I just sent a new story out for submission to a few places. The only thing is the file is a .docx. I forgot to change save it as something else like .doc. I have a new computer that wants everything to be a .docx and it has been a while since I have submitted things. So, can most places open .docx and will they tell me if they can't or just reject it?
Can they open it?
- Thread starter gettingby
- Start date
- Status
I suspect most agents and publishers have a version of Word that can open docx files.
It's often better to send a pdf file unless they have specifically asked for a Word file.
It's often better to send a pdf file unless they have specifically asked for a Word file.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 114
- Location
- Central New York
- Website
- authorizedmusings.blogspot.com
I've been reading a lot of sub guidelines recently, and many say .doc, .docx, or .rtf (I tend to do .rtf). So, I'd double check where you sent it, and go from there.
Gaaaaaah. I do a crapload of academic and scholarly editing, and I thoroughly DETEST things submitted as PDFs. I suspect most agents/editors receiving creative material do as well. They're a major pain-in-the-ass to deal with.
These days, chances are most places can deal with .docx files, but there's no real good point in not making them .doc or .rtf.
In the case mentioned in the OP, I wouldn't worry much about it. If they can't open it, you'll get a form rejection. If they can open it, but don't like it, you'll get a form rejection. If they can open it, but don't like it enough, you'll get a form rejection. If they can open it, but that morning's breakfast eggs were overcooked, you'll get a form rejection. If they can open it, but the phase of the moon is wrong, you'll get a form rejection.
Unless they just ignore it.
caw
It's never, ever a good idea to send a .pdf unless they specifically ask for it, and I have yet to find any market that wants .pdf. They're an absolute pain in the ass for submissions.
The probably can open it, but it's not a certainty. Many still use older versions of Word, and others don't use Word at all.
Your computer doesn't want anything in any format, your word processor does. Change the default to plain old DOC, and you won't have to worry about it again.
I haven't subbed anything for a while, but I know for job applications I only rarely (like once every couple dozen applications) have a docx kicked back at me. Docxs have been around for seven or eight years now, so I doubt many publishers can't open them.
Well, thank you, Mr Sunshine.
To the OP, DOCX came out with Word 2010 (possibly sooner, but I don't think so). Any agent that's still using 2007 or 2003, frankly would raise a red flag with me.
And since DOCX is by default a macro-disabled format, agents should prefer it.
Why would this be a red flag? (Not trying to be obnoxious - just curious, as my basic assumption is that which version of technology is being used has very little bearing on the agent's skill sets.)
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,770
- Reaction score
- 4,952
- Location
- Green Country
- Website
- www.bobmuellerwriter.com
Personally I find it more difficult to fuss with to make reading for myself easier. (i.e. it's nice to be able to change size, background, etc. if I feel so inclined) It also feels weirdly protective (as though I'm trying to steal the precious story, although I'm sure that's not the intent) + makes doing inline edits very difficult (if I felt so inclined for whatever reason).
It's one thing if you're an individual and don't feel like upgrading (I spent several years with 2003 on my home box after 2007 came out). But if you're in business, especially a business where you can reasonably expect to receive newer (and therefore incompatible) file types, then not doing so implies that you either have a cash-flow problem or you're something like a home-office business. Neither strikes me as recommending said individual to do business with.
This isn't limited to this industry, BTW, and the few times I've had newer file versions bounced, it's made my eyebrows go up.
Become an editor, and you'll know.
PDFs have their place, as in academic articles with embedded illustrations. But for simple text submission they're just a bad idea. You start with some form of word-processor document before turning it into a PDF, so why not just leave it in the word-processor file format?
caw
Last edited:
Personal views on file types don't matter in this case. If a market asks for certain formats, they're likely to be unhappy if you send it as something else. They might be able to open it, but still be unhappy that you didn't follow instructions.
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
FWIW, my own experience with SF/F subs is that most places ask for .doc or .rtf, some specifically mention .docx as either acceptable or not acceptable, and I've never seen anyone ask for submissions as .pdf.
That may vary wildly depending on genre, whether you're talking agents or markets, and so forth, but at least the above is my datapoint. I default to .doc for subs unless specifically directed otherwise.
That may vary wildly depending on genre, whether you're talking agents or markets, and so forth, but at least the above is my datapoint. I default to .doc for subs unless specifically directed otherwise.
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
See, I don't see it that way AT ALL. Microsoft Word embeds so much bloated, proprietary markup crap into documents that I can totally see editors being cautious about switching to newer versions of the software without knowing what new set of headaches comes with it.
Casual home users? Sure. Anyone seriously dependent upon stability in the feature set of a given software package? Proceed with caution.
Oh, I understand caution. To use the word "cautious" with my employer would be to offer an understatement that would make God fall over in a faint. We're just now getting out of IE8. My employer is also the 800-lb gorilla in our economic niche, so can "set the rules" to a certain extent. Even so, we are being dragged into IE10 (yes, that's right) and Office 2013 because when you fall behind you start running into problems. Not only technically, but also PR-wise.
"Uh, sorry, Bob, I can't access your website because it keeps telling me to upgrade to a modern browser."
In the case of DOCX, the format has been around for about 5 years. Generally, A company that doesn't want to be behind the curve has about a year before clients start to give you the stink-eye for not being up to date. I make this statement having been on both sides of this equation with multiple types of software.
