mmerriam: (Type)
mmerriam ([personal profile] mmerriam) wrote2010-12-28 06:17 pm
Entry tags:

Question --

Hey writers, when you send out a manuscript (especially a novel) are you using word processor word count or the standard publishing formula (which usually yields 250 words a page in Courier 12pt)?

[identity profile] rarelytame.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:23 am (UTC)(link)
I use processor word count (Word), but I round when reporting my wordcount at the top of the MS or in the cover letter--usually to the nearest hundred.

If I'm sending out short fiction and my word count is slightly under or over the guidelines, I rewrite until it falls comfortably within the guidelines.

If I'm sending out a partial of a novel, I'm more lenient about going over, if the end of a chapter is at 52 pages, say, and the request was for the first 50.

[identity profile] melissajm.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:24 am (UTC)(link)
I use word processor count.

[identity profile] kellyrfineman.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:26 am (UTC)(link)
Word processor count. Sometimes rounded to the nearest sane number.

[identity profile] writerjenn.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
I use the word processor count because they're all just estimates anyway, and I haven't yet had anyone need an exact word count.

[identity profile] mrissa.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:32 am (UTC)(link)
Word processor count.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:45 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks! I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest reasonable number, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:45 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks! I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest reasonable number, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:45 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks! I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest reasonable number, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:46 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks! I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest reasonable number, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:46 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks! I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest reasonable number, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes.

[identity profile] melissajm.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
Well, I don't know if I'm doing it RIGHT, but that's what I do. ;)
pameladean: (Default)

[personal profile] pameladean 2010-12-29 12:56 am (UTC)(link)
I too use word processor count.

P.

[identity profile] mariness.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
Word processor count. I did speak to one editor at WFC who said he prefers the standard typesetting formula, but he said it was mostly because he was used to it.

Not, um, that we should use his off the record remarks as a industry standard :)

[identity profile] cmpriest.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
Word processor count.

[identity profile] mikandra.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
Whatever. You're talking about a piddly difference on the vast scale of a hundred thousand words. Who cares about two thousand words more or less? By the time they've edited your manuscript, the word count will be out of date anyway. Round it to the nearest ten thousand.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:49 am (UTC)(link)
I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest thousand, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes.
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:51 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks! It seems like such a noob question, and I've been in this business for decent amount of time. I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest thousand, but I just wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes
ext_87310: (Old Lynx)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:52 am (UTC)(link)
I've been using word processor count rounded up to the nearest thousand, but I had wondered if publishers, especially traditional print publishers, would prefer it the other way for typesetting purposes. That was how I was taught back in the 80s.
ext_87310: (Default)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:52 am (UTC)(link)
That seems to be the standard now.

[identity profile] cmpriest.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 01:55 am (UTC)(link)
Oh yeah. I totally round to the nearest obvious figure. No one will crucify you over a few stray words :)

[identity profile] minnehaha.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 02:22 am (UTC)(link)
By the time it gets to typesetting, the book will have gone through revisions and editing and proofreading -- and the number will change. Even without all that, the typesetter will be making his own count.

The count is just to give the editor an idea of how long the book is. Word processor count, rounded to the nearest thousand, is fine.

B
ext_87310: (Type)

[identity profile] mmerriam.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 02:32 am (UTC)(link)
You'd think as long as I've been doing this I wouldn't even need to ask. I've been using word processor count, but I was taught the other way back in the 1980s. I figured it was a good question to ask, just in case.

[identity profile] kmarkhoover.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 03:25 am (UTC)(link)
you use electronic word count nowadays (or that's what I was told :P )

[identity profile] kmarkhoover.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 03:26 am (UTC)(link)
One thing I've noticed, the longer the ms the closer the word count/electronic count actually become. It's kinda weird.

[identity profile] b4de1.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 10:48 am (UTC)(link)
Before trying to send a short-story to one US Publisher, I found a standard “format”: “Proper Manuscript Format” by William Shunn. I think it’s important to know another rules in another country, because if I want to get a respect, I need respect for law and rules. However, let’s back to “format”. There are 250-300 words per a page (Courier 12pt), and in the top right conner in title page, I see that phrase: “about 1,800 words” -- it’s the sum, I assure. So, answering, you need go in both ways: using the word processor count and the standard publishing formula.

[identity profile] bondo-ba.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 03:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I use processor count. Haven't used the old industry standard in ages...

[identity profile] dmbaird.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 05:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Yep - I'm the the word processor camp, rounding to the closest "100."
I hate courier so much, I don't think I;d be able to work in that font anyway. ;-)

[identity profile] jongibbs.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
I use the word processor total rounded to the nearest thousand for a novel.
Edited 2010-12-29 18:17 (UTC)

[identity profile] timprov.livejournal.com 2010-12-29 07:53 pm (UTC)(link)
They will do their own count if it matters to them. You can just make up a number if you like; it wouldn't make you particularly unusual.

[identity profile] camillealexa.livejournal.com 2010-12-30 07:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Word processor count, always.

[identity profile] camillealexa.livejournal.com 2010-12-30 07:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, yes, and as Jon says, rounded to the nearest thousand for a novel, the nearest hundred for a short story.