It used to be relatively simple. You sent the first three
chapters of your novel, a synopsis and a query letter, plus return postage. You
probably took it to the post office to get it weighed. It was at least half a
day’s work. Then you sat back and waited. Or hopefully, you carried on writing.
The publisher accumulated a slush pile at least as tall as
herself and an office junior delighted in reducing that pile by sending it back
to hopeful authors with a standard rejection slip.
A disappointed writer heard the loud thump as the rejected
manuscript landed on the doormat.
Electronic
submissions common sense?
You would think so. Yet so much can go wrong. The submission
may never arrive. The process of sending it electronically may screw up the
text or the formatting. The publisher loses control over their slush pile
because they can no longer see it three dimensionally.
Yet there are advantages for the publisher and the writer.
The publisher receives a text that is already partly type-set. The writer can
probably get out three submissions in the time it used to take her to get out
one.
Complex guide-lines
Many publishers do now accept submissions electronically.
The variety of ways they ask for material can be confusing for the writer,
however. Some want the submission via an
on-line form, some want it in the body of the email and some want it as an attachment.
There seems also to be much variety in what should be contained in whichever method
is chosen: the first 5000 words, the first three chapters, the first ten pages,
a one page synopsis, a fifty word synopsis, a two-line description. Then there
is a variation of where these items go- in the body of the email, as an attachment or
even all just in one document Many publishers ask for an a author bio as
well. One or two want a full CV. Many are interested the writer’s social networking
habits. A sound presence on Twitter, Facebook and in the Blogsphere is welcome.
The standard
manuscript is still there somewhere
Double-spacing and 12 point Time new Roma remain popular, but
different publishers require different additional formatting details: the size
of the margins, whether one uses Word headings, how indents are generated, and whether footers, headers or page numbers are
permitted or desired. Much of this depends on what is a particular publisher’s
design process after editorial. The publisher does not want to be fighting the
writer’s text as they prepare the digital file.
As ever, the writer must read these guidelines carefully. Two
sets can be amazingly similar but nevertheless include critical differences.
Electronic editing
This is really coming into favour now. Even when a hard-copy
has been accepted at submission stage, editor and writer will often work on the
script electronically. Many publishers use a combination of Track Changes and added
comments. These can make scripts seem messy but it doesn’t take too long to get
used to. It’s useful to the publisher also to see where the writer has made
changes in various versions of the script. Version-naming etiquette is essential
and what that is will also vary from publisher to publisher.
Editing for house-style
Authors will often have to edit their text to bring it in
line with a certain house-style. This
will include such features as single or double quotes, how thoughts are portrayed
(often in italics), and how section breaks and headings are handled.
Confusing? Indeed it is. But worth getting right. Busy
publishers haven’t got time to look at something that is not properly
presented. Although some of these rules may seem complex it’s usually relatively
easy to set up your document to obey them. What may look like a list of demands
is actually more like a step-by-step guide.
And still you can get submissions out more quickly than you
could using the old-fashioned way. Publishers can also respond more rapidly.
No comments:
Post a Comment