Wondering about Scrivener

[R. C.]

STEP 1

I was doing a little research, watching videos presented by authors, and came upon one person raving about Scrivener.  The author is convinced it helps him write better and turn books out more quickly.

I am very good (expert) at MS Word and own a license. Formatting a manuscript is not a problem. However, if there are tools in Scrivener that DO help the writing process, maybe it is worth a review.

STEP 2

I downloaded the Scrivener "Try and Buy" and watched a couple of tutorials. The tool appears simple but the learning curve is steep. There does not seem to be robust editing and review options like: MS Word Review Editor and Read Aloud. No Grammarly type integration.

Maybe I am missing something, but what?

STEP 3

Ask this question: For those who switched to Scrivener, from MS Word, Google Docs, Other, did the switch help you write better, produce product more quickly?

Follow-up question: Is the selection of a tool primarily a personal choice based in the writing style of the author?

-----

UPDATE: STEP 4

Thank you all. The responses have renewed my interested and pushed me back into the "give it try" mentality.  I have the beginnings of an outline for a five part short story/novella series.  I'll give it a shot and report back my findings.

UPDATE: STEP 5

I give it a shot and tried to find the value in tool. However, the effort to "get up to speed" was painful. The results were not "faster" or "more accurate" than the tools I current use.  I stopped, considered, and came upon a thought.  What did writer's do before digital technology? Notebooks and ribbon typewriters.

The digital tools I use are: 1) Known and proven, 2) Simple to use, 3) Are widely accepted and integrated and 4) Come with no additional cost (existing subscription).

If I had to revert to notebooks and a ribbon typewriter, I'd be okay.

Writing is not the tool, it is the writer.

Cheers,
R.C.

[Al Stevens]

Scrivener has its fans and many of them here will chime in with their sliced-bread analogies. I'm not one of them, however. I switched from Word and initially liked Scrivener. But when it twice screwed up the integrity of a many-chapter manuscript, I went deep into its database architecture (something I'm expert with) and found it to be fragile and delicate. I switched to a collection of open-source free software that provides everything I had liked about Scrivener, and does it reliably. I would have returned to Word, but its master document "feature" the way I use it to organize and manage chapters and scenes has been a disaster from version to version, at least as far as I've gone.

Scrivener won't improve your writing. Neither will any other word processor.

ETA: Look into YWriter. Its developer is active here.

[Al Stevens]

Follow-up question: Is the selection of a tool primarily a personal choice based in the writing style of the author?

Yes. Working habits, really. I think each of us writes the same way regardless of the typing software. People tend to recommend that you use the tools they use, which gives them reinforcement that their choices were sound.

[R. C.]

...ETA: Look into YWriter. Its developer is active here.

Yep, been reading his books (on and off). 

Cheers,
R.C.

[R. C.]

Follow-up question: Is the selection of a tool primarily a personal choice based in the writing style of the author?

Yes. Working habits, really. I think each of us writes the same way regardless of the typing software. People tend to recommend that you use the tools they use, which gives them reinforcement that their choices were sound.

Agreed, but it never hurts to ask. There MIGHT be a better sliced bread mouse trap and I would not want to miss it.

Cheers,
R.C.

P.S. I was a DBA a couple of times in my tech carrier. I also see the disaster the "minimal viable product" and "distributed development" creates in software.

[Eric Thomson]

I write my novels and do the first revision in Scrivener before transferring into MSWord for the automated editing passes (ProWritingAid, Grammarly, PerfectIt). Scrivener is no magic solution, hasn't improved my writing or made me a bestselling superstar. But what I like about it is the ability to keep chapters and scenes as separate folders, so it's easier to shift them around (when I get stuck in a story, I jump ahead and write something that happens later, then fill in afterward). I also often rearrange scenes/chapters when I get better ideas or need to foreshadow. I've screwed up shifting scenes/chapters in MSWord with disastrous results in the past. I also like the ability to build character/location/research cards and have them instantly accessible in my binder with a single click, and copy them from project to project as I'm working on a series. I also like the character name generator, which I use extensively for minor characters. I also like the session and MS target word count.

What I don't like about Scrivener? The compile into Word is a bit of a mess and I've found it easier to copy and paste chapter by chapter into a pre-formatted MSWord file which, when the last chapter is copied over, is essentially formatted and ready for print, once the pesking editing and proofing is done. Its hotkey functionality is way over the top. When my fumble fingers accidentally hit two keys at once when I'm typing at high speed, things happen. Strange things... And I can't always find my way out, because ESC isn't the magic key. On the other hand, the license purchase cost was a business expense and therefore a tax write-off.

[The Masked Scrivener]

Quick FYI... Dave Chesson is getting ready to release Atticus. It is supposed to do everything Scrivener does as well as Vellum and Google Docs. You can sign up for notification and information at https://atticus.pub/

[Post-Doctorate D]

Scrivener won't improve your writing. Neither will any other word processor.

 

Follow-up question: Is the selection of a tool primarily a personal choice based in the writing style of the author?

More or less.  You have to know what your weaknesses are and whether a given tool helps you in those areas.

I used to be in a chat group with a group of writers and there was a pro-Scrivener contingent in there.  Oh, you need to try Scrivener.  You need to use Scrivener.  Scrivener solves everything.  And whatnot.  I took a look at it, but I saw nothing that would benefit me.

One of my weaknesses is that I am a slow writer.  How does Scrivener help with that?  It doesn't.  It doesn't help me get words on the (digital) page any faster than any other word processor.  A basic word processor only gets words on the (digital) page just slightly faster than I could hand-write them.  Plus, I don't need to transcribