# Would you use this software for writing?



## kareman (May 25, 2011)

I use Scrivener for creative writing, and although it's an excellent piece of software it doesn't quite meet all of my needs. There is a description of my idea of the perfect writing software here (sadly I could not think of a better name for it than “TextSmith”), and below are what I think are the two most important points. So is it just me or would other people find these features useful too?


*Fearless editing*
Writing should be fun. And even when it isn’t, you should at least feel free to try whatever you want. Change that paragraph. Move that over here. Delete that. Write something, even if it most likely will be shit and soon discarded. The only way you will be able to do this without restraint is if you know you can always get back to how things were before you messed up.
This is why TextSmith lets you view the history of every paragraph, section or the entire text and restore it to a previous version. You can also make a snapshot and label the current version for future reference. And if you have made some changes you’re not quite sure about and want to get back to later, you can keep them as an alternative version of that part of the text.
So just like Time Machine on the Mac allows you to go back to previous versions of your files, TextSmith allows you to go back to any previous version of any part of your text.

*Focus*
When writing it is best to focus only on the text itself, everything else is just distracting.
Which is why TextSmith will not let you do any formatting or layout in the editor. You can underline, strikethrough, embolden and italicise, but that’s it! No fiddling with points and centimetres and colours and what have you.
TextSmith will refuse to write two or more consecutive spaces, or leave single spaces at the beginning or end of a paragraph, since that is not something anyone is ever going to need. Nor can you add tabs or other special characters only used for layout. Not having to deal with all the invisible characters that somehow have snuck into the text is going to be a big relief.
You can view one section or even just one paragraph at a time, to keep you from nitpicking on what you just wrote and keep on writing. And you can view different versions of a section or paragraph side-by-side, to see which one works best.


----------



## elite (May 30, 2011)

I voted no, but that's only because its lacking enough features to take me away from scrivener.

If you plan to make writing software, you need to think more out of the box. There is a lot out there that already deals with the writing part, and with a simple subversion server anyone can make changes and backup the stuff online, no hassle and with the benefits of multi-platform.

What I'd like to see is some more cloud oriented writing. I want to make mind-maps, relationship charts. I want to have an auto-generated list of all the places my character appears, with customizable fields to suit my needs. I want the software to suggest things beyond spell-checking, automatically search for definitions and synonyms, or show me images in real time about what I'm writing (from the web or from a local folder)

I'd want for writing what google is for the internet, basically. I think that would be MUCH more of a selling point than draconian layout enforcement.


----------



## kareman (May 31, 2011)

elite said:


> If you plan to make writing software, you need to think more out of the box. There is a lot out there that already deals with the writing part, and with a simple subversion server anyone can make changes and backup the stuff online, no hassle and with the benefits of multi-platform.


 I really don't think many non-programmers know what subversion is. This functionality needs to be moved inside the writing software. There is version control in Scrivener, in the form of snapshots, but you have to remember to select everything to have everything saved in the snapshot, and of course you have to remember to make the snapshot in the first place before you do something you regret or want to get back to later. What I'm talking about is the fine-grained history of everything down to each and every paragraph. This way it's easy to go back through the history of your novel to the exact point where you started going off in the wrong direction, restore your text to that point and try again.

The ideal application would of course be multi-platform wherever there is a market for it, in other words Mac, Windows and hopefully LINUX.



elite said:


> What I'd like to see is some more cloud oriented writing. I want to make mind-maps, relationship charts. I want to have an auto-generated list of all the places my character appears, with customizable fields to suit my needs. I want the software to suggest things beyond spell-checking, automatically search for definitions and synonyms, or show me images in real time about what I'm writing (from the web or from a local folder)
> 
> I'd want for writing what google is for the internet, basically. I think that would be MUCH more of a selling point than draconian layout enforcement.


I want this too. But I want to pick and choose the functionality, and I don't want to even see the functionality I don't need. Which is why my ideal writing software has support for plug-ins, in fact should be almost entirely made out of plug-ins.

And I certainly don't want Draconian layout enforcement. But I also don't want writers to start doing formatting and layout when they should be writing. Write first, then if you have to and it really is your job, do the formatting and layout later.


----------



## elite (May 31, 2011)

kareman said:


> I really don't think many non-programmers know what subversion is. This functionality needs to be moved inside the writing software. There is version control in Scrivener, in the form of snapshots, but you have to remember to select everything to have everything saved in the snapshot, and of course you have to remember to make the snapshot in the first place before you do something you regret or want to get back to later. What I'm talking about is the fine-grained history of everything down to each and every paragraph. This way it's easy to go back through the history of your novel to the exact point where you started going off in the wrong direction, restore your text to that point and try again.



There is no need to develop something new for something that's essentially the same thing as subversion, git, or cvs. I would be more open to the idea if it made use of existing technologies. Your software could seamlessly connect with a subversion server, and point the users to friendly subversion repositories (or better, create the repository for them). This would serve to both advertise this wonderful technology, and make your product more open to standards.

As for Scrivener's snapshots, scrivener has gone a long way since version 1 (which was... bad), but it's still in it's early stages. Word has been in development for 16 years and it still has it's quirks. I'd rather have everything that scrivener offers than versioned backup, which all but a few users don't actively use anyways.



> The ideal application would of course be multi-platform wherever there is a market for it, in other words Mac, Windows and hopefully LINUX.



I see your point, and I'd like to see a proper open source project for something like this. Since all the free alternatives are crap. But commercially speaking I see little room in the market for your product.




> I want this too. But I want to pick and choose the functionality, and I don't want to even see the functionality I don't need. Which is why my ideal writing software has support for plug-ins, in fact should be almost entirely made out of plug-ins.



Well crafted user interfaces pack all the horse-power with minimal interference or annoyance. These are all features that can be implemented without adding clutter for the interface.



> And I certainly don't want Draconian layout enforcement. But I also don't want writers to start doing formatting and layout when they should be writing. Write first, then if you have to and it really is your job, do the formatting and layout later.



This is merely a way to approach a problem, not necessarily the best. I like to define templates to create forms to define my characters and settings in ways I can easily review them, and not being flexible shrinks your audience. You shouldn't think about how your software will be misused, but how to make things easier for those who use it as intended. That's a standard UI design rule.

All in all I think you have good ideas, but your approach is suboptimal. You don't have substantially different features to make me switch to a brand new, untested product. Specially if it's commercial and not open source.

Well, that's as far as me goes. I write on a mac and for one I think twice about the software I use. On the OS X market there are tons of great writing apps out there, but on windows the only thing that's worth using is WriteMonkey and Word. Interestingly enough, this seems to be the one and only area where OS X has an edge over windows in diversity and quality apps.


----------



## kareman (Jun 1, 2011)

This is what I'm worried about; that my ideal writing software is ideal only for me (in other words: it will never be made). I want software that treats text the way people think about/conceptualise/visualise text, and not the way computers treat text internally. Of course this is all very abstract and difficult to communicate, I definitely have more work to do here.


----------



## elite (Jun 1, 2011)

kareman said:


> This is what I'm worried about; that my ideal writing software is ideal only for me (in other words: it will never be made). I want software that treats text the way people think about/conceptualise/visualise text, and not the way computers treat text internally. Of course this is all very abstract and difficult to communicate, I definitely have more work to do here.


 
That is something very difficult to pull off. Everyone visualizes writing differently. I for example think of a messy cloud of ideas and then try to describe the stuff that goes inside my head. I think the problem's not in the writing part, but in the management of ideas. Think about it, if you could write a story as you would write object-oriented software, it would be much easier to sort things out.

I think the problem is that it's very difficult to conceptualize the mess inside our heads. And for that I think what is needed is as many ways to put your ideas on paper as possible, and yet allow integration of all these forms of conceptualization. A wiki, for example, is an excellent way to manage information, and that is the one thing I miss from writing software. Scrivener provides features that get close to this behavior, but it's not even near the level of clicking a term and suddenly having all the info on it at the tip of your fingers.


----------



## kareman (Jun 1, 2011)

Now having software visualise the mess in our heads, that would indeed be impossible. What I'm talking about is having the software treat the text we have already written the same way we visualise it. That may or may not be possible. What I need to find out is if there is any common ground as to how most writers think about and visualise their texts.


----------



## garza (Jun 1, 2011)

All you need for writing is a good text editor. They are available for free for all operating systems.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 1, 2011)

Speak for yourself. I make my living using certain applications. I have my favorites and my own working methods, but I wouldn't presume to tell anyone, "all you need is this."


----------



## elite (Jun 1, 2011)

artists have photoshop and corel. Engineers have autocad. Why can't a writer have their life made easier?


----------



## Baron (Jun 1, 2011)

elite said:


> artists have photoshop and corel. Engineers have autocad. Why can't a writer have their life made easier?


 
Those who show in galleries still use traditional methods.  I still apply oil or acrylics paint to canvas, there's no computer program that can do the job.  Photoshop has replaced the dark room for photography to a large extent but I still tend to set up shots and get the lighting so that I rarely use it.  Corel and similar programs are aimed at designers not fine artists.

I managed to produce good work with just the typewriter and a bottle of Tipp-Ex when I first started writing.  All that the computer has done for me is to dispense with the need for the Tipp-Ex.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 1, 2011)

elite said:


> artists have photoshop and corel. Engineers have autocad. Why can't a writer have their life made easier?



Maybe you mean graphic artists or more accurately graphic designers. Graphic artist is kind of an obsolete term. I use Photoshop, not Corel -- Illustrator which is similar but a more powerful and widely accepted application. Of course, fine artists use those applications too. 

I think there's a need for an application that makes it easier to manage large documents. One that allows you to organize by chapter or sub-sections, to select them with some sort of top-level navigation or navigate to pre-selected tags, and perhaps easily merge multiple documents. There's an add-on to Word that I'm looking at that does that. I'm going to try the demo when I get a chance. 

Can you write a novel in Word? Sure you can -- but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for something that makes it easier. Of course, you can do it with a typewriter -- or parchment and a quill pen too, if that's all you've got.


----------



## Baron (Jun 1, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Maybe you mean graphic artists or more accurately graphic designers. Graphic artist is kind of an obsolete term. I use Photoshop, not Corel -- Illustrator which is similar but a more powerful and widely accepted application. Of course, fine artists use those applications too.
> 
> I think there's a need for an application that makes it easier to manage large documents. One that allows you to organize by chapter or sub-sections, to select them with some sort of top-level navigation or navigate to pre-selected tags, and perhaps easily merge multiple documents. There's an add-on to Word that I'm looking at that does that. I'm going to try the demo when I get a chance.
> 
> Can you write a novel in Word? Sure you can -- but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for something that makes it easier. Of course, you can do it with a typewriter -- or parchment and a quill pen too, if that's all you've got.


 
A slab of stone, a hammer and a chisel?

This might give you what you're looking for, Joe.  It's free and a few people have recommended it but, as I said, I don't feel the need for anything like this.

http://www.storyhack.com/2009/12/07/freeware-outliner-for-authors-texttree-1-3/


----------



## elite (Jun 1, 2011)

Baron said:


> Those who show in galleries still use traditional methods.  I still apply oil or acrylics paint to canvas, there's no computer program that can do the job.  Photoshop has replaced the dark room for photography to a large extent but I still tend to set up shots and get the lighting so that I rarely use it.  Corel and similar programs are aimed at designers not fine artists.



Digital artists don't show in galleries because it's an entirely different kind of media, and crafting a physical work of art is an entirely different process. However, I consider digital pictures a work of art and self expression regardless. Just because it's not hand-crafted doesn't mean it's not art.



> I managed to produce good work with just the typewriter and a bottle of Tipp-Ex when I first started writing.  All that the computer has done for me is to dispense with the need for the Tipp-Ex.



No doubt you can, in the same way I can write software with notepad. There is a reason why I don't do that, though, and it forces me to focus more on the code than on what the program does to begin with.

Same thing to writing. I believe writing can be streamlined a lot more than what it is now, and made a lot easier to the future generations. So many people fail to get their ideas on paper simply because writing is so awfully demanding both on mentality and patience. And I see no reason to not give software a chance to make your life easier. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but many would benefit regardless.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 1, 2011)

Baron said:


> A slab of stone, a hammer and a chisel?
> 
> This might give you what you're looking for, Joe.  It's free and a few people have recommended it but, as I said, I don't feel the need for anything like this.
> 
> Freeware Outliner for Authors: TextTree 1.3



That looks interesting. Thanks. I'll check it out. Although I'm not too crazy about apps that aren't really supported in any way. 

The Word add-on intrigues me, because unlike all the other writing apps, you still get to use all the features you're used to.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 1, 2011)

elite said:


> I believe writing can be streamlined a lot more than what it is now, and made a lot easier to the future generations. So many people fail to get their ideas on paper simply because writing is so awfully demanding both on mentality and patience. And I see no reason to not give software a chance to make your life easier. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but many would benefit regardless.



