ConnectedText vs. Scrivener

Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Mar 6, 2012 at 04:36 PM

Franz,

The true answer is: nothing. But I’m desperate.

The task at hand is very vexing—reworking a 100-page manuscript that is loaded with facts (it’s a history of a Revolutionary War fortification site), but is poorly written. Excessive detail in some areas. Minimal detail in others. Lots of excess words. I’ve got to chop it down then rebuild it. Oh, and I don’t have a lot of time each day to devote to it. So I’ve had trouble making progress. I’ve tried Scrivener and Tinderbox to no avail. I thought CT might be a good option, but… see above.

However, Ulysses is a plain text environment like ConnectedText. And I like the way it handles inline comments better than Scrivener, and I think annotating the manuscript might be the best (and latest) first step. So it is, as we say in the U.S., a Hail Mary pass (reference to a desperate, late in the game play in American football when the quarterback throws a deep pass into the end zone and prays his teammate will catch it).

Steve Z.

Franz Grieser wrote:
>Hi Stephen Zeoli
> >>(For the record, I’m now trying it with Ulysses, which shares some
>attributes with
>>CT.)
> >No comment on that ;-)
>Just: What does Ulysses do that you
>cannot do in Scrivener?
> >Thanks, Franz