Okay. Charles Dickinson's essay is on Slashdot. But the idea of a writer's journey through ever more complex computers and word processors, always with the lament of the loss of the simplicity of an Apple IIe, makes a lot of sense. After all, has Word really done that much more for average users in any of its upgrade forms since '97? Well, other than empty their wallets. And cause some minor problems with file format compatibility. . . .
But I love the conclusion of Dickinson's essay, the end of the journey, the application of choice for writing:
Vi fast became -- and remains, 100,000 words later -- my writing implement of choice. Most of all, what I like about vi is something that is, well, aesthetic. I like vi's keyboard-only operation. Vi doesn't assault with helpful balloons or racks of toolbar icons. No, vi has a 70s ambience (no mouse, no GUI) that's refreshingly clean. In that sense, vi is a treasured software servant. It works well without showy presence and respectfully stays out of the way.
My editor of choice, I use VIM (VI Improved) on my Linux server via the command line, and on my Windows desktop as an html/css/php editor. And I could imagining abandoning the complexity of today's word processors for the simplicity and stability of VIM.
For the curious, you can download it here (if you are running Windows, get the GUI version).
Word processors and formatting
What I found interesting in the Slashdot thread was the discussion of publishers and formatting. The consensus seemed to be that publishers are a conservative lot and prefer manuscripts with an absolute minimal level of formatting--not even italics for emphasis (underlining, apparently, is okay). Manuscripts with formatting are rejected 99 percent of the time.
As someone who's seen a lot of manuscripts, I'd have to agree that most authors would be better off leaving formatting to the pros. On the other hand, what if the formatting actually contributes to the meaning of the text? Wouldn't it be better in this case to include some formatting, to help readers understand the text? Aren't 99 percent of *all* manuscripts rejected, formatted or not?
--Dave
Formatting conventions are re
Formatting conventions are really all about editorial work, I think. Just as you might not want to see every page of KairosNews in a different format as you browse around, so too would an editor at a journal/magazine/publishing house prefer to have every manuscript appear the same (if only to make distinctions on the basis of content, not form). "Formatted" writing also sends the signal tha the writer is amateur, even if their writing is pro-level. Ironically, even in this day and age of submitting manuscripts via e-mail rather than snail mail, the old guidelines for formatting mss pretty much remains in place. (I assume because editors like to "print and run" so they can read submissions on trains and beaches and barrooms and so forth).
________
Mike Arnzen, Ph.D. English | Seton Hill University
PEDABLOGUE: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/MikeArnzen/
Agreed
It's simply a royal pain to remove someone's else's formatting -- no matter how internally consistent it might be -- and then re-apply it in house style.
Dennis G. Jerz
Jerz's Literacy Weblog
It's a pain
Okay, wearing my publisher hat I agree with you, but wearing my author hat, if the formatting actually contributes to the meaning of the text, then isn't removing the formatting in order to submit a manuscript a form of self-censorship? Granted, it's an even worse form of "censorship" if the book never gets published, but assuming an author is using formatting intelligently, wouldn't it be better to include it?
Maybe the answer--again, assuming we're talking about an intelligent author here--is for the author to explain the importance of the formatting in the cover letter to the publisher. Presuming the publisher buys in to the author's reasoning (again, this requires that the author have a good understanding of why the formatting is there in the first place), then I suspect the publisher would go along with it.
You may have guessed by now that this isn't merely a hypothetical argument in my case. I'm currently writing a book that relies on formatting fairly heavily. The formatting is actually miminal: I've placed flashback sequences in italics. It would be disconcerting for a reader to be constantly trying to distinguish flashbacks from "present" narrative. So in this case, isn't it better to use formatting to aid in understanding?
--Dave
Scale vs Complexity
Oh, these temperamental artists! LOL
Faulkner toyed with the idea of using color to differentiate the 15 or so storylines intertwined in the first section of _The Sound and the Fury_. As I recall, the editor (and the printing cost) talked him out of that idea.
If you're talking about several pages or whole paragraphs of flashback, then it would be a fairly simple matter for an editor to apply/remove that formatting. Do you use italics elsewhere for emphasis? That would make a global search and replace impossible.
I don't have any experience editing or submitting creative works (well, I submitted a few stories as an undergrad...).
Dennis G. Jerz
Jerz's Literacy Weblog
Actually it's the whole thing
FWIW, about half of my book is flashbacks. But there are really two separate issues here: the technical difficulties involved in reformatting text for print, and the rhetorical difficulties involved in convincing editors to read "nonstandard" manuscripts. The technical difficulties here are really trivial--we're talking about switching fonts, not a 15-color print job. The rhetorical problem is more significant, but I also think if an editor is too closed-minded to read italic text, I'm not sure I'm interested in working with her/him anyway.
--Dave