I don't really buy that. Writing a novel with a word processing application can be a little cumbersome -- but I can't imagine that would be enough to deter anyone who really wants to write a novel. It's going to be demanding regardless. Just maybe a little less so if you have an application that helps you keep things organized. At best, I think we're talking mostly about convenience and saving a little time -- just making it a little easier. If people "fail" or give up because they can't write a novel in Word, then I can't imagine that their hearts were really in it in the first place.


----------



## elite (Jun 2, 2011)

JosephB said:


> I don't really buy that. Writing a novel with a word processing application can be a little cumbersome -- but I can't imagine that would be enough to deter anyone who really wants to write a novel. It's going to be demanding regardless. Just maybe a little less so if you have an application that helps you keep things organized. At best, I think we're talking mostly about convenience and saving a little time -- just making it a little easier. If people "fail" or give up because they can't write a novel in Word, then I can't imagine that their hearts were really in it in the first place.



You don't buy it because you are thinking in terms of what's currently offered.

Programmers had to make software by writing zeroes or ones, and it goes without saying that stuff like word and excel where beyond imagination. Then came hexadecimal codes, which made things a lot easier and suddenly we had assembly, which allowed us to write instructions in human language for the first time. Today's software is the product of using programming languages that are closer than ever to our way of describing real word objects and it does it in a language that is very human friendly. What was the evolution, the technology, or our way to express it?

This is a pretty extreme case, but you can see this being applied in all fields. Technology is simply meant to assist you as you do your job, nothing else.

Thing is that there hasn't been a "breakthrough" in writing software. There are word processors, but they hardly assist you in the biggest part of writing, getting the stuff out of your head with ease. That is because with current technology, making a true writing assistant is too difficult and expensive. You'd really have to be a programmer to understand what I mean, because with programming I have my software remembering things for me, giving me options, suggestions. I press a key and suddenly the computer shows me all my available options for the next word I'm going to write, and as I type, those options narrow down to the ones I want. My programming software give me pointers, tells me what I can use, allows me to instantly check what tools I can use, and points out errors so systematically that I only have to focus on one thing, programming.

And what is a programming language? a language. It's a heavily simplified version of English that computers can understand. If you could do the same with writing, the quality and quantity of literature we would get as a result would increase exponentially. This is something that's not available now. Word won't tell you contradicted a plot point you wrote 50 pages ago, or that you left things unexplained. But there is the potential, because it's been done in a much smaller scale for thirty-five years.

In a nutshell, imagine an editor and a proofreader  evaluating your work in real time, and pointing out problems with your writing, plot, and character development. This can be done, just not now.


----------



## Leyline (Jun 2, 2011)

I've decided that from now on, I'm just going to make up stuff in my head, and never write it down. That way it's always perfect.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 2, 2011)

elite said:


> Word won't tell you contradicted a plot point you wrote 50 pages ago, or that you left things unexplained. But there is the potential, because it's been done in a much smaller scale for thirty-five years.



 So you’re saying there are all these brilliant authors out there who have thrown up their hands in defeat and walked away from a novel because it’s too hard for them to catch their own plot inconsistencies or recognize a fuzzy plot line. They need software to do it for them. 

 I’m still not buying it. The thing is, for people with any sort of writing talent, all it takes is extra effort to catch those things. So I seriously doubt that anyone who really wants to write a novel would be deterred because there isn’t software available that will do the work for them. 



elite said:


> In a nutshell, imagine an editor and a proofreader  evaluating your work in real time, and pointing out problems with your writing, plot, and character development. This can be done, just not now.



 I can imagine it and it may well be possible – some day. But at the point where any knucklehead with a vague story idea (that is if the computer doesn’t suggest those too) can knock out a readable novel, and if I'm still alive, I probably won't be interested in doing it. Would you?

  I think your design and art software analogy is more accurate. The most advanced software can’t tell you that your design looks like crap. Design software makes it easier, faster, more efficient than in the days of marker renderings and typesetting -- but it doesn't make up for lack of design talent. Maybe it will someday – but then we won’t need designers. I think my job is safe for now though.


----------



## Baron (Jun 2, 2011)

Leyline said:


> I've decided that from now on, I'm just going to make up stuff in my head, and never write it down. That way it's always perfect.


 
If this starts a trend then the publishing industry is really in trouble.


----------



## elite (Jun 2, 2011)

JosephB said:


> So you’re saying there are all these brilliant authors out there who have thrown up their hands in defeat and walked away from a novel because it’s too hard for them to catch their own plot inconsistencies or recognize a fuzzy plot line. They need software to do it for them.



Not at all. Even with software that writes software for us, programming is an incredibly difficult thing that can hardly be called easy. It has a higher dropout rates than engineering in many universities.



> I’m still not buying it. The thing is, for people with any sort of writing talent, all it takes is extra effort to catch those things. So I seriously doubt that anyone who really wants to write a novel would be deterred because there isn’t software available that will do the work for them.



That is very true, but anything that makes things easier will get us more published authors. Won't be 100% success rate, but at least it might be 7 or 8 instead of 5%. That in itself is a significant improvement. It would also reduce the workload on editors who have to carefully review loads and loads of novels per month. And it would give authors a semi-professional opinion on their writing as they write, in real time.



> I can imagine it and it may well be possible – some day. But at the point where any knucklehead with a vague story idea (that is if the computer doesn’t suggest those too) can knock out a readable novel, and if I'm still alive, I probably won't be interested in doing it. Would you?



That won't happen. While you can easily write a program these days by following a tutorial, we don't have enough professionals to satisfy the demand. That's because it's by itself not an easy job, but that doesn't mean it can't be assisted by better tools.


----------



## garza (Jun 2, 2011)

Elite - You say '_So many people fail to get their ideas on paper simply because writing is so awfully demanding both on mentality and patience.._.'

People fail to get their ideas on paper because they have fuzzy ideas,  not because writing is demanding. I've gotten in trouble here in the  past for saying writing is not work. Of course it's work when you  consider the effort that goes into it, but it's not work if it's  something you love to do and would do whether anyone pays you for it or  not. It's just a matter of semantics, how you define the word 'work'.

Anything that is worthwhile demands effort, whether physical effort or  mental effort. In the field I wrote for years with pencil and pocket  notebook, and did very well. I didn't become extremely rich and famous,  but I made quite a good living putting one word after another, and  that's what writing is. If you have a clear idea of what you want to  say, then the words will be there for you. A pencil, a typewriter, or a  computer will work equally well. When I am misunderstood it's not  because I don't have the right software - it's because I've not put  enough thought into the writing. 

