6 ms·

Just to add here, the question is not “is markdown (or tex or binary strings or...) better”, but “can the person who determines whether I get paid open the file

Just to add here, the question is not “is markdown (or tex or binary strings or...) better”, but “can the person who determines whether I get paid open the file?” The fiction publishing world is cutthroat competitive. Trying to use nonstandard tools / “breaking the mold” adds even more friction to success.

lhenk 6y ago
This can be accomplished by exporting to PDF
- vidarh 6y ago
  Unless you're already a big-name author you rarely get to choose. Docx will generally be an option, and if you're lucky a few other formats.
- ASalazarMX 6y ago
  I guess their editor can just cut and paste to Word if he really wants to make corrections.
  - FalconSensei 6y ago
    > their editor can just cut and paste to Word if he really wants to make corrections Is it sarcasm? I mean... make corrections/changes is what an editor does.
    - ASalazarMX 6y ago
      Hes, it was sarcasm. A write-only format is the worst way to send a novel to a publisher/editor.
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  How is a copyeditor supposed to manage a PDF? PDFs are generally a huge no-no in submissions. (Source: I write short fiction & my short fiction has been published.)
- barkingcat 6y ago
  exporting to pdf is exactly what you don't want as an editor receiving files from a writer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago
I'm an author and an software engineer. I can see why Markdown could be slightly better for a writer - but not much better - and honestly it seems like a step down for an editor. Primarily, all a writer does is write plain text. Probably less than 1% of sentences are anything other than plain text. There's not a lot of headings or titles. There's not a lot of italics or bold text. What else is there? What am I missing? What's the benefit?
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  Ha! This is a really interesting perspective—I think you're saying, "it's all plain text, so there's no advantage to using Markdown instead of docx". I think others have an opposite view, but on the same grounds. The argument seems to be: it's all plain text, so docx is overkill, so markdown is more technically efficient! There's some benefit to using the tool I know best (emacs, for me), so it's nice to use a "native" format that also gives me my usual keybindings, macros, etc. But there's no doubt it just offloads the inefficiency to a different step of the process. I'm more comfortable with inputting text, but it requires post-hoc reformatting, and I'd have to use a different word processor for post-editor changes... The "markdown is a more efficient solution from a technical perspective" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight with me...the practical overhead of docx is minimal, so unless you prize technical purity over all else, I don't think there _is_ a benefit.
  - eslaught 6y ago
    The benefit is the rest of the pure text toolchain. Like being able to use Git. I can confirm, for example, how long a typo has existed in my book by looking at the Git history. Maybe that's a bit academic, but you get the point. I have the complete history of everything I've ever written. Another example: because formatting is reified in Markdown, I can grep for it. Did I misuse italics? With one command I can find every single place where I used italics in my entire book. I don't think you can even do that in Word. Good luck reading a multi-hundred page manuscript to find all of the places you may have made the same mistake. Another example: Word provides styles, but honestly, who has discipline to use them? Most people I know manually insert page breaks, centered text, and X number blank spaces at the top of a page to make a new chapter. In Markdown, all of my markup gets converted into Word styles automatically and then I can create a reference doc to apply the style I want. I'm writing semantically correct styles in my documents all the time with no additional effort.
eslaught 6y ago
I will find out the answer to this question hopefully later this year. :-) But anyway, I do use Markdown and I have submitted to contests etc. that require Word formatted files. For the most part it's an nonissue. I can use Pandoc to export to Word, provide the reference file with the correct format, and boom, I'm done. None of the judges of my works so far have ever had any issues opening my files. I agree the publishing industry will never accept Markdown. That's ok. I can use the tools I like and still produce what they need to do their part of the job.
- michaericalribo 6y ago
  I agree, and I draft my own fiction in emacs. The cost is lower to use my preferred editor, then do the post-hoc formatting adjustments once in Word. For a novelist, though, the editing process is quite iterative: make changes, send them to your editor, they send it back with comments and inline track changes and so on. Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate for using tools you're most comfortable with...whatever gets you writing! But these small things can throw a wrench in the process. It sure sucks to have to do edits in Word! Good luck with the publishing project, though, it sounds like you're pretty far along!
  - eslaught 6y ago
    Unrelated, but what do you write? (Feel free to contact me on Keybase if you prefer, username is in profile.)
socialdemocrat 6y ago
Geez 99.99% of a Nobel is just plain text. MS Word adds no value. Getting plain text into MS Word is not rocket science. The point of using markdown is that you got many tools which are superior is aiding in you writing process and organizing your text. The final format is much less important than whatever aids your writing process. I have tried using traditional word processors for writing novels and I cannot say they measure up to tools like Ulysses.
- vikingcaffiene 6y ago
  I'll tell her to let her editor know that. Lol.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  > MS Word adds no value. Word automates a lot of things in the editing cycle of a novel. Word's "Track Changes"/"Accept Changes" tools and the workflows they enable are by far the most common in a number of industries, but especially in edit workflows of most major publishers. That's why the Word format specifically is often requested/required, because people know and understand those tools and already have processes/workflows built around them. The closest equivalent tools for plain text are source control systems and text diff/patch. Those tools are great (and arguably fit some definitions of "superior", especially in capturing history earlier in the process and keeping history longer after the process). They are also nowhere as ubiquitously installed as Word, and nowhere near as easily taught (or already known/understood) as Word in today's world. Those "edit cycle" needs maybe aren't a huge reason to do the initial writing in Word, but they are certainly many steps above "no value", and thus the noted restriction that no matter what tool you use for the initial writing, if it doesn't have an easy Word export to get it started down the edit cycle path then it doesn't have an easy fit in today's publishing world.

