Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!wuarchive!udel!rochester!ferguson
From: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: Is there a manuscript.sty?
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.140229.8937@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 14:02:29 GMT
References: <rad.678000303@vulcan> <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de>
Reply-To: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu (George Ferguson)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester.
Lines: 62


In article <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de> xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet (Joachim Schrod) writes:
>In article <rad.678000303@vulcan>, rad@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Robin Davies) writes:
>
>> For a few purposes TeX output is just too pretty.
>
>I'm just curious: for which purposes?
>I just asked because ``pretty'' is (IMHO) the wrong term. A document
>should first be readable. If this readibility is considered pretty, fine!

In response to the original query for a less pretty Tex macro package,
I have successfully used the "scriptex" package by Adrian McCarthy
(e-mail address unknown). These macros floated past the net
(alt.sources?) some time ago, but unfortunately do not contain any
pointers to where the author can be contacted, since I didn't save
the whole article. The docs refer to ymir.claremont.edu, so you might
try there. Lacking that, I could probably make them available myself,
if the original author doesn't come forward.

This is a very nice package. In addition to providing macros to
describe a script in logical terms, it generates various lists
automagically if desired. I made a couple of small tweaks to "improve"
the output within the confines of the screenplay format (basically to
get less continued dialogs, at the expense of more ragged bottoms).
I think one could certainly use it to get plain "manuscript" output,
without the script features. Of course, using tt font with
frenchspacing gets you close, this package does a good job of
duplicating the effect of the "carriage bell" or "hot zone" at the end
of a line. 'Nuff said.

In response to the second question about why one would want to
circumvent TeX's nice output, I quote from the documentation:

 Screenplay manuscripts are typed, not typeset.  With computers becoming even
 more ubiquitous, aspiring scriptwriters are more likely to be
 submitting nice-looking documents formatted with Macintoshes\tm\ and PC's and
 the like.  For better or worse, agents take typewritten manuscripts more
 seriously, according to Richard Walter in {\sl Screenwriting:  The Art, Craft
 and Business of Film and Television Writing}.  Therefore, \ST\ had to be able
 to generate documents which look typewritten.
 ...
 The screenplay format is so evolved that~--- averaged out over a half-hour TV
 show, a two-hour movie, or a four-night miniseries~--- one page is one minute
 of screen time.  This may sound absurdly arbitrary, but it seems to hold true.
 One page averages to one minute.  Agents and producers realize that this is
 only a rule-of-thumb, but this rule does drive decisions. Production costs are
 often estimated from the page-count, so it is important that the conventions
 are followed.
 ...
 If you are serious about submitting your work to an agent, you are
 better off knocking his/her socks off with a good story than your own
 interpretation of manuscript format.

So you see, sometimes one wants the convenience of electronically-stored
and manipulated text, but is forced to produce ugly output, for better
or for worse.

George
-- 
George Ferguson			ARPA: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu
University of Rochester		UUCP: {decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ferguson
Rochester  NY  14627-0226	VOX:  (716) 275-2527