Text editors are good because they don't get in the way, they don't try  to do anything for you, and they will not suffer any loss in moving from  Unix to Linux to Windows to Apple. Vi, Vim, Notepad, and TextEdit all  produce text files that can be read on any of those systems. With my  personal writing I move back and forth between Linux and Windows with no  problem because all my writing is with text editors.  

Your comparison with writing code is not valid. That's a different  process altogether. Instructions to a machine are not the same as  preparing a news story, writing a poem, or composing a novel. The  transition from writing in binary to writing in hex to writing in  assembly was a mechanical progression.


----------



## elite (Jun 2, 2011)

garza said:


> Elite - You say '_So many people fail to get their ideas on paper simply because writing is so awfully demanding both on mentality and patience.._.'
> 
> People fail to get their ideas on paper because they have fuzzy ideas,  not because writing is demanding. I've gotten in trouble here in the  past for saying writing is not work. Of course it's work when you  consider the effort that goes into it, but it's not work if it's  something you love to do and would do whether anyone pays you for it or  not. It's just a matter of semantics, how you define the word 'work'.
> 
> ...



Garza, I agree with your first three paragraphs. It's true that writing like many things is a difficult thing that requires dedication and effort to get done. When I said "many people", I meant that other 2 or 3% of people that almost got it through but couldn't take the pressure. 95% of writers never make it, so an increase in 2 or 3% is "significant" enough for me to say "many". I'm not saying anyone can become a writer. And my analogy is that programming nowadays is as simple as writing a few lines of English, and yet only 17% or so actually make it through.

However, your explanation about why writing is different from any other form of self expression that it cannot possibly be assisted by a computer is very uni-dimensional and lacking in perspective.

Programming is not a "mechanical process". Programming is like writing an essay to a much less intelligent person, and try to make it understand what you need it to do. Programming has more to do with linguistics than it has to do with actual engineering or even other forms of expression such as painting and music.

When I write to a computer, I'm describing to it with pinpoint precision what my program looks like, what is it's every component about, what it is supposed to do, and how it gets things done. A program is nothing more than a simplified essay of what I need. When I said simplified English, I meant literally. Writing hello on a screen is "Console.WriteLine("Hello");" It has lots of extra baggage, but that's what makes it possible to be understood by the computer.

If we could make a computer properly understand the English language and the semantics of text, instead of just syntax, then you could potentially have your notepad warn you about things that can't possibly be right. It could find contradictions in your plot, problems with your pacing, and many more things. It's like having an editor next to you pointing things out in real time, and that's what it feels like when you program nowadays.

But like I said, this is terribly difficult and expensive, and the biggest, baddest experts in artificial intelligence scratch their heads at the thought of such a thing. And yet we know it's possible because it has already been done on a smaller scale.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 2, 2011)

Well, somewhere between the amazing writing and editing robot and a simple text editor there is room for an application that makes it easier to manage large documents. That's what I'm looking for -- a relatively, straightforward organizational tool. I write to an outline, so it would be a logical extension of that. I don't expect it to do any of the writing for me. And if I never find an application that suits me, I'll slog through and get it done -- eventually.

Otherwise, creative writing is creative writing. I don't see the need to force some analogy that doesn't apply. There may be similarities to programming or art or whatever -- but so what? It doesn't clarify anything.


----------



## elite (Jun 2, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Well, somewhere between the amazing writing and editing robot and a simple text editor there is room for an application that makes it easier to manage large documents. That's what I'm looking for -- a relatively, straightforward organizational tool. I write to an outline, so it would be a logical extension of that. I don't expect it to do any of the writing for me. And if I never find an application that suits me, I'll slog through and get it done -- eventually.
> 
> Otherwise, creative writing is creative writing. I don't see the need to force some analogy that doesn't apply. There may be similarities to programming or art or whatever -- but so what? It doesn't clarify anything.


 
True.

I was just ranting about possibilities and got a bit caught up with the moment =D. I'm a tech geek, so you'll have to deal with stuff like this whenever the word "software" shows up!


----------



## garza (Jun 2, 2011)

Please do not put words in my mouth or misquote what I say. Show me, please, where in that post I've offered an 'explanation' about why writing is so different that writing _'cannot possibly be assisted by a computer_'. I use the computer every day to write. I've been doing that since 1979, except those days in the 80's when much of my writing was in the field during the civil wars in Central America. I use a text editor for writing and initial editing, then load the text into Word for formatting. 

Nowhere in that post do I say that programming is a 'mechanical process'. I said, '_The  transition from writing in binary to writing in hex to writing in  assembly was a mechanical progression.' _It was a _progression_, and a welcomed one to a point, in the _mechanics_ of writing code. The high level languages we all had to learn in the early days of high level languages - COBOL and Fortran - represented another kind of development in the days before we all fell in love with the 8086 and its descendents. 

Maybe what you are wishing for is a writing programme like the WYSIWYG applications which write sloppy HTML for people who don't want to take the trouble to learn to code for themselves. With such apps anyone with a half-baked idea for a web page can put up one more error-filled bit of debris to clutter the Internet. 

The very last thing I want when I'm writing is an editor sitting at my elbow. Let me finish the piece, then it's the editor's turn. When I was a kid, 14, 15 years old, writing for the hometown daily and weekly, the editors would occasionally red-ink some parts of a story I'd brough in, show me what was wrong, and tell me to find an idle typewriter and redo. Neither ever suggested that he should sit at my elbow and guide me as I wrote. That would not have helped me learn to write better. Every time one of them pointed out a weakness, and I rewrote it to his satisfaction, I learned a lesson that 55 years later I still remember.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 2, 2011)

garza said:


> Maybe what you are wishing for is a writing programme like the WYSIWYG applications which write sloppy HTML for people who don't want to take the trouble to learn to code for themselves. With such apps anyone with a half-baked idea for a web page can put up one more error-filled bit of debris to clutter the Internet.



If you're talking about Dreaweaver -- it's an amazing and very powerful design application if you know what you're doing. In the wrong hands, it generates some crappy code, but if you're a designer who knows HTML, it's a big time saver. I use it nearly every day -- and have used it to develop everything from smaller, stable static sites to template pages for huge robust, CMS based sites for fortune 500 companies. It's like any other tool, you just have to know how to use it. 

All that considered, I've seen some pretty nice sites produced by good designers in Dreamweaver that have a little sloppy coding. But they still work just fine. And I've seen some real ugly, amateurish looking crap sites built by people who really know HTML. So it all kind of depends.


