RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
When my first published story came out, I was startled at how differently it read, set in a two-column layout. I’d been worried the story wouldn’t feel fast-paced enough–but in that format, it flew by, almost too fast-paced. That was my first experience of how the choice of layout affects a story.
Throughout the editing process, the editors and I see the story in manuscript form: Courier 12 font, double-spaced, 25 lines per page, one side of page only, header line at the top. Over the years, I’ve learned to mentally transform this manuscript format–in which the eye handles the text one way–into something approximating the published format–in which the eye, with a different page-width, length, type-size, and spacing, handles the text differently.
For those of you who aren’t writers, here’s an exercise that will make clear what I mean: take a book you like, but haven’t read for awhile, and type (or computer enter it) a page or two of the book, so you end up with the same words on standard size typing paper, in Courier 12 (a nonproportional font), 25 lines to the page…and compare how it reads to how the book reads.
When I get page proofs, the words are set in type the way they will be in the book–the same size, the same spacing. Then it’s printed onto 8 1/2 x 11 paper (and contains some crop markings around the edges, to be ignored by me–that’s all about the cut size, since the book itself isn’t that size.) The page numbers are totally different. Kings in manuscript format was 870 pages, not including the extra bits. Kings in page proofs is 481 pp, including extra bits. That’s a lot of reduction, and makes it read faster, at least for fast readers. The eye can scan the whole page faster than a page of manuscript, and there’s more on the page.
It’s always exciting for me, because this is when I find out if my internal transform worked–if I correctly gauged the pace from scene to scene, and so it flows nicely with variations that will enhance readers’ experience–or if I pushed for too much pace, or let it drag. Editors have even more experience than writers with this (they read a lot of books) and thus when an editor says, in revision, “This part drags” or “This feels rushed,” what they mean is “When this is set in type…it will read slow/fast.”
I’m 300 pages into the first run of through of page proofs now and having multiple reactions. First, it’s a very clean set of proofs–in 300 pages, I’ve found five things that need fixing. (Italics suddenly appeared in a few places where they weren’t wanted. Easy to fix. There’s one lower-case that needs to be upper-case, and one comma that should be a semi-colon or colon (I need to check my copy of the copy edits to see which.) Second, it’s reading well. And third…boy, have I forgotten some details since I last looked at it. Continuity errors are now being corrected before you folks even see them.
How, you may wonder, can a writer tell that it’s reading well? I start checking page proofs with a tight focus on nits–missing quotation marks, wrong or missing or doubled punctuation, misspelled words none of us caught before, lines starting with a punctuation mark that should’ve been attached to the previous line, italics out of place, that sort of thing. I’m not supposed to be reading for story in this process, except to be sure that there’s not a missing chapter or something. (Only once, in 20+ years…a late editor-requested revision didn’t make it into proofs. ) So I’m reading very slowly, not paying attention to sense, but only to form.
On clean proofs, like these, when you’re not held up by errors in every line…the story that reads well will suck you in (yes, even if it’s your own) and pretty soon you’ll be reading too fast to notice what you’re supposed to be looking for. (At least, I do. ) So then you have to stop, go back 20 or 30 pages and force your mind to look for those nitpicky typesetting errors. The number of times I find myself gliding along faster, instead of poking along staring at the punctuation and spelling, indicates (to me, anyway) how well it’s reading. (Those of you with a natural knack for nitpicking always find all the mistakes, but that’s not my reading style.)
First run-through, I read front to back, in 50 page segments (at least I try–if it’s a rush job, it’s 100 page segments. More than that without getting up and moving around, and my mind blurs.) Second run-through, I read back to front. Yes, you’ll catch errors that way that you don’t catch reading front to back. In the days before computer typesetting, the occasional upside down, misaligned, or broken “piece” showed up…and was most easily found by scanning pages upside down (a trick learned from a friend whose mother ran a small print-shop.)
Page proofs are usually sent out to professional proofreaders as well, so even if I miss something, there’s a good chance someone else will catch it. The more time the writer has–to do a few pages, take a break, do a few more pages, check it against the copy-edited version (which means you have to have photocopied the copy-edited version), the better job the writer will do.
