David Hewson, who literally wrote the book about writing a novel in Scrivener, has recently blogged about his switch back from the Mac to Windows and his software workflow using OneNote and Word 2013. It makes interesting reading:

http://davidhewson.com/2012/12/04/building-an-office-for-writing-software/#more-10102

Steve Z.

Thanks for this, it is interesting. I've also switched to Word 2010 for final writing up, given the integration with EndNote and Dragon, and the navigation pane allows for reverse outlining. But Scrivener still holds my overall outline and is open in my second monitor. Word 2013 might be worth checking out.

Funny. I sold my last Macintosh (a Mac Mini) a few weeks ago because I wanted to trial Curio 8 but it wouldn't run on OS X 10.6 and my Mini did not support 10.8 and I couldn't find 10.7 for a reasonable price. So: Goodbye to Mac (still love my iPad 2), hello Windows 7 (not 8).

OneNote, though I use it for collecting info on a number of subjects, however, will surely not replace Scrivener (for Windows) for organizing my writing. I find myself using the outliner pane in Word 2010 more and more - for the manuscripts my publishers want to be in DOCX and DOC. LibreOffice's Navigator pane pales in contrast to Word - which is not easy to confess for me, though.

Franz

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

David Hewson, who literally wrote the book about writing a novel in
Scrivener, has recently blogged about his switch back from the Mac to
Windows and his software workflow using OneNote and Word 2013.

Very useful, thanks. From an author of 23-24 books, I believe the following advice is well worth keeping in mind (for me at least):

"It’s important with all software to focus on the parts you need and ignore the rest."

and:
"Pick the right [computer] for the job, choose the few tools you need, then focus on what matters most: the work in hand."

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>David Hewson, who literally wrote the book about writing a novel in
>Scrivener, has recently blogged about his switch back from the Mac to
>Windows and his software workflow using OneNote and Word 2013.

Very useful, thanks. From an author of 23-24 books, I believe the
following advice is well worth keeping in mind (for me at least):

"It’s important with all software to focus on the parts you need
and ignore the rest."

and:
"Pick the right [computer] for the job, choose the few tools you need,
then focus on what matters most: the work in hand."

For the victors maybe but not for the victims. Yes, I know you added (for me at least) but this is precisely why it's dangerous. You're among the major market for this debate as you have published something. As a target market, your opinion is not only dangerous but it is the majority opinion.

In contrast, the novel writing software arena (at least for non-Mac users) have long been taking advantage of authors who "ignore the rest" and pretend (not always intentionally) to focus on their needs when it's really their wants that they are focusing. I don't know if historically this is accurate but is it any surprise that few free applications have evolved to be better than Scrivener when one of the core userbase act like ignoring the flaws and adopt a "just getting the right computer" is acceptable behaviour. What's worse is that you have this pattern of "talented and experienced the better software" that then moves down to "now I can adapt with this poorer software".

Where does that leave those who couldn't experience a better program like Scrivener first? Where is the right computer for those who need more than Scrivener?

...it's gone/hacky and takes longer than a simple Google search to find: All because most of the people adopt this attitude of "ignore the rest". Ignore the rest but be the famous "howler" who will advertise OneNote over other cheaper/more specific Windows novel writing apps. Ignore the rest but be the talented writer who might as well be saying "I've reached a talented stage where I don't need Scrivener and all I need is a web browser that has a word processor tacked on and a bookmark feature."

It's a sickening game. Not only from the subject of software users because at least that holds some merit. The words could be treated generally which can then be said as a way to cope with software addiction.

However once those words entered into the zone of "I have published x books" and "this or the article is good advise", it's no longer safe.

The danger is real that wants become replaced by need instead of it being merely a sentence which then worsens the current stagnancy in novel writing software.

The danger is real that more books can be made but less books are actually written in a useful manner from those software but authors back up this idea of best tool out there and becomes the invisible men holding up the illusion for how limited current novel writing software are.

The danger is real that ways to acquire/use a similar method to how that author uses OneNote is buried simply because it's not a famous author referring to a famous application and more people simply back up those statements without seeing how flawed it applies to creative writing software especially as there has been a dry spell of worthy cheap/free alternatives to YWriter or Writemonkey and now those programs' progress/quality are being pushed back by the "ignore the rest" motto.

...and what about the books?

E-books are getting as pricey as real books, there's still no publishing platform that have managed to bypass the politics of third world publishing, school textbooks can still be biased, creative fiction becomes a game of who can be marketed as the next Harry Potter or 50 Shades of Grey instead of becoming less slaves to advertising thanks to the expansion of the web.

This is not the time for authors to be promoting advises like these. They have their good points but it doesn't replace the danger. It may feel like I took your sentence out of the context of "at least for me" but I'm not. There's no room for at least for the losers. There's an entire vast space of problems right now that many authors are either taking for granted or are completely blind to (cause you're authors already) and you're "at least" ends up not being an "at least for me" but, you may or may not realize it, it's stated with the flawed premise that you (being a group of published authors) feel like the sentences are worth keeping in mind because the other person is also a. an author and b. utilizing a software to the intention of your niche without taking into consideration that a. OneNote is one of the few software that wasn't being updated as often b. OneNote is not a Scrivener replacement at least/at most/it doesn't come close to it's ballpark c. The only reason that author made it work because he still used it as a word processor and he has no problem typing stuff (as opposed to methods like live typing a novel using a software or writing a book on making OneNote completely replicate Scrivener) and yet it's an advise that can seem sound when it's not. The more space there is to publish things, the more software needs to catch up but they're not and many are money sinks and time sinks with no signs of improving cause they live and die by word of mouth authors who praise some small tidbit of feature they not only don't need but is clearly there because it makes them "want" to praise the word processor which then leads them to using the word processor and acting as if it's somehow special.

In short, it's dangerous because you loosely threw an advice simply because you misguidedly thought the mindset behind the quotes weren't bad but they're bad. They're bad not only outside of your at least but it's bad that an author like you thinks it's good without at least sounding like you can see the casualties. You have to remember unlike outliners, books are going through a potential metamorphosis. You have to remember that it wasn't so long ago that the OLPC was the closest thing to being a cheap technological computer saviour for poor countries. You have to remember this is the novel/book writing niche not just outliners where plenty of better powered applications could be had for free and you really have to bring value to sell something for mid-expensive prices. You also have to remember OneNote is another problematic software. There's no true OneNote replacement just as there's no true Scrivener replacement and these are problems that can't be ignored if you truly want everyone to have the right computer for the job.

Foolness

What was the point you were trying to make? If there was one, it seems to have got lost in an incoherent rant!

I thought Hewson's article was interesting, though he seems to be surprisingly uncritical of Word 2013 as an editing tool. I have read reviews of it that suggest that in some respects it is less suited to that role than older versions of Word.

Like Hewson, I now use Scrivener for Windows but I think it is only fair to put in a plug for yWriter, which has much of the same functionality and some useful extra functions (at least for writers of fiction) and, particularly important for impoverished writers, is freeware.

Yours
Lawrence

@ Lawrence Osborn wrote:

I thought Hewson's article was interesting, though he seems to be
surprisingly uncritical of Word 2013 as an editing tool. I have read
reviews of it that suggest that in some respects it is less suited to
that role than older versions of Word.

My first impression is that, like most programs that have gone from running as (local) software to (Software as a Service) webware, it is unlikely to satisfy users of its previous reincarnations.

@ Franz

I sold my last Macintosh (a Mac Mini) a few weeks ago because I wanted to trial Curio 8
but it wouldn’t run on OS X 10.6 and my Mini did not support 10.8 and I couldn’t find 10.7
for a reasonable price. So: Goodbye to Mac (still love my iPad 2), hello Windows 7 (not 8).

This is one of those instances when the "it just works" motto takes on a whole new perspective...

I find myself using the outliner pane in Word 2010 more and more - for the manuscripts
my publishers want to be in DOCX and DOC. LibreOffice’s Navigator pane pales in contrast
to Word - which is not easy to confess for me, though.

I only started using Word because just about every client I work with uses it. I bought 2010 only this summer, along with a cheap notebook to carry around. The navigation pane was a breath of fresh air. It's quite remarkable how long it took Microsoft to get it right.

@ Foolness
I'm quite prolific in trying out software but not as prolific a writer. So I'll take an advice or two from people like Hewson and James Fallows anytime. Such advice may be taken in principle and not in its specific application. "Choose the few tools you need, then focus on what matters most: the work in hand" does not necessarily mean "choose the particular tools I chose (for my job)". And I can only speak for myself when I say that Thoreau's "simplify, simplify" is something I need to keep in mind.

Lawrence it's not complicated, it's just that the subject can encompass blogs as Alexander's advise affects many things from limited software criticism to making the novel writing apps stay the same to things like other free/cheap more efficient applications being ignored.

Also there's two ways to approach a reply. One is to list many of the potential wrongs and the other is simply to write an offensive reply.

For example, though not an offensive reply, by positioning his reply as the sole monopoly of principles between the two of us: Alexander fails to take into account how it would ever be simple for those who don't have a Mac or the money for OneNote to ever have a world where things are simpler for both the budding writer who has something to say, the writer who needs an editor, the writer who can benefit from ebook publishing, the writer who needs a competent novel writing software including one that is better/different than Scrivener but just as powerful.

In short, the version that wouldn't sound like a rant would be a reply stating "How can you simplify when you have to be able to afford a Mac to even test one of the better products for novel helping?" - which deals with these sections of the article:

Story development
The collection of ideas, characters, locations, thematic threads and a narrative. Usually I will assemble >some of these before I start writing, and add and delete to them as the book develops.

Revision
Going back over a manuscript produced in step two and trying to improve it.
Scrivener is fantastic at the first. You can gather character and location notes, juggle scenes and chapters >in index cards and produce a fully-fledged notebook alongside your growing novel if you want. I know >people who use Scrivener for this alone.

...but it's also offensive and doesn't encompass how bad Alexander's advise is.

Ywriter for example is not "simple" at revisions compared to Scrivener but how will that area ever enter into conversation when the advice givers' version of simplify, simplify is not that but is merely "ignore it, ignore it"? How can one then go about and say that this person's good intentions is wrong? Not just wrong, very very dangerous.

It's a tough dilemma but it's an important dilemma to try explaining especially because Alexander think what he's saying is not only with good principle but it also sounds like a good and succinct point for a reader to adopt. Only, it's not. There are so many underrated novel writing software out there. There are so many overrated novel writing software out there. There are so many overrated novel writing software features out there too. In that scope alone, it's bad advise but it doesn't stop there. You still have to take into account the "help" provided in these software. Existing stable authors can treat the issue as less murky because they are already in the trenches but there are other dilemmas for those who "need" something "simple" are missing but not every software is providing.

For example, someone who simply wants to publish an e-book cannot easily get all novel writing software that does that.

Another example, someone who doesn't need the templates of Scrivener can get away with using OneNote as a novel writing helper compared to Word but others who need (not just want) the Scrivener experience may or may not get that "ever" because authors like Alexander think their principle is in the right of simplify is in alignment with everyone. They fail to take into consideration how important and how skewered this "need" has been.

...and this is barely the tip of what's wrong with the advise which is why my previous reply came off like a rant. The more important battle is the potential for the book market to change...for the better or for the worse. What authors ignore or don't ignore, what they see as simplify and not simplify in this battle will be a huge influence to how future software adopt and how those software that try to adopt and try to improve more get better limelight over those that don't.

Then there's the ultimate "meta principle" of how it's not just about book but of book quality. It's the bottomline in many cases but, unlike outliners, many online novel writing software supporters play in the vague game of "It's no Scrivener" or "All you need is a word processor that has space for your characters " or "all these software needs to do is help you get a completed story out" and so any one looking for novel writing software today can't even just ignore the rest or simplify. Not unless all they really needed is a word processor to type and there's no signs things will be improving. Which is part of the problem because it's not just a novel writing issue, it can also be a creative writing issue. There's a group who just needs a word processor to write and write, there's a group who has a system but their system may never translate into a novel writing software because of it's stagnancy and blind worship of software names over software features and then there's the successful authors who do sometimes share their advises but the participant have to be lucky enough to know them. All because both the software developers and the target audience have this false principle of what ignore the rest is really creating and what simplify really means.

Can it read less like a rant? Yes, but not until the principle matches up with the principle. Not until principle doesn't get misguidedly accused of being a specific application post.

If I wanted to make it into a specific application post, I would have:

omitted the publishing problem and focused solely on Scrivener's features or OneNote features
omitted the publishing features which in it's most basic sense can fall to having features that instant exports the works to Kindle ready formats "to authors" anyway (and leave the non-authors on an island)
omitted the issue about OneNote updating since in specific application, Alexander's advise only needs the software to work and the users to make the software work (and only the principle can start addressing the morality behind those advises)

The current or past major online cultures doesn't show they have this empathy for the effects of their "principle" though so I wrote it with the principle in mind and when you try to address the principle, the point is not going to be structured in the same way as a reply based on specific applications as it involves the culture realizing something they realize instead of being told what the point is. That's the point of principles to begin with. It's hard to change them but some principles are more dangerous than others without principled people realizing or be willing to consider it's all around dangers.

A word about David Hewson. It goes almost without saying that he's not a typical technology user. This isn't to criticise his advice, nor to say that the news of his re-conversion to Windows isn't significant.

I've followed and quite often applied his recommendations on hardware and software since before he was an author, when as a journalist he wrote about technology for the London Sunday Times. He has at his finger-tips a wealth of knowledge and also a willingness to experiment and invest that probably rivals those of the most Crimpy of us here. As he himself says in his blog, he'll tell us in a year his final verdict on his current tools.

For me, the most interesting of his current recommendations is the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 for annotating and editing pdfs - so much easier with long-form writing for the writer to be as close as possible to paper-free. The Galaxy Note 10.1 still remains (I think) the only pure iPad-style tablet with a digitiser under the screen, although Adonit are trying to achieve the same effect with the Jot Touch for the iPad, and I've heard that more (less expensive) tablets with digitisers (and probably Windows 8) will be launched in the New Year.

But for me, David Hewson's most important words are the ones Alexander quotes above: effectively, focus on the ends - the work - not the means - i.e try to slay the Crimp dragon!

I must commend Mr. Foolness for demonstrating through the use of "evidence of the opposite" that simpler is, in deed, better. Bravo.