such a format. Compliance can be accomplished simply and easily by clicking here and there. No hassle, no harm, no problem. I'm not talking about e-submission here.

It strikes me as quite another thing for a printed MS to be submitted in a particular typeface. Is the market in question so great that you must print out something special for them, and only for them? If they tell you they like it but would like to see it in an e-file, couldn't a typeface change be accomplished then? What's so wrong with Times New Roman, as far as reading a printout goes? Can the editors read a printed MS only if it's in Courier? Suppose someone is still working with a typewriter; what would they do?

And I don't know what rejections you may or may not have received, but my understanding is that editors are in general pressed for time, and will use form rejections. "Thanks for your submission but it isn't right for us" can cover a multitude of sins, including "if this guy can't be bothered to format his submission in the way we want, there's no way I'm going to bother reading his story".

If an editor says, "I can't be bothered reading this MS because it's not in Courier," then it's not a reasonable request. It's an arrogant assumption of power on the part of the editor.

*****

I've learned to be wary of this kind of arrogance. Once, a long while ago now, I submitted a story to "Amazing." I got back a slip with a couple of comments. I liked the comments, and made revisions in the story accordingly. I sent it in with a letter telling them I had revised it. I didn't ask for any special treatment on that account.

I got it back within a week, with a scribbled note on a usual form: "No Revisions." I didn't like that---I could have revised and sent it somewhere else if I had known that up front. I don't think I submitted anything to them again---or at least not right away.

I've been writing and submitting for over thirty years now, and it's something that (a) brings me joy in the doing but a great deal of aggrivation in the selling, and (b) has so far brought me no money. I believe I've behaved in a professional manner by sending them a MS in an utterly readable typeface like Times New Roman, with a self-addressed-and-stamped-envelope, with my address printed in the upper left corner of the first page, my word count printed on the upper right corner of the first page, and my name and story title printed on each page with the page number. I expect a market to conduct themselves in a professional manner and read the damned thing and either accept or reject it (comments or printed form).

I object to the idea of being rejected because my printout is in a type they don't like. Especially since problems of this nature can be dealt with after a sale is closed.

quote:

---

If an editor says, "I can't be bothered reading this MS because it's not in Courier," then it's not a reasonable request. It's an arrogant assumption of power on the part of the editor.

---

But from the editor's perspective - assuming they have submission guidelines that say things like "Courier 12 point double-spaced 1" margins" - it's an arrogant assumption of ppower on the part of the author to say "I can't be bothered submitting this in Courier, I'll submit it in Times New Roman". Perspective, perspective, perspective.

And as I tried to point out, there may actually be good and practical reasons for the submission guidelines, rather than "mere" arrogance.

But if you wish to carry on submitting in your preferred fashion for another 30 years, then that is utterly your prerogative. After all, I'm not an expert; I've submitted precisely one story in my life to date. I did so because I wanted the market to publish it, so it seemed appropriate to me to do everything within my power to meet the criteria that market requested.

In the olden days of typewriters, you only had so many typefaces available---usually, if you didn't have, say, an IBM tyepwriter with the changable little ball you only had one. If a market said, then: "We will only look at manuscripts typed in 10-point pica," that would be unreasonable.

I see no reason to change my perception of what's reasonable and unreasonable because we live in the Computer Age. Times New Roman is thoroughly readable...an MS printed in Times New Roman should be acceptable to read through and accept or reject...if someone wants another type after, why not? But beforehand...no, it's not.

And for what? For the honor of appearing in print? For a minimal amount of money, or for some markets no money at all?

I've DONE typesetting for a living when I used to manage a print shop. Speed and visual clarity is everything when you are setting type. Times Roman, while readable, is NOT the best choice. Heck, Bookman is a lot better than TR. Times Roman is considered a "kerned" typeface. Courier is monospaced, which gives it advantages for a number of reasons: readability, and line calculation are only a few.
My suggestion is that if you've never made your living at setting type, don't try to second guess the reasons behind the completely REASONABLE requirements that publishers set for submissions. In my opinion, a publisher is well within their rights to toss out a submission if an author can't follow the rules.

