Standard Manuscript Format Rant Open to Debate
Okay, so I was going to do my next installment of “What I’m Reading”. And I may still… But…
This just came up on a good friend, fellow writer, and editor as HER rant on Standard Manuscript Format. And some of it shocked me. Because she has some things I’ve NEVER heard of in Standard Manuscript Format.
Granted one of my first published Non-Fiction pieces is on how SMF doesn’t actually exist. The only “rule” to SMF is to check the guidelines. Granted my editor/writer friend has been a pro longer than I have, but still… I’ve been a pro for 6 years now, and according to her rant I made 2.5 Errors in her standard manuscript format.
Okay, so in my article published on the subject, the conclusion I came to is that the only thing STANDARD in Standard Manuscript Format is white paper and black ink. Apparently the rest is up for grabs.
I want comments on this. What do you consider “Standard Manuscript Format??? I mean really?
Are you part of the “Old School” which says: Italics are shown as Underlined, and use Courier/Courier New for Manuscripts?
Or are you “New School” which is saying layout is much easier now, and so are word counts and formatting now that we’re in the Computer Age. So use Times New Roman or some other Variable Font (which may or may not be easier to read), and use italics when you mean italics.
Okay, so I’ve put 3 links to other people’s websites and then there’s the SWFA site written by Vonda McIntyre on the subject.
What do you think? Are these links are now out of date, or is it really that variable? Does it even matter any more?
And yes, if someone with a burgeoning professional career is asking these questions, I would hate to be a newcomer to the publishing industry.