Comment by beth — July 24, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
I agree that the look of the page changes the read. I’ve sometimes ordered large-print books from the library when I noticed too many holds on the regular version, but I rarely enjoy them much — they go so slow!
It’s one of the reasons I haven’t gone ebook yet.
I hadn’t thought about writers and editors having to learn to translate from manuscript to proof in terms of flow — one more skill to admire you guys for!
Comment by Linda C — July 25, 2010 @ 5:28 am
That’s very interesting. It highlights something I have noticed recently: E-books (on a laptop, for me) read differently than paper books. I notice different things. In some cases, I enjoy them more than the equivalent paper book. I think in part this is due to the fact that one can’t easily flip through and read the end first, or read only one character’s progress, or scan rather than really reading and go back if the action isn’t clear in context from the next page. Bad habits all, but mine own.
Comment by elizabeth — July 25, 2010 @ 8:17 am
I have no idea what the transform function would be for e-readers…I spend so much time looking at a computer monitor’s screen that I can’t bring myself to contemplate reading in e-format for pleasure. (It’s not only reading my own manuscripts online–it’s reading for research online as well.)
But it’s something I probably need to learn…though again, I suspect it’s not possible to write so that the pace is optimal no matter what the format. As you said about large-print books…just having to read fewer words on a page, in larger type, so the eye can’t take in as many words at once, slows the pace. Turning a page is a “hitch” in the pace; having to scroll down or locate and touch the page-turning function does the same thing. Formats that give a wide short page (reading .pdf documents online) are particularly annoying.
Comment by Margaret Middleton — July 25, 2010 @ 9:11 am
Regarding looking at pages upside-down while proofreading: I ran into this phenomenon myself in my Day Job.
I do engineering drafting for the Arkansas Highway department. A few years back I got moved to a division that did a different portion of the plan-set than what I’d been originally trained on, and my new boss wanted me to bring my pages in to him for review, for the first few jobs. Looking at them from the other side of his desk I was astonished at the errors I spotted that had gone totally un-noticed when looking at them from the normal direction.
Comment by Margaret — July 25, 2010 @ 9:11 am
I hate finding copy errors when reading. It pulls me out of the “world” I have immersed myself in and throws me back into the real one;-)
Some publishers seem to do a better job of eliminating them than others. One time I was reading one of my favorite author’s books and suddenly there was a discontinuity mid-sentence. It took me quite some time to figure it out; one whole section of about two pages had somehow been spliced into the text. I had to mark up my copy so that I could read it correctly my next time through.
Elizabeth, when you read proofs back to front, do you actually scan the words backwardly (I haven’t yet given up on adverbs, tho the pressure is enormous), right to left?
Comment by tuppenny — July 25, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
The difference in look is one thing that bothers me in the e-book situation. Also that I can’t flip back quickly to reread a passage.
Forget about books with footnotes. If they are done the old fashioned way, the kindle,at least, completely looses them, and if they are at the end of the book it would be total insanity to get to them and back to the page one was reading with sanity and concentration intact.
The proofing of both words and visual format on the kindle also is deplorable -skips to a ‘new paragraph’ in the middle of a sentence for example.
Dead tree books are far preferable.
Comment by elizabeth — July 25, 2010 @ 4:33 pm
Yeah–in a way, it’s like the difference between digital and analog clocks. The analog clock gives you visual clues to time that the digital doesn’t–specifically, the relationship from/to another time on that clock. The analog watch is much easier to use when taking a pulse, too. When I want to check back to an earlier part of a book, with a “dead tree” book, I don’t need to know the page number…I can use the visual cue of “right about here” and I’m usually within a page to find what I want. And as you say, referring to bibliography or footnotes in the back…simple with a dead tree, not so with a computerized version.
Comment by Lois — July 25, 2010 @ 8:34 pm
Elizabeth, I love your books in any format! and I love large books as in ones with lots and lots of pages full of good story. That being said, although I do have Oath, and the Paks books in hardback I really enjoy reading them on my Kindle. “page turn” is a simple finger touch and I can make the font a bit bigger than it is in the hardback–a real benefit for aging eyes. Also, the Kindle is kind to aging wrists and hands which love physically big thick books less and less as time goes on. The story is great in either format.