While I'll grant that with agents, it's a "seller's market", if an agent bounces my attachment because they can't open DOCX, I am absolutely going to do a WTF. If they say they won't accept DOCX because of known issues, that's different. For the record, there aren't any signigicant issues, and these days Microsoft Updates fix those in reasonable time.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 5,117
- Reaction score
- 526
Sent it in the format they request. If they can't open the file they will tell you so and request the format they want.
Really, not such a big deal.
Really, not such a big deal.
Not using DOCX does not mean you're behind the curve, it means you hate DOCX, and probably hae the latest versions of Word. An amazing number of people hate both. DOCX hs many problems, and it use is not nearly as widespread as you seem to think.
Publishing may be big business, but it is NOT like most other big businesses in the need to use the most up to date software. Many agents and editors still use Word 2003, and even many of those with the latest versions of Word may be able to open DOCX, but it does not mean they want to do so.
Many, too, use a Mac, and don't even have Word on it. And, frankly, I've never had an editor anywhere request DOCX. Not one. Every last one has request Word DOC, or RTF. I don't care how long DOCX has been around, many don't like it, and many have issues with it. Microsoft updates are fine, but if I have to wait for an update, I'm not using that file format, and many still do have serious issues with DOCX.
The biggest issue is one that Microsoft can't fix. It's that many agents an editors don't like DOCX, and see no need for it. I see no need for it, either.
In publishing, it's agents and editors who raise the stink, and the rest of us need to go along with what they want.
Don't send .pdf - nobody I know asks for .pdf. And a lot of people actively discourage .docx too. I've always sent .rtf unless otherwise stated in guidelines - been doing it for twenty years now without a single difficulty.
James, your post comes very close to being a straw man argument. Note that I didn't say "won't use DOCX", I said "can't open DOCX". You can set your default output type to DOC (or even RTF) if you don't want to use it, but opening DOCX is only a problem if you are many years behind the curve.
Like it or not, Microsoft is still the 800-lb gorilla, and they and their formats have to be dealt with. Being a business that accepts word processing documents and not being able to open one of the more likely formats to come your way does not make good business sense. And making a decision not to take it because you "hate" it is not only counterproductive, it's unprofessional.
BTW, I mentioned earlier that I wasn't sure exactly when it came out, so I went back and checked. Turns out it came out with 2007, not 2010, so the putative agent who can't open the file is either so far behind as to be worthy of a facepalm (with software that's crucial to their business) or are a Linux or Apple bigot. Either one is a very very poor business decision and I reiterate that it would color my opinion of them.
As to "problems with DOCX", I'd be very interested to have you educate me as to exactly what problems with DOCX would lead a business to refuse to even open it -- especially since one of the main benefits of DOCX is that macros are disabled by default.
Like it or not, Microsoft is still the 800-lb gorilla, and they and their formats have to be dealt with. Being a business that accepts word processing documents and not being able to open one of the more likely formats to come your way does not make good business sense. And making a decision not to take it because you "hate" it is not only counterproductive, it's unprofessional.
BTW, I mentioned earlier that I wasn't sure exactly when it came out, so I went back and checked. Turns out it came out with 2007, not 2010, so the putative agent who can't open the file is either so far behind as to be worthy of a facepalm (with software that's crucial to their business) or are a Linux or Apple bigot. Either one is a very very poor business decision and I reiterate that it would color my opinion of them.
As to "problems with DOCX", I'd be very interested to have you educate me as to exactly what problems with DOCX would lead a business to refuse to even open it -- especially since one of the main benefits of DOCX is that macros are disabled by default.
Last edited:
Every place I've submitted had very specific submission guidelines that include the types of files they want. Best bet is to always check the guidelines and send them what they request, that way you know for sure that you aren't getting rejected for something as minor as a file type.
If you choose not to submit to a publisher just because they won't accept .docx files, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face IMHO.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,137
- Reaction score
- 694
At GUD we had it in the guidelines not to send .docx because none of us could open it. People still sent them. Eventually a staff member found a free viewer online that meant we could at least look at them. But it was a pain that could have been avoided had people observed the guidelines....
Personally I send .rtf where that's on the acceptable list, and .doc if .rtf isn't.
Personally I send .rtf where that's on the acceptable list, and .doc if .rtf isn't.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,122
- Reaction score
- 10,882
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
But even though I've got 2003 on my computer, I can open docx files. There's a patch, service pack, or add on (or whatever they're called with word) that upgrades older versions of word so they can open docx. I'm sure an agent can obtain these if I did. So if they're requesting only doc or rtf files, it's because that's what they prefer.
Most agents I've researched so far seem to want initial submissions pasted in the body of an email or use online forms anyway, so I'm assuming the e-mailed word files would be for when they actually request partials or fulls.
Anyway, I'm not going to refuse to send queries (or respond to requests for partials or fulls) from agents who interest me (and you'd better believe I'm researching everyone I submit to), and who have a good reputation and track record in the industry, simply because they specify that they want rtf or doc files instead of docx.
And if I did so, it sounds like I'd be narrowing my choices pretty badly. Maybe once I'm a published writer with some bestsellers under my belt
I'll be able to be that picky. Though if I end up being a bestselling author, it would suggest that my agent was doing pretty well for me, docx or no.
Last edited:
- Status