----------



## garza (Jun 2, 2011)

Joe - Must confess, Dreamweaver I've never tried. I've used Windows, whatever it's called, twice, then spent twice as long correcting errors as it would have taken to write from scratch. If I spent a lot of time coding pages I'm sure I'd try Dreamweaver and probably like it, based on what you say. I only code the occasional page, and always something simple. My comment about WYSIWYG apps refers to people who use a programme like the Windows app, build an elaborate page, take whatever the programme generates, and put it on the Web. 

Here's the system I use for putting together long documents for NGO's or government agencies. This may not work for you, but it's worked quite well for me.

The documents are usually a mixture of what other people write and the introductions and transitions that I write. A 400 or 500 page document is not unusual, and it's my job to put everything together in a logical form with proper transitions. You can't take two dozen articles about economic development in rural areas of developing countries, written by two dozen different people, and dump them into a pot. 

The first task is to put them in proper order. This means reading them all, all the way through, and deciding which should come first, which second and so forth. This is the beginning of your outline. The list is made in Notepad. 

The text of each section is copied into a Notepad file, with notes on special formatting, graphics, pictures, and such.  

Then the introductory comments for each section are written, and the transition comments. Again separate Notepad files are used. Each file is named according to where it fits on the outline. 

The outline file is kept open on the left side of the screen through the entire process. 

The text files are put into Word in the proper order. Now here is one of the advantages of the system. I may get halfway through and decide that article five and article 12 ought to be exchanged. No problem. Quick edit on the outline, then cut and paste in the Word document I'm building, and the change is made. Four transitions will have to be rewritten, but they are usually only a few hundred words long, and only a small part of that will need to be changed. All the introductions and articles can remain as written.

The next step is to insert the graphics with the articles. 

The next to last step is text formatting. This is, as I'm sure you know, critical in a long document to make it readable.

Finally the line edit, which should be done after a week's rest but that's not always possible. 

Most of the time I keep an uncluttered screen, with only the outline and the section I'm writing open. Sometimes I'll have one of the articles open while I write its introduction and transitions. That way I can flip through the article quickly to be sure I'm on the right track with what I'm writing. It's not necessary to have the article open on screen - it can be minimised, then called up quickly for reference, then put out of sight again. 

Many people do not like text editors. I do, because they are so flexible, so useful in so many ways, and so non-interfering while I'm writing. This post is written in Notepad. I'll turn off word wrap now and put it up.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 2, 2011)

My head is spinning, how did we end up doing web sites?

If you want a cheap way to put up multiple pages of stuff, then try a dtp programme, old versions turn up on computer mag disc's all the time. Just save as version 1 version 2 and so on. This won't try and second guess what is going on in your head, or straight jacket you into a rigid format. Also you can include inspirational pictures. It's only a suggestion, I would not dream of telling someone how to write.

Myself, I like paper, all over the place.


----------



## garza (Jun 2, 2011)

Old dtp programmes might be a problem trying to work across various platforms. I run both Linux and Windows, and I don't know of a dtp app that will work in both, or generate code that can be read by both. And would not any dtp app be much clumsier to use that a straight text editor which has a single purpose? As for pictures, putting them in is part of the formatting process, and for that I move all text files, no matter the source, into Word.

Edit - And there's nothing cheaper than text editors. They come free with Windows, most distros of Linux, and Mac.


----------



## kareman (Jun 2, 2011)

garza said:


> All you need for writing is a good text editor. They are available for free for all operating systems.


This is true. But why stop there? Why allow oneself the luxury of instant editing, the “undo” command and copy & paste when, strictly speaking, all you need for writing is a block of wood and something sharp? Sand and a finger? White snow and a full bladder?

I'm not trying to ridicule you here, I'm just saying that tools for writing have come a long way since we used rocks to make marks in other rocks, and to just stop at plain text editors and say “Whoa! This is all we need!" doesn't make any sense.

That being said, I can see from your description of your workflow that you have found a process that works for you. Good for you. All I could think of while reading about how you put together long documents is how much more simply and efficiently this could be done using my (still hypothetical) ideal writing software. Or Scrivener for that matter.



JosephB said:


> Well, somewhere between the amazing writing and editing robot and a simple text editor there is room for an application that makes it easier to manage large documents. That's what I'm looking for -- a relatively, straightforward organizational tool. I write to an outline, so it would be a logical extension of that. I don't expect it to do any of the writing for me. And if I never find an application that suits me, I'll slog through and get it done -- eventually.


Have you tried Scrivener? Now available for both Windows and Mac.


Elite, I completely agree, software for writing can and should do so much more. The better tools we have for writing, the more people will write and the more good literature will be written.


----------



## Baron (Jun 2, 2011)

kareman said:


> This is true. But why stop there? Why allow oneself the luxury of instant editing, the “undo” command and copy & paste when, strictly speaking, all you need for writing is a block of wood and something sharp? Sand and a finger? White snow and a full bladder?
> 
> I'm not trying to ridicule you here, I'm just saying that tools for writing have come a long way since we used rocks to make marks in other rocks, and to just stop at plain text editors and say “Whoa! This is all we need!" doesn't make any sense.
> 
> ...


 
It's the writer who produces good literature, not the software.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 2, 2011)

kareman said:


> The better tools we have for writing, the more people will write and the more good literature will be written.



You could say computers and word processing applications are better tools for writing than typewriters -- but is there more "good literature" today than there was 25 or 30 years ago? I don't really think there is.



kareman said:


> Have you tried Scrivener? Now available for both Windows and Mac.



I've seen it, but I haven't had a chance to try it yet. I'll get around to it at some point.


----------



## Sam (Jun 2, 2011)

Tools for writing: Pen (or pencil) and notepad. Computer and word processor (preferably Word, but Notepad will suffice). 

Anything else, in my opinion, is a distraction. As Baron said, software doesn't make a writer. Anything that takes away from your writing time -- like fancy drop caps (those big letters at the start of chapters), headers and footers, and fancy fonts -- can be a waste of time. You only need the bare minimum. Need an outline? Open another document. It's easy to flick from one to the other. Don't like a certain paragraph? Cut and paste it into another document (never delete writing). I call this document 'snippets'. All the ideas I've cut from my novels are in this file, which is approaching 50,000 words. 

No tool is going to make you a better writer. If you think you need it, then you'll need something else. And something else. Maybe even Dragon: Naturally Speaking because you couldn't be bothered typing anymore. And that's an even bigger waste of time because it requires you to read dozens of passages of text to determine how you pronounce each word, and even then it still hasn't a clue what you're saying. 

Ass on seat, fingers on keyboard, open Word and *write. *It couldn't be easier. Why complicate it?


----------



## kareman (Jun 2, 2011)

Baron said:


> It's the writer who produces good literature, not the software.