You can see it as an affront to your dignity if you like. Or, you can opt to see it for what it really is: a simple request to make THEIR job easier. Complying with manuscript requirements is about professionalism and common courtesy. It's NOT a power struggle.

Yes, they're indirectly charging you for the courtesy of looking at your manuscript. However, those charges are truly indirect, they're only asking for you to do whatever it takes to make their job a little easier, they aren't asking you for money up front. They're also asking you to take the effort on behalf of your story, if it's worth their time and effort, it's worth yours. If you can't even take the time and show the confidence to do things they tell you must be done, how can they believe it likely you've really put much into the writing?

Like Elan and Survivor said, it makes their job easier. They know what they need for best results.

Having said that, those requests made to you Silver,are kinda weird. I can't see a reason for them unless they are using MS word as layout software. Hmmm.

Edit: Can't seem t find it... anyone?

Ahh here it is:here Scroll down a bit.

Also---as I thought I made clear when I began ranting on this subject---I'm not talking about a computer file. I'm talking about a printout, a manuscript, a bunch of paper with writing on it. Changing a computer file is no trouble at all. Changing a manuscript, well---it's time, effort, extra paper, wear and tear on the printer, a chunk of ink out of a printer cartridge. Without a really good reason [and a check in hand would be a really good reason], I can't see the need.

******

Mostly thanks to me, we seem to have wandered off topic---helping Silver3 with formatting problems.

Of course, these demands are supposed to discourage you from submitting unless you seriously believe that your material is publishable. Remember, while it might take less work for an editor to reject a submission, editors get nothing from work they reject (okay, to be brutally honest, sometimes they get a chuckle and a juicy anecdote to share, but that's all).

An editor wants to work with someone they can get along with. By all means, send up as many red-flags as you like to them AND continue to be perplexed by the rejections you get in return.

Most people these days seem to use Courier New. But it looks awfully pale to me--the lines are so thin. I always use Courier 10 BT, which looks darker, more like a real typewriter.

I wonder if the top pros of the market are pestered with such conditions.

I've mentioned elsewhere on these boards that I took a foray into Internet Fan Fiction for a few years. I wrote about a hundred thousand words of that---and, whatever you may think of the ethics of doing it, I got more feedback and more personal satisfaction from it than I did from the million-plus words I did before that.

I wonder whether being published, printed in the traditional manner in a book or magazine, is even worth pursuing anymore. Constant fiddling with formats is just *one* of *many* pecularities of the marketplace. I may just write for my own satisfaction, and put it up on some site somewhere, and hope for the best.

In my experience, the more credentials a writer has, the more likely it is that their manuscript is formatted correctly; the ones who mention publication in several top markets invariably (INVARIABLY) have perfect industry-standard formatting.

It's like a man wearing a tie to a job interview. It's not necessarily a sensible request, and I am sure the man looks perfectly nice without it, but it's in his best intererest to conform to the dress code at the place where he wants to work, or find a place which won't make him wear a tie.

Little admission here, I'm not aggressively pursuing publication myself. So I'm not casting stones. I'm just pointing out that many people here (including the topic starter) are working under that paradigm.

I belong to the "purist" sect of literature, which doesn't subscribe to anything except the actual text. I don't care about grammer, only syntax. I don't care about interpretation, only the reader's experience. And I don't mind putting off publication till after the end of the world.

But I don't evangelize for such a position. After all, I also don't care how many purists there are out there, that's part of being a true purist Also, as long as the members of this board are constantly helping me by teaching me more and more about writing, I figure it's unjust for me to hinder their efforts to learn how to get published and paid for their efforts. And while I may only care about the text, striving to meet an external standard does much to help writers improve their craft. So I regard the publication process as potentially helpful, even though I'm putting it off myself.

Pitch is rarely used as a measurement anymore because it ONLY applies to monospace fonts, as it is a horizontal measurement of how many characters you get in an inch.

Point size is the standard measurement for fonts these days because most fonts, like Times, are proportionally spaced and cannot be measured using cpi (pitch) because the spacing is different for each character.

One other note, while I'm lecturing, is that point size only measures the height of the tallest character in the font set. So you can't equate two fonts based solely on their font size, because it tells you nothing about width, weight, or spacing.