Forum Posts Feed
Writing tools for complex storytelling
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Feb 24, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Dr Andus, I had assumed you were creating a work of fiction, but you say it is on the social sciences. So…now I am very curious, and wonder if you can say something more about the nature of the project.
I think your diagram is probably central to a way to go about this project.
And so I wonder about creating a time line - not on the computer, but on a large white board from which you can step back to see the whole, and to which you can move in and focus on a small part. Sometimes actual physical movement is helpful in processing ideas and seeing information in a different way.
From my own writing experience I wonder whether it is realistic to think in terms of writing the surface text (by which I take it you mean something close to the finished version, neatly incorporating the five story lines) without doing at least some writing of the story lines. I’ve found that success in working with various story lines is in direct proportion to my familiarity with each story line—and that familiarity sometimes comes from having at least a detailed written synopsis of each story line.
I wonder if you were to create synopses for each of the remaining story lines in broad brush strokes (to avoid the length of the first two) whether you would then feel a greater sense of ease about writing the surface text.
Daly
Dr Andus wrote:
>Just to clarify how I came to visualise the problem (and the writing process), I
>created this
>sketch:
>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/428516/Photo24022012043637.jpg
>
>The black
>line in the surface represents the final text, consisting of 3 x 10K word chapters. The
>surface text is made up of bits of 5 storylines, whenever they surface. The challenge
>is to be able to focus and just write the surface text, rather than having to write up all
>of the underlying storylines first, which is too time-consuming.
>
>So there are at
>least two issues here:
>1) being able to manage the process (keeping the storylines
>straight in my head). This is where Storybook Pro might be helpful.
>2) being able to
>focus on writing the surface text only, without having to fully write all the
>underlying stories first.
>
>The added complication is that this sort of social
>science writing is not simply a writing-up of what I have already figured out before
>the writing. The writing process itself is part of the analysis and the discovery
>process. So I realise the first version of the surface text will not be perfect and it
>will be draft. But I would want to be more productive and efficient with the
>process.
>
>@Hugh - thanks for the Flying Logic suggestion. I took a look at it and found
>the Theory of Constraints very interesting. Having just taken a cursory look (I
>haven’t downloaded the software), I did find it very expensive though for what it
>promises to do (considering that VUE or CMAP Tools can do concept-mapping for
>free).
>
>@Pavi - I think my main problem is not so much managing the structure (your UR
>solution) but how to manage the tension between surface and depth. It’s about how to
>focus on the surface text, knowing that it is made up of 5 strands, yet not be sucked into
>the depth and start following a single story at the expense of the others and the
>overall word count. But you may be right, Storybook Pro might still be the solution.
>Thanks.
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Feb 24, 2012 at 03:58 PM
Dr Andus,
I’d still look at Scrivener to do this (with the caveat that I’m not sure Scriv for Windows is quite up to what I’m suggesting yet—though I’m sure the Mac version can do it).
Here’s what I would try:
1. Sketch out the structure of each strand, creating a document for each “piece,” whether it is a surface piece or not. Forget about hierarchy.
2. In each document, write a short description.
3. Use an alpha numeric code at the start of each document name to help you keep track. For instance, “2B” would be the second piece of the B strand. (I think this is important to make sure you can order them as you need. Although you might achieve the same thing with keywords and labels.T)
4. You can then use the Scrivenings mode to see the entire “story.” From here you can fill out those pieces you want to be on the surface. You can also use labels and keywords to further classify items.
5. You can then use collections (i.e. saved searches) to separate out the strands if you want to view them in isolation.
Does that sound like it makes sense?
Steve Z.
Posted by Dr Andus
Feb 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Daly de Gagne wrote:
>Dr Andus, I had assumed you were creating a work of fiction, but you say it is on the
>social sciences. So…now I am very curious, and wonder if you can say something more
>about the nature of the project.