Of course, no one's saying otherwise. But there's no reason why better tools for the writer can't enable him or her to produce better literature, or at the very least produce it faster.



JosephB said:


> You could say computers and word processing applications are better tools for writing than typewriters -- but is there more "good literature" today than there was 25 or 30 years ago? I don't really think there is.


I would be very surprised if there isn't more good literature now than there was before computers were widespread. My guess is it only seems like literature was better before because there is also more bad literature now. There is more literature period.


----------



## kareman (Jun 2, 2011)

Sam W said:


> Tools for writing: Pen (or pencil) and notepad. Computer and word processor (preferably Word, but Notepad will suffice).
> 
> Anything else, in my opinion, is a distraction. As Baron said, software doesn't make a writer. Anything that takes away from your writing time -- like fancy drop caps (those big letters at the start of chapters), headers and footers, and fancy fonts -- can be a waste of time. You only need the bare minimum. Need an outline? Open another document. It's easy to flick from one to the other. Don't like a certain paragraph? Cut and paste it into another document (never delete writing). I call this document 'snippets'. All the ideas I've cut from my novels are in this file, which is approaching 50,000 words.
> 
> ...


I would be hard-pressed to find an application that is more distracting and overcomplicated than Word.

And if it hadn't been for Dragon Dictate I wouldn't have been able to write even this small post without putting my arms in jeopardy.


----------



## Baron (Jun 2, 2011)

kareman said:


> Of course, no one's saying otherwise. But there's no reason why better tools for the writer can't enable him or her to produce better literature, or at the very least produce it faster.
> 
> 
> I would be very surprised if there isn't more good literature now than there was before computers were widespread. My guess is it only seems like literature was better before because there is also more bad literature now. There is more literature period.


 
I'd challenge you to name any modern writer whose craft would equal people like Samuel Beckett or John Steinbeck, to name but two.  These were of an age when writers thought it natural to develope their craft, unlike now when people even question the necessity for proper punctuation and grammar (learned not fed by a computer program).  Tools are fine in the hands of a craftsman, as Joseph has said.  No easy fix will produce good literature and many of these applications are simply a fill for those who lack the concentration and application which sets writers such as those I mentioned apart.


----------



## kareman (Jun 2, 2011)

Baron: I'm not talking about the quality of today's top writers vs all the great writers throughout history, I'm talking about the amount of good literature being produced today. 

Nor am I talking about quick fixes.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 2, 2011)

Sam W said:


> Tools for writing: Pen (or pencil) and notepad. Computer and word processor (preferably Word, but Notepad will suffice).
> 
> Anything else, in my opinion, is a distraction. As Baron said, software doesn't make a writer. Anything that takes away from your writing time -- like fancy drop caps (those big letters at the start of chapters), headers and footers, and fancy fonts -- can be a waste of time. You only need the bare minimum. Need an outline? Open another document. It's easy to flick from one to the other. Don't like a certain paragraph? Cut and paste it into another document (never delete writing). I call this document 'snippets'. All the ideas I've cut from my novels are in this file, which is approaching 50,000 words.
> 
> ...



Working in a single document, with a tree or outline view of each chapter with icons you could click to easily navigate from chapter to chapter would be more efficient and easier than working with one massive document or multiple documents. That's just common sense. Same with things like separate character notes or or cork-board view with notes for each chapter, etc. etc.

"Software doesn't make a better writer" is sort of a no-brainer cliche. Of course, that's true. The idea is to make better use of your time and be more efficient. I use software all day that allows for that. None of it makes me a better designer. 

There is absolutely room for improvement when it comes to writing tools. Every task you've described could be done more efficiently if there were views and navigation tools built into the software for them. Word doesn't have features like that, because there isn't a big enough demand for it. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be useful features for writers. 

If people use software like Scrivener because it has those features and it makes things easier for them, there's nothing wrong with that. You have your methods -- fantastic. But it's really presumptuous and a little arrogant to assume that how you do things is the best or only way.


----------



## elite (Jun 3, 2011)

garza said:


> Please do not put words in my mouth or misquote what I say. Show me, please, where in that post I've offered an 'explanation' about why writing is so different that writing _'cannot possibly be assisted by a computer_'. I use the computer every day to write. I've been doing that since 1979, except those days in the 80's when much of my writing was in the field during the civil wars in Central America. I use a text editor for writing and initial editing, then load the text into Word for formatting.



I have to admit I misunderstood you on that one. I jumped to conclusions and barely read your post. My apologies if I offended you.



> Maybe what you are wishing for is a writing programme like the WYSIWYG applications which write sloppy HTML for people who don't want to take the trouble to learn to code for themselves. With such apps anyone with a half-baked idea for a web page can put up one more error-filled bit of debris to clutter the Internet.


What I'm wishing for is more like microsoft's Intellisense, Javadoc, or simply a similar behavior to a compiler. You could have a computer review your story and point out the more obvious flaws you missed, more context-aware spell checking, but most importantly semantic comprehension and analysis of writing. It would be difficult to explain how this can be done, but it requires a specific part of artificial intelligence technology that is just beginning to make progress and lots of processing power and encyclopedic data. Which is why it's not viable right now. It's not about writing well or not, its having true assisting software that reduces the strain on your brain by having to remember every little detail. It would theoretically allow you to write faster, and with much more ease because the software would comprehensively discern plot-lines, characters and devices, and with that information it would provide suggestions or simply display all that information in a comprehensive manner, eliminating all the manual work that is outlining or keeping notes.




> The very last thing I want when I'm writing is an editor sitting at my elbow. Let me finish the piece, then it's the editor's turn. When I was a kid, 14, 15 years old, writing for the hometown daily and weekly, the editors would occasionally red-ink some parts of a story I'd brough in, show me what was wrong, and tell me to find an idle typewriter and redo. Neither ever suggested that he should sit at my elbow and guide me as I wrote. That would not have helped me learn to write better. Every time one of them pointed out a weakness, and I rewrote it to his satisfaction, I learned a lesson that 55 years later I still remember.


I didn't mean it THAT literally, but in the sense that an editor is there to point out and help you correct flaws. Having this information at hand and in real time is invaluable in any field, any craft, any science, any anything.



> It's the writer who produces good literature, not the software.


It's the newspaper guy that delivers the news, not the bike. Same thing.



> You could say computers and word processing applications are better  tools for writing than typewriters -- but is there more "good  literature" today than there was 25 or 30 years ago? I don't really  think there is.


