4 ms·

I used Scrivener to write my 2010 Nanowrimo entry. It's a great piece of software, and I can't recommend it enough.

jseliger 15y ago
I'm not sure it will be useful to most people, for reasons tangentially related to this post: http://jseliger.com/2010/11/12/scrivener-or-devonthink-pro-with-a-side-of-james-joyces-ulysses http://jseliger.com/2010/11/12/scrivener-or-devonthink-pro-w... on Scrivener and Joyce. The main reason I say is because I think a lot of people, based on the amateur writing I've seen, don't need a fancier way of arranging words so much as they need to focus on 1) the quality of their sentences and 2) how one event drives another in their plots. I worry especially regarding point 2) that Scrivener lets people work in parallel when they should be working in serial, with one event driving another organically. Too much amateur writing I see is, for lack of a better term, plotless: meandering around feelings, or random encounters, or designed to show how deep the author is—instead of telling a story. Scrivener will help with some things, as I've written elsewhere, but I'm not sure it's really enough for the vast majority of what writers and would-be writers are working on.
- officemonkey 15y ago
  In other words: If you want to be a good writer, concentrate on your craft instead of your tools.
  - mrcharles 15y ago
    I'm not sure how your post or the one above it invalidates anything. For writers, managing plot, keeping tidbits and scraps, being able to quickly organize, link, and search, it's pretty damn helpful. Tools don't substitute for skill, but skill with the wrong tools is wasted.
  - xyzzyb 15y ago
    That's like saying a programmer should just concentrate on programming instead of finding a good text editor.
    - officemonkey 15y ago
      I'm saying that you can have the greatest text editor in the world and still be a crap programmer.
      - mrcharles 15y ago
        So what are you arguing against then? All we're saying is that Scrivener is a good tool.
        officemonkey 15y ago
        Who is arguing? I'm summarizing an important fact: the tools are not as important as the craft.
    - jseliger 15y ago
      I would argue that the gap between programming tools, languages, and platforms is vastly, vastly greater than the gap between various ways of processing words.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    This is a silly dichotomy. A craftsman's skill lies in using his tools, so tool choice is important. it's important for a chef to have a high quality knife that they feel comfortable using, but a high quality knife will no more make a person a good chef than a good text editor, build and language tools, etc. will make someone a good programmer. But good programmers, like good chefs or good writers, will nevertheless spend a goodly amount of money and effort ensuring they have the highest quality tools they feel they need.
    - visural 15y ago
      I think the more important tools in this case though are language, grammar, and punctuation.
      - 16BitTons 15y ago
        To carry this too far, I think the analogy demands that language/grammar/punctuation are the ingredients. They end up in the customer's mouth. The tools, be it edlin or a pear peeler, only make the chief/writer's job easier. You have to use good ingredients, but the tools are a matter of efficiency.
      - jseliger 15y ago
        Agreed. In the case of computer tools, I think the difference between someone productive using Word and someone using Scrivener is going to be pretty small in most instances. For the novel I'm working on now, multiple people are speaking (like Tom Perrotta's Election or Anita Shreve's Testimony), for which Scrivener is pretty useful. But for anything else I've written, I don't think Scrivener would've been a huge advantage. I'm not even sure it would've been a small advantage. Still, if you're curious about this sort of thing, I wrote in more depth about it here: http://jseliger.com/2011/08/11/how-to-be-a-faster-writer-dont http://jseliger.com/2011/08/11/how-to-be-a-faster-writer-don... .
    - officemonkey 15y ago
      For writing (and programming, for that matter) getting a really good tool should be pretty easy. Give me a credit card and google.com and I can buy any number of quality text editing/word processing programs in about 5 mins. Writers figure out what works for them and stick with it (my wife used AppleWorks forever; George R.R. Martin still uses WordStar on a DOS machine.) Programmers similarly establish their preference (which is why over-30-year old text editors like emacs and vi have such strong adherents). The original off-topic message in this thread was about how people continue to write poorly, even after they have great tools. That doesn't surprise me at all. The hard part is learning the craft. For most people, it's also not a lot of fun. It's a lot more fun to "look for the right tool."
  - billybob 15y ago
    A good piece of advise which does not in any way invalidate putting some effort into getting good tools. To use the chef analogy again, you wouldn't say "sharp knives don't make you a good chef, therefore use dull knives." You'd say, "focus on learning to cook. Don't spend 4 hours a day looking for the world's sharpest and most durable knives. But yes, do get some reasonably sharp knives. Then carry on with the chopping."
jawngee 15y ago
+1 for Scrivener. I just finished a novella using it. I didn't use all it had to offer, but the combination of index cards for simple and quick outlining and the full screen mode make it essential for me.

I'm not sure it will be useful to most people, for reasons tangentially related to this post: http://jseliger.com/2010/11/12/scrivener-or-devonthink-pro-with-a-side-of-james-joyces-ulysses http://jseliger.com/2010/11/12/scrivener-or-devonthink-pro-w... on Scrivener and Joyce. The main reason I say is because I think a lot of people, based on the amateur writing I've seen, don't need a fancier way of arranging words so much as they need to focus on 1) the quality of their sentences and 2) how one event drives another in their plots. I worry especially regarding point 2) that Scrivener lets people work in parallel when they should be working in serial, with one event driving another organically. Too much amateur writing I see is, for lack of a better term, plotless: meandering around feelings, or random encounters, or designed to show how deep the author is—instead of telling a story. Scrivener will help with some things, as I've written elsewhere, but I'm not sure it's really enough for the vast majority of what writers and would-be writers are working on.

officemonkey 15y ago
In other words: If you want to be a good writer, concentrate on your craft instead of your tools.
- mrcharles 15y ago
  I'm not sure how your post or the one above it invalidates anything. For writers, managing plot, keeping tidbits and scraps, being able to quickly organize, link, and search, it's pretty damn helpful. Tools don't substitute for skill, but skill with the wrong tools is wasted.
- xyzzyb 15y ago
  That's like saying a programmer should just concentrate on programming instead of finding a good text editor.
  - officemonkey 15y ago
    I'm saying that you can have the greatest text editor in the world and still be a crap programmer.
    - mrcharles 15y ago
      So what are you arguing against then? All we're saying is that Scrivener is a good tool.
      - officemonkey 15y ago
        Who is arguing? I'm summarizing an important fact: the tools are not as important as the craft.
  - jseliger 15y ago
    I would argue that the gap between programming tools, languages, and platforms is vastly, vastly greater than the gap between various ways of processing words.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  This is a silly dichotomy. A craftsman's skill lies in using his tools, so tool choice is important. it's important for a chef to have a high quality knife that they feel comfortable using, but a high quality knife will no more make a person a good chef than a good text editor, build and language tools, etc. will make someone a good programmer. But good programmers, like good chefs or good writers, will nevertheless spend a goodly amount of money and effort ensuring they have the highest quality tools they feel they need.
  - visural 15y ago
    I think the more important tools in this case though are language, grammar, and punctuation.
    - 16BitTons 15y ago
      To carry this too far, I think the analogy demands that language/grammar/punctuation are the ingredients. They end up in the customer's mouth. The tools, be it edlin or a pear peeler, only make the chief/writer's job easier. You have to use good ingredients, but the tools are a matter of efficiency.
    - jseliger 15y ago
      Agreed. In the case of computer tools, I think the difference between someone productive using Word and someone using Scrivener is going to be pretty small in most instances. For the novel I'm working on now, multiple people are speaking (like Tom Perrotta's Election or Anita Shreve's Testimony), for which Scrivener is pretty useful. But for anything else I've written, I don't think Scrivener would've been a huge advantage. I'm not even sure it would've been a small advantage. Still, if you're curious about this sort of thing, I wrote in more depth about it here: http://jseliger.com/2011/08/11/how-to-be-a-faster-writer-dont http://jseliger.com/2011/08/11/how-to-be-a-faster-writer-don... .
  - officemonkey 15y ago
    For writing (and programming, for that matter) getting a really good tool should be pretty easy. Give me a credit card and google.com and I can buy any number of quality text editing/word processing programs in about 5 mins. Writers figure out what works for them and stick with it (my wife used AppleWorks forever; George R.R. Martin still uses WordStar on a DOS machine.) Programmers similarly establish their preference (which is why over-30-year old text editors like emacs and vi have such strong adherents). The original off-topic message in this thread was about how people continue to write poorly, even after they have great tools. That doesn't surprise me at all. The hard part is learning the craft. For most people, it's also not a lot of fun. It's a lot more fun to "look for the right tool."
- billybob 15y ago
  A good piece of advise which does not in any way invalidate putting some effort into getting good tools. To use the chef analogy again, you wouldn't say "sharp knives don't make you a good chef, therefore use dull knives." You'd say, "focus on learning to cook. Don't spend 4 hours a day looking for the world's sharpest and most durable knives. But yes, do get some reasonably sharp knives. Then carry on with the chopping."

jawngee 15y ago

+1 for Scrivener. I just finished a novella using it. I didn't use all it had to offer, but the combination of index cards for simple and quick outlining and the full screen mode make it essential for me.