lhenk 6y ago

This can be accomplished by exporting to PDF

vidarh 6y ago
Unless you're already a big-name author you rarely get to choose. Docx will generally be an option, and if you're lucky a few other formats.
ASalazarMX 6y ago
I guess their editor can just cut and paste to Word if he really wants to make corrections.
- FalconSensei 6y ago
  > their editor can just cut and paste to Word if he really wants to make corrections Is it sarcasm? I mean... make corrections/changes is what an editor does.
  - ASalazarMX 6y ago
    Hes, it was sarcasm. A write-only format is the worst way to send a novel to a publisher/editor.
TeaDrunk 6y ago
How is a copyeditor supposed to manage a PDF? PDFs are generally a huge no-no in submissions. (Source: I write short fiction & my short fiction has been published.)
barkingcat 6y ago
exporting to pdf is exactly what you don't want as an editor receiving files from a writer.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 6y ago

I'm an author and an software engineer. I can see why Markdown could be slightly better for a writer - but not much better - and honestly it seems like a step down for an editor. Primarily, all a writer does is write plain text. Probably less than 1% of sentences are anything other than plain text. There's not a lot of headings or titles. There's not a lot of italics or bold text. What else is there? What am I missing? What's the benefit?

michaericalribo 6y ago
Ha! This is a really interesting perspective—I think you're saying, "it's all plain text, so there's no advantage to using Markdown instead of docx". I think others have an opposite view, but on the same grounds. The argument seems to be: it's all plain text, so docx is overkill, so markdown is more technically efficient! There's some benefit to using the tool I know best (emacs, for me), so it's nice to use a "native" format that also gives me my usual keybindings, macros, etc. But there's no doubt it just offloads the inefficiency to a different step of the process. I'm more comfortable with inputting text, but it requires post-hoc reformatting, and I'd have to use a different word processor for post-editor changes... The "markdown is a more efficient solution from a technical perspective" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight with me...the practical overhead of docx is minimal, so unless you prize technical purity over all else, I don't think there _is_ a benefit.
- eslaught 6y ago
  The benefit is the rest of the pure text toolchain. Like being able to use Git. I can confirm, for example, how long a typo has existed in my book by looking at the Git history. Maybe that's a bit academic, but you get the point. I have the complete history of everything I've ever written. Another example: because formatting is reified in Markdown, I can grep for it. Did I misuse italics? With one command I can find every single place where I used italics in my entire book. I don't think you can even do that in Word. Good luck reading a multi-hundred page manuscript to find all of the places you may have made the same mistake. Another example: Word provides styles, but honestly, who has discipline to use them? Most people I know manually insert page breaks, centered text, and X number blank spaces at the top of a page to make a new chapter. In Markdown, all of my markup gets converted into Word styles automatically and then I can create a reference doc to apply the style I want. I'm writing semantically correct styles in my documents all the time with no additional effort.

eslaught 6y ago

I will find out the answer to this question hopefully later this year. :-) But anyway, I do use Markdown and I have submitted to contests etc. that require Word formatted files. For the most part it's an nonissue. I can use Pandoc to export to Word, provide the reference file with the correct format, and boom, I'm done. None of the judges of my works so far have ever had any issues opening my files. I agree the publishing industry will never accept Markdown. That's ok. I can use the tools I like and still produce what they need to do their part of the job.

michaericalribo 6y ago
I agree, and I draft my own fiction in emacs. The cost is lower to use my preferred editor, then do the post-hoc formatting adjustments once in Word. For a novelist, though, the editing process is quite iterative: make changes, send them to your editor, they send it back with comments and inline track changes and so on. Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate for using tools you're most comfortable with...whatever gets you writing! But these small things can throw a wrench in the process. It sure sucks to have to do edits in Word! Good luck with the publishing project, though, it sounds like you're pretty far along!
- eslaught 6y ago
  Unrelated, but what do you write? (Feel free to contact me on Keybase if you prefer, username is in profile.)

socialdemocrat 6y ago

Geez 99.99% of a Nobel is just plain text. MS Word adds no value. Getting plain text into MS Word is not rocket science. The point of using markdown is that you got many tools which are superior is aiding in you writing process and organizing your text. The final format is much less important than whatever aids your writing process. I have tried using traditional word processors for writing novels and I cannot say they measure up to tools like Ulysses.

vikingcaffiene 6y ago
I'll tell her to let her editor know that. Lol.
WorldMaker 6y ago
> MS Word adds no value. Word automates a lot of things in the editing cycle of a novel. Word's "Track Changes"/"Accept Changes" tools and the workflows they enable are by far the most common in a number of industries, but especially in edit workflows of most major publishers. That's why the Word format specifically is often requested/required, because people know and understand those tools and already have processes/workflows built around them. The closest equivalent tools for plain text are source control systems and text diff/patch. Those tools are great (and arguably fit some definitions of "superior", especially in capturing history earlier in the process and keeping history longer after the process). They are also nowhere as ubiquitously installed as Word, and nowhere near as easily taught (or already known/understood) as Word in today's world. Those "edit cycle" needs maybe aren't a huge reason to do the initial writing in Word, but they are certainly many steps above "no value", and thus the noted restriction that no matter what tool you use for the initial writing, if it doesn't have an easy Word export to get it started down the edit cycle path then it doesn't have an easy fit in today's publishing world.