This is a highly subjective thing, but I believe nowadays it's easier to become a writer than it was 30 years ago. Which means there are higher chances of getting relatively good writers who wouldn't have made it otherwise, and thus relatively more "good novels". By good I don't mean masterpieces, but enjoyable enough to be worth their value. Masterpieces are always rare, and it's unfair to compare the stuff of several decades against the past few years. Also consider the writing style has been streamlined a lot, and some don't like that, but some others do. I for one prefer simpler prose.



> I'd challenge you to name any modern writer whose craft would equal  people like Samuel Beckett or John Steinbeck, to name but two.  These  were of an age when writers thought it natural to develope their craft,  unlike now when people even question the necessity for proper  punctuation and grammar (learned not fed by a computer program).  Tools  are fine in the hands of a craftsman, as Joseph has said.  No easy fix  will produce good literature and many of these applications are simply a  fill for those who lack the concentration and application which sets  writers such as those I mentioned apart.


If we go back in history then we find some of the greatest authors ever, but not much else. If writing is difficult nowadays, I can't even begin to imagine how it would be 50, 60 or 100 years ago. Back then you'd need to be a truly wise and knowledgeable person, or at least with enough life experiences to write something good. No doubt their literature was great, but these were great people to begin with.

There wasn't anything like the explosion of authors coming up from everywhere as there is now, and while there is great stuff being done, there is also a lot of garbage like kareman said. That is not the software's fault, it's simply that there is a LOT more being written.


----------



## Sam (Jun 3, 2011)

elite said:


> I have to admit I misunderstood you on that one. I jumped to conclusions and barely read your post. My apologies if I offended you.
> 
> What I'm wishing for is more like microsoft's Intellisense, Javadoc, or simply a similar behavior to a compiler. You could have a computer review your story and point out the more obvious flaws you missed, more context-aware spell checking, but most importantly semantic comprehension and analysis of writing. It would be difficult to explain how this can be done, but it requires a specific part of artificial intelligence technology that is just beginning to make progress and lots of processing power and encyclopedic data. Which is why it's not viable right now. It's not about writing well or not, its having true assisting software that reduces the strain on your brain by having to remember every little detail. It would theoretically allow you to write faster, and with much more ease because the software would comprehensively discern plot-lines, characters and devices, and with that information it would provide suggestions or simply display all that information in a comprehensive manner, eliminating all the manual work that is outlining or keeping notes.



So you want the computer do everything for you? Basically that's what you're saying. It's too hard to remember everything, and why should I have to when I have a computer that can do it for me? With the greatest of respect, that's lazy. When you start to rely on a computer to tell you how to spell, when your grammar is off, or any other aid like that, you aren't learning how to become a better writer. You're staying at the same level and hoping technology will cover up the flaws you have. That's just the way I see it. 

I turned off spell-check, grammar-check, and every other 'check' Microsoft Word has. I learned how to spell words by -- *shock, horror* -- learning how to spell words. I learned grammar by reading and writing.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 3, 2011)

People are arguing extremes -- as usual. 

In my opinion, people should check out what writing tools are available. I think this "all you need is..." stuff can be safely ignored. It doesn't hurt to look for ways to make the process more streamlined. Most of us have other things we need to do besides write, so anything that might make things a little more efficient is worth a look. 

Nothing would ever advance if no one pursued better, faster ways of doing things. I'm sure when typewriters were invented, lots of folks said, all you need is a pen and paper -- tools don't make the writer -- back in my day we... yada, yada, yada.


----------



## elite (Jun 3, 2011)

Sam W said:


> So you want the computer do everything for you? Basically that's what you're saying. It's too hard to remember everything, and why should I have to when I have a computer that can do it for me? With the greatest of respect, that's lazy. When you start to rely on a computer to tell you how to spell, when your grammar is off, or any other aid like that, you aren't learning how to become a better writer. You're staying at the same level and hoping technology will cover up the flaws you have. That's just the way I see it.
> 
> I turned off spell-check, grammar-check, and every other 'check' Microsoft Word has. I learned how to spell words by -- *shock, horror* -- learning how to spell words. I learned grammar by reading and writing.



No, it's just a tool to _correct_ mistakes, that's all there is to it. It would go beyond just spell checking, but it wouldn't be writing for me at all. It's great that you don't make mistakes when you write, so much that you disregard something as useful as spell checking. You know, some people actually -- *shock, horror* -- make mistakes and forget things, and my idea is just another safety net between you and catastrophic failure, nothing else.


----------



## garza (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm somewhat amused to find that outlining and keeping notes is just too much bother. So, we won't need to research or plan, just sit down and spin a yarn and the machine will turn it into a wonderful story.

One of my grandfather's ways of teaching at the dinner table was to turn to me suddenly and say something like, 'Tell me a story about what happened to your friend Liam and his dog today'. The fact that I probably didn't have a friend named Liam made no difference. Without missing a beat I had to start telling about Liam and the sad, or funny, or naughty thing that happened with his dog. It didn't have to be a good story, or all that long - maybe five minutes. But it had to be a complete story. Those yarns I spun at eight and nine and ten years old were without doubt terrible, but they taught me how to put ideas together on the fly. They also taught me to read, read, read, so that I came to the dinner table prepared to follow whatever twists granfa's conversations took.

If only I'd had a magic computer machine with correct-all-the-mistakes software, I'd never have had to learn anything beyond what I already knew at ten years of age. I could have filled a shelf with stories about my friend Liam and his wonderful dog, and instead of making a decent living by writing, I'd be world famous and terribly rich today.

I'm re-reading Michael Crichton's _Timeline_ and again I'm impressed by the detailed accuracy and careful planning that went into writing that book. Crichton would have made a great reporter. I'm bothered by the fact that he had no super computer with artificial editor standing by to make sure he kept all the threads in the story line straight. How on Earth did he do it? Is it possible that he was a very skilled writer who worked hard at developing his craft to be able to produce a string of novels that are a delight to read? 

Does it mean that to become a writer one must actually learn to write?


----------



## elite (Jun 3, 2011)

> I'm somewhat amused to find that outlining and keeping notes is just too  much bother. So, we won't need to research or plan, just sit down and  spin a yarn and the machine will turn it into a wonderful story.


Since when is pointing out flaws, semantic correction, and pointing out flaws the same as outlining? The purpose of _assistant software _is to make things _easier_, not do them for you. You still have to outline and write coherently. There are limits to what a semi-intelligent computer can do for you, and if it can turn crap into wonderful stories for you, might as well leave the writing to the computer.



> If only I'd had a magic computer machine with correct-all-the-mistakes  software, I'd never have had to learn anything beyond what I already  knew at ten years of age. I could have filled a shelf with stories about  my friend Liam and his wonderful dog, and instead of making a decent  living by writing, I'd be world famous and terribly rich today.


While the computer would greatly help you to correct mistakes before you turn it to an editor or a proofreader, it wouldn't make the story any better or worse as if you had written it manually. To _correct_ something, there must be _something to be corrected_; that's common sense, and you are making too much of a big deal out of semantic interpretation and correction, which has _nothing_ to do with being a good writer or not.



> I'm re-reading Michael Crichton's _Timeline_ and again I'm  impressed by the detailed accuracy and careful planning that went into  writing that book. Crichton would have made a great reporter. I'm  bothered by the fact that he had no super computer with artificial  editor standing by to make sure he kept all the threads in the story  line straight. How on Earth did he do it? Is it possible that he was a  very skilled writer who worked hard at developing his craft to be able  to produce a string of novels that are a delight to read?


Egyptians built pyramids without modern construction and safety technology, and while they are a sight to behold that are still standing after thousands of years, I wouldn't advice using their methods over the modern ones. Same thing. But regardless, a modern civil engineer learns in five years, three or four times as much as the Egyptians could learn in ten or twenty. That does not take credit away from them, but that's how humanity makes progress. You should also wonder how much time and effort it took him to compile all his research in an organized fashion, write a coherent story of such magnificence, and do so in a limited amount of time. If the same thing could have been done with a little less effort and years of experience, I'm all up for it.



> Does it mean that to become a writer one must actually learn to write?


Naturally, implying that is not the case is the same as implying that the computer can write a good novel by itself, which is absolutely not what I'm talking about. Assistant software is there to _assist_. It's what Watson is to Sherlock, and that won't change until computers are smarter than humans (which I doubt will happen within our lifetimes).


----------



## garza (Jun 3, 2011)

_Since when is pointing out flaws, semantic correction, and pointing out flaws the same as outlining?
_There may be a problem with this sentence.

There seems to be a problem with the following phrase, '..._I wouldn't advice using their methods over the modern ones_.'

Perhaps it's best we leave it here. 

I grew up with my father's ideas about how to accomplish anything. He believed any process should be both efficient and effective. He knew that they are not always compatible. Oftentimes efficiency must give way to effectiveness. Relying on the human brain as your primary writing tool may not be the most efficient method, but so far it has proven to be the most effective. I'll pass along one of my father's bits of advice which I believe applies in this instance. Find what works and stick with that until you find something that works better.  

I sincerely wish for you as long and happy a life as a writer as I have had. It's been a good life, and I've no complaints. When you reach the three score and ten mark, may you, too, be able to say the same.

Buenas noches, amigo.


----------



## elite (Jun 4, 2011)

garza said:


> There may be a problem with this sentence.



Indeed, there is. I was careless since it was the third time I wrote my post (public wifi was being unreliable).



> Perhaps it's best we leave it here.


Sure, I'm tired of repeating myself. However, I do not appreciate  being mocked in this way. While my English is far from perfect, I have pride on it being my second language. I do my best to keep it at a level where I can at least be taken seriously, but I am only human. That was by no means a polite way to end a discussion, but I'll leave it at that.



> I grew up with my father's ideas about how to accomplish anything. He believed any process should be both efficient and effective. He knew that they are not always compatible. Oftentimes efficiency must give way to effectiveness. Relying on the human brain as your primary writing tool may not be the most efficient method, but so far it has proven to be the most effective. I'll pass along one of my father's bits of advice which I believe applies in this instance. Find what works and stick with that until you find something that works better.


That is true, I never said otherwise. Somehow my idea in increasing the semantic capabilities in writing software escalated into the software doing the writing. And my attempts to correct said misunderstanding where ignored, _twice._ I was also raised to do things efficiently and effectively, and that is precisely why I choose to study computer science: to make a living of making things easier to other people. Before I am a writer, I am a computer scientist, and speculating about things like these is part of my profession.



> I sincerely wish for you as long and happy a life as a writer as I have had. It's been a good life, and I've no complaints. When you reach the three score and ten mark, may you, too, be able to say the same.


Had the first few sentences of your post been different I would have taken this seriously. I may be young but I do not like being underestimated. But regardless, you deserve respect for your own accomplishments so thanks anyways, whatever the intent was.


----------



## garza (Jun 4, 2011)

My apologies. I should'n't've done that. Please ignore the bad first part of the post and accept the remainder as meant sincerely.

Peço desculpas sinceramente.


----------



## elite (Jun 4, 2011)

garza said:


> My apologies. I should'n't've done that. Please ignore the bad first part of the post and accept the remainder as meant sincerely.
> 
> Peço desculpas sinceramente.


 
It's alright, no harm done.


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 12, 2011)

Baron said:


> It's the writer who produces good literature, not the software.



This is why I'm hesitant to start buying software whose purpose is writing when I have open office. When you look at the work of Shapespeare (written with quill and parchment),Lovecraft (likely pen and ink then transferred to typeset, maybe a sholes and glidden typewriter),  Kurt Vonnegut Jr (typewriter and paper) and Modern literaries (probably a word processor), I just don't see it as the means to impactful writing.

Scrivener looks nice and I may try the beta, since I'm a windows user, but throwing money at the computer screen doesn't seem like a solution.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 12, 2011)

The software isn't intended to be a "means to impactful writing" in and of itself. Scrivener, for example, is primarily an organization tool. 

If you were writing with a typewriter and decided to keep your chapters in separate file folders, or mark them with paper clips, or write your drafts or notes on a different colored paper, you wouldn't really consider those methods as a means to impactful writing either -- just as a means of staying organized, and perhaps get more done.

The software is just a tool, and successive generations of writers have adopted and embraced whatever tools and technology were available to make the task faster and easier. Don't limit your options based on a cliché.


----------



## Robert_S (Jun 13, 2011)

JosephB said:


> The software isn't intended to be a "means to impactful writing" in and of itself. Scrivener, for example, is primarily an organization tool.
> .
> .
> .
> The software is just a tool, and successive generations of writers have adopted and embraced whatever tools and technology were available to make the task faster and easier. Don't limit your options based on a cliché.



Ok, I've played with the beta version of Scrivener for windows and I'm going to confess, my initial impression is positive.  I'm still having some difficulty in making it do what I need, but that is from a lack of experience with the tool and not an absence of function or an abundance of flaws, thus far.

I will continue to utilize and assess it until the test period ends and then make a decision on whether to purchase it.  The Mac version is $45 and their FAQ states the windows version will be less, since it will have less functionality, but if I do purchase, I will expect to get upgrades at a discount.


----------

