To Format or Not to Format, That is the Danger

The early days of my youth were spent on my uncle's farm and then later helping a neighbor with his wheat fields. Despite how it appears, it's not easy growing that stuff you eventually smear peanut butter and jelly on in the morning and call it breakfast. Writing has not been easy, either. In the “old” days, to become published you had to entice an agent and then a publisher. Today it's worse. In 2012, R.R. Bowker (the official US ISBN distributor) counted more than 391,000 self-published titles. The most common complaint heard is that most of what's out there is . . . well, to be polite, not so good. Anyone can publish and obviously Anyone is.

Separating the wheat from the chaff, the good from the trash is tough.

As an author, editor, and publisher sifting is something I face every day. Some people can not put a sentence together let alone two. There are those who can actually spin a good tale, but do it their way and ignore accepted format. As one writer responded to an editorial suggestion, “I LIKE to use italics for "thoughts," and I think readers do as well. So I will continue to do so.”

The stark truth is, if you want to sell your labors to a reputable publisher AND keep an audience, you need to play the game.

If you are bent on approaching an agent or publisher, find out in what format they want to see your material displayed. That is generally one-inch borders all around, double spaced, but there could be slight variances. Digital submissions have their own rules. Know them. Follow them. As example, here is what one major publisher wants:

"Manuscripts should be formatted as follows:
Double-spaced, 12 pt. font with one-inch margins.
Indented first lines without extra returns between paragraphs."
(Although not noted, do not use exotic fonts. Stick to the basic serifs like Times New Roman, Droid, Bookman, Helvetica, or their clones.)

With that said, it is important to acceptably format what goes inside. Before the early 1900's it was a free-for-all and confusing as all get out until one publisher took Cooley's Bull by the horns and lead out for consistency. Thus was born . . .
The Chicago Manual of Style

The history of The Chicago Manual of Style spans more than one hundred years, beginning in 1891 when the University of Chicago Press first opened its doors. At that time, the Press had its own composing room with experienced typesetters who were required to set complex scientific material as well as work in such then-exotic fonts as Hebrew and Ethiopic. Professors brought their handwritten manuscripts directly to the compositors, who did their best to decipher them. The compositors then passed the proofs to the “brainery”—the proofreaders who corrected typographical errors and edited for stylistic inconsistencies. To bring a common set of rules to the process, the composing room staff drew up a style sheet, which was then passed on to the university community called The University Press Style Book and Style Sheet.

That sheet grew into a pamphlet, and by 1906 the pamphlet expanded into a book, Manual of Style: Being a compilation of the typographical rules in force at the University of Chicago Press, to which are appended specimens of type in use—otherwise known as the 1st edition of the Manual. [They loved long titles back then – ed.] At 200 pages, the original Manual cost 50-cents, plus 6-cents for postage and handling.

Now, in its 16th edition, The Chicago Manual of Style—at more than a thousand pages or more than two thousand hyperlinked paragraphs online—has become the authoritative reference work for authors, editors, proofreaders, indexers, copywriters, designers, and publishers. This hundred-plus-year evolution has taken place under the ongoing stewardship of Chicago’s renowned editorial staff, aided by suggestions and requests from the Manual’s many readers. (University of Chicago Press.)

(See: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/about16_history.html

With very few exceptions, this is the format that publishers of non-fiction and fiction follow. There are other formats adopted by other professions, but if you want to be a published author of fiction, this is your tool.

Do all publishers follow this guide? No. Case in point. This past year a major, western U.S. publisher distributed an eBook. The title page was a train wreck, and it went down hill from there. Later, they published a page-turner, with “creative” formatting and some of the poorest editing in recent memory. Their audience complained and book sales slumped. While most readers are not consciously aware of formatting, they recognize a Golden Retriever from a duck.

Over the years, I have written articles for newspapers, scientific journals, law journals, and novels. Each has their own way of presenting material, and their respective editors expect to see submissions in that format. Considering the huge amount of material passing over their desk, it makes life a lot easier and happy for them. When an editor is happy, I am happy, and my bank account is happy.

While the Chicago Manual is the accepted guide for novels, it is not stringent. If, like the writer above with the italics issue, you want to slide a bit off the path to present something different, nothing says you can't. As the Chicago Manual board will say—just be consistent, however understand you are taking chances with acceptance, and if an agent or publisher wants it changed, be polite and compliant unless the request they are sending you off to third base before going to first, then be suspicious.

(A note: The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White deals primarily with language, and certainly worth a look.)