I deliberately talked about it in terms of fiction because it actually helps me think about it that way. Otherwise my project is interdisciplinary and is studying a number of inter-related entities (organisations, people, places), which is why there are so many “story lines.” The way I’m telling the story (the weaving together of the 5 stories) is supposed to contribute to my overall point, so the structure is supposed to be instructive. Not all the story lines are actual empirical stories. Some of the story lines represent a particular disciplinary perspective (and thus it’s multi- and interdisciplinary).
>And so I wonder about creating a time line - not on the
>computer, but on a large white board from which you can step back to see the whole, and to
>which you can move in and focus on a small part. Sometimes actual physical movement is
>helpful in processing ideas and seeing information in a different way.
Good idea, I will try it.
>From my own
>writing experience I wonder whether it is realistic to think in terms of writing the
>surface text (by which I take it you mean something close to the finished version,
>neatly incorporating the five story lines) without doing at least some writing of the
>story lines. I’ve found that success in working with various story lines is in direct
>proportion to my familiarity with each story line—and that familiarity sometimes
>comes from having at least a detailed written synopsis of each story line.
Yes, you have a point there and I realise I have to do that. I’m still hoping though to be able to reduce the pain somehow by using an implement…
Posted by Dr Andus
Feb 24, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>Dr Andus,
>
>I’d still look at Scrivener to do this (with the caveat that I’m not sure
>Scriv for Windows is quite up to what I’m suggesting yet—though I’m sure the Mac
>version can do it).
>
>Here’s what I would try:
>
>1. Sketch out the structure of each
>strand, creating a document for each “piece,” whether it is a surface piece or not.
>Forget about hierarchy.
>2. In each document, write a short description.
>3. Use an
>alpha numeric code at the start of each document name to help you keep track. For
>instance, “2B” would be the second piece of the B strand. (I think this is important to
>make sure you can order them as you need. Although you might achieve the same thing with
>keywords and labels.T)
>4. You can then use the Scrivenings mode to see the entire
>“story.” From here you can fill out those pieces you want to be on the surface. You can
>also use labels and keywords to further classify items.
>5. You can then use
>collections (i.e. saved searches) to separate out the strands if you want to view them
>in isolation.
>
>Does that sound like it makes sense?
>
>Steve Z.
Thanks Steve, I will give it a go and see if it can be done. I wanted to figure out what the Collections are for anyway.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Feb 27, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Dr Andus wrote:
>Basically I’ve written 40,000 words, of which
>maybe only 6000 will end up in the targeted 30,000 words. So I’m just wondering if there
>is a clever way to do this. Now that I know that my challenge is to weave together 5
>storylines, I need a tool that helps me not to lose focus again and be better at
>suppressing and NOT writing the unnecessary parts of the stories.
I hope that you have found what you needed with Scrivener’s Collections, but in case you didn’t (and for others with similar projects but not on Scrivener), here’s how I would go about it with my Brainstorm http://www.brainstormsw.com/
Brainstorm has the rather unique feature of Namesakes which are automatically discovered identical texts or clones; for this work the automatic discovery itself will not be needed though.
(1) Copy the full text to Brainstorm, preferably under one heading per chapter.
(2) Create 5 “Mark” points under separate headings to represent the 5 storylines
(3) Go through the text and for each paragraph press Ctrl+Shift+N where N is the number (1-5) of the storyline to which that paragraph pertains. This will create a Namesake copy of the paragraph under the relevant storyline.
At the end of the above procedure, each paragraph will exist under the main text and its corresponding storyline. Selecting a paragraph and clicking on the left or right arrow will show the paragraph in its alternative positions. I could then
(4) Develop each storyline further
(5) Create a new heading representing the new ‘surface’ text and add a Mark point underneath.
(6) Copy the bits to be included in the new text to that Mark (same as above)
I believe that the process should be faster with Brainstorm than just about anything else. That said, I wrote my MBA dissertation (<20,000 words) with Brainstorm and have found it crashing with very big texts making extensive use of namesakes. I think the problem is when one is editing a Namesake and the program tries to Autosave. However, Autosave itself is very reliable.