Comment by elizabeth — July 25, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
I’m glad it reads well that way. I suspect that if I weren’t spending most of every day writing on the computer and having to read both my own stuff and research stuff on it, I might be more willing to read e-books. I’ve looked at friends’ devices. But my eyes start itching. Reading a paper book is, for me, the most relaxing.
People vary. We’re not all the same shape, size, age, etc.
Comment by MaryW — July 25, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
I read ebooks much faster than dead tree versions. But I read both at a fairly good pace. There is more enjoyment in holding and even smelling the paper version. But ebooks have a place. It is usually a less expensive way to try an author or a genre that is unfamiliar. For those of us who dislike giving books away an ebook copy makes it possible to keep our friends as we downsize. Plus it is not necessary to explain why we are buying another bookcase.
My daughter-in-law now has all the books in Deeds but I have the ebooks and can move them from one computer/reader to another as necessary.
Most of the new publications seem to be edited fairly well. The older books seem to be the ones that have problems. Maps can be interesting. Between operating systems, graphics cards and software they can be badly sized.
I will be purchasing both versions of your books. One for the pleasure received in touching it and one that I can call up on the screen whenever it is time to visit Paks and her companions.
Comment by elizabeth — July 25, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
My mother first taught me to look at drawings upside down to see what was wrong with them (engineer, draftsman–yup) and it’s amazing how much easier it is to see that a joint is wrong, or an ear misaligned, when you do that.
Comment by elizabeth — July 25, 2010 @ 9:19 pm
No, I don’t scan the words backward–for good or ill, my reading skill is such that I will only read backwards if I’m reading letters that face backward–then I do. At one time, I could read upside down and backwards text. Haven’t tried that in a long time, but somewhere in junior high school, I took it as a challenge. I also learned to write backwards. Haven’t done it in decades.
It costs money to hire additional proofreaders–and more money if they spend more time on it.
Comment by elizabeth — July 25, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Linda: I suspect that in time, as more people use e-readers or computers to read books, we could learn some very interesting things about the different ways brains process text, as well as the different ways people prefer to read (straight through once and for all, straight through followed by another straight through read, straight through followed by selective re-reading, skip-jumping through even on first read, etc.)
Comment by Linda C — July 26, 2010 @ 5:51 am
The reading difference is very interesting and surprising to me; I don’t see it between paperback and hardback nearly as much. Also, it means favorite books (Oath of Kings, *grin*) get bought in both formats on occasion.
Skip jumping through on first read is a bad habit for me, and it damages my enjoyment of books. (Why finish actually reading something if you already know whodonit, as it were.) It’s nice to be constrained to read through one page at a time.
I agree that footnoting would be disastrous in electronic form; that and books with vital graphics just can’t be accommodated with current state of the art.
Ref. proofing: in high school I read a novel in which all of the periods were set as commas. Couldn’t understand why it was so fast to read, just racing along, until a careful look revealed the mistake.
Comment by elizabeth — July 26, 2010 @ 7:57 am
I skip-jump on a first read sometimes, but I’m a re-reader by nature, so unless I don’t like the book, I go back and fill in. It doesn’t destroy the pleasure for me, unless the book is badly constructed.
I love your confirmation that punctuation controls pace, not just sense.
Comment by elizabeth — July 26, 2010 @ 8:01 am
I agree there’s a place for both paper and e-books and that e-books are more convenient in some ways (taking up less physical space being a big one but not the only one.) But…does anyone really have to explain why they’re buying another bookcase? Isn’t that obvious? (What’s not obvious is how to get the floor to support another bookcase!)
Comment by Heather — July 26, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
I have the ‘Deed of Paksenarrion’ ebook – it replaced the three separate volumes that were starting to fall apart from being read so many times.
I did notice a difference in how it read – more, I think, because it was so much easier to hold the ebook in my hands. It was easier to fall into the narrative (even though I know it so well!).
I’ve been listening to the unabridged audio versions from Audible, too, and that’s been a very different experience, too. Quite delightful to experience the story in a new way.
Comment by Linda C — July 26, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
Heh.. Another bookcase would be problematic. We live in an RV, most of the time. It’s made me very, very picky about what I will buy in hardback.
Apologies, btw, for conflating two book titles in comment above (Oath of Fealty, should be) I may be a little eager for Kings of the North…