Forum Posts Feed
Software for Authors
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by critStock
May 20, 2011 at 12:52 AM
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>Hugh wrote:
>>I’m sure there’s a simple division here between fiction and
>non-fiction writers.
>>Fiction writers may be able to get away without using MS Word
>(although
>>round-tripping documents with an editor without “Track Changes” may be
>difficult).
Three words: footnotes, footnotes, footnotes.
Non-fiction writers of the scholarly subspecies cannot get by without them.
I love simplified writing environments, but they never seem to implement footnotes. Incidentally, my understanding is that RTF has footnote capabilities by design; but none of the RTF editors/writers I have come across (or RTF-based simplified writing environments) seems to implement this feature. Can anyone more knowledgeable shed any light on RTF and footnotes?
>A problem I see in Word is that anyone can use it, without having the slightest idea of what constitutes a good layout. I
>remember a professor I worked with, who produced an official report of brilliant content, laid out in Comic Sans MS font.
Ah, Comic Sans: the joke of fonts and font of jokes. CTRL+A and change the font. Problem solved. When word-processing first became widespread, my students often handed in papers with motley arrangements of font styles and sizes. By now we professor types have learned to specify font style and size in paper assignments. Another problem solved.
Posted by Graham Rhind
May 20, 2011 at 07:15 AM
Possibly really off topic ..... I’d love to go back to using the 1950’s manual typewriter that I learnt to type on, but I can’t find any shop/online supplier that sells typewriter ribbons. Where do you/others find theirs?
Cheers,
Graham
Gary Carson wrote:
>I’m amazed at how many writers (primarily fiction writers) end up looking for
>minimalistic, “distraction free,” full-screen word processors like Dark Room or
>Zen (is that what it’s called?) and even do things like add “realistic typewriter
>sound effects” to re-create the typewriter experience. If that’s what they’re
>looking for, they should just go back to working on real typewriters. I’ve been doing
>this a lot myself lately, just to get away from all the distractions involved with
>working on a computer. I like manuals, but at the moment, I’m working on an old IBM
>Wheelwriter III, the best electric ever made, in my opinion. There are ZERO
>distractions with a typewriter. It can be quite a jolt to the system after working on a
>computer for years, let me tell you.
Posted by Hugh
May 20, 2011 at 08:53 AM
Gary Carson wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, why does your son have to submit each chapter as a separate file?
>I’m a fiction writer myself with an agent and I’ve never heard of a requirement like
>this. The only reason I can think of for why they would want him to do this is if they were
>running his novel as a serial, chapter by chapter.
>
>The standard novel manuscript is
>very basic and I’ve never had any problems with creating long (100,000+ words)
>manuscripts in Word 2003. Granted, Word is bloated and you don’t need ninety per cent
>of its features, but this is a non-issue. And the only time I’ve ever seen Word crash is
>with extremely complicated documents using master-documents and sub-documents
>and so on, none of which applies to writing fiction.
>
>After screwing around with
>almost every kind of “novel-writing software” out there, I’ve decided that they’re
>completely unnecessary and more trouble than they’re worth. Writing novels
>involves creating lots of different files for research, outlines, etc., but I’ve
>never found that I have to have all of these files instantly available. If I have files I
>need to reference while I’m writing, I just print them out. Problem solved. And the
>novel-writing software I’ve seen (Scrivener for Windows, for example) almost
>always uses RTF format, which means you have to do a lot of reformatting when you’re
>finished. Why bother? Just write the thing in Word and be done with it. (The Scrivener
>for Windows Beta I tested has a “Standard Novel Template” you can use for exporting
>your copy to Word, but it doesn’t work. A flaw like this is so basic that I have to wonder
>what all these writers who have been giving the program rave reviews are actually
>doing).
>
>The best purchase I’ve ever made to increase my writing productivity
>wasn’t software at all, but hardware, namely a second monitor. You can put one draft
>(or an outline or whatever) up on one monitor for reference and work on the manuscript
>on the other. It works great. As for keeping my files organized, I just use Windows
>Explorer. I create a master folder for the book, then subfolders for research,
>outlines, etc. No problem at all.
I agree with most of this, although I did experience the Word long-document issue several times with earlier versions. I can’t believe that Microsoft will have left this weakness in the code in more recent versions.
Fundamentally, writing really isn’t about the software. It seems unnecessary to say this, but many (not here!) seem to believe that it is. (I can sort of see how it can become so, just as, say, favourite fountain pens become touchstones.) And it certainly isn’t about the template. The fiction templates that are based on commonly required publishers’ criteria are just about some of the simplest special formats there are, and I’ve never quite understood why some debutante writers seem to think they’re so important. Rolling your own seems to me to be the best approach.
As regards Scrivener for Windows, I recommend waiting till it comes out of beta before making a final judgment. I think the templates it currently includes were just moved across from the Mac version, more or less as placeholders and signals of what was ultimately intended.
I can see the value of a second screen. My own favourite piece of hardware is at the other end of the scale: an Alphasmart Neo.
Posted by Hugh
May 20, 2011 at 09:07 AM
critStock wrote:
>
>Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>>Hugh wrote:
>>>I’m sure there’s a simple division
>here between fiction and
>>non-fiction writers.
>>>Fiction writers may be able to
>get away without using MS Word
>>(although
>>>round-tripping documents with an
>editor without “Track Changes” may be
>>difficult).
>
>Three words: footnotes,
>footnotes, footnotes.
>Non-fiction writers of the scholarly subspecies cannot get
>by without them.
>I love simplified writing environments, but they never seem to
>implement footnotes. Incidentally, my understanding is that RTF has footnote
>capabilities by design; but none of the RTF editors/writers I have come across (or
>RTF-based simplified writing environments) seems to implement this feature. Can
>anyone more knowledgeable shed any light on RTF and footnotes?
There’s been quite a lot of discussion on the Scrivener forums about RTF and footnotes. My understanding is that RTF isn’t a completely fixed standard; it comes in different flavours, depending on who is writing the code. Even then the functionality is usually limited; I’ve read for example, that creating footnotes to a single page that can then lay themselves out over several pages is particularly complicated. The Scrivener developer Keith Blount has hacked the standard Apple RTF code to enable it to create and export footnotes—but there’s then the question of which word processors can import them. From memory, in that case Apple’s Pages (paradoxically) cannot, whereas MS Word and its clones can.
I expect that the same may apply to some other developers.
Posted by Steve
May 20, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Take a look at http://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/help/footnotes.htm