Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!haven.umd.edu!umbc3.umbc.edu!gmuvax2!gmuvax2!mtanner From: mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) Newsgroups: comp.text.tex Subject: Re: Is there a manuscript.sty? Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 91 17:27:00 GMT References: <1991Jun27.112938.21202@infoserver.th-darmstadt.de> <1991Jun27.140229.8937@cs.rochester.edu> Sender: mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax Va. Lines: 13 In-Reply-To: ferguson@cs.rochester.edu's message of 27 Jun 91 14:02:29 GMT George Ferguson (ferguson@cs.rochester.edu) writes about why you might want ugly manuscripts (if you're writing a script, producers are used to it). I have also been told by editors that if you are submitting to them, say short fiction or novels, they would much rather see typewriter-looking stuff because they find it easier to read. Whether they are right in the abstract about what's easy or hard to read, what matters is their perception. If they turn off to your work immediately because of the fancy tex/latex look, you lose, no matter how many studies you can cite about how much easier it is to read. But I think an editors who read hundreds of pages of manuscript a week (or a day, whatever) should know what's easy or hard to read *for them*, and that's what counts. -- mike