View Single Post
Old 02-04-2009, 03:11 PM   #125
starrigger
Jeffrey A. Carver
starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.starrigger ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
starrigger's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,355
Karma: 1107383
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Device: Lenovo Yoga Tab Plus, Droid phone, Nook HD+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
One of the process changes I brought up in one of my old, buried posts is style guides. Stipulate the format submissions must arrive in. Ideally, publishers would endeavor to agree on the format. If they're using the same kind of tools, likely it would evolve that way. Publishers could even make a Word template and tutorial available to the agents and public.
You could try that--although I'm skeptical of how successful you'd be. But there are reasons for manuscript format being different from book format. And that is that ms. format is easier to edit.

And before you say, well, do all the editing right in the digital file...I'd say, no thank you. I think most writers and editors would agree. And it's not just because the tools aren't up to the job. It's because you see a lot on the paper edit that you don't see on the screen. I can't explain it, except that it's just different. Things jump out at you that you'd miss otherwise. It's an important part of the editing process, for me at least.
starrigger is offline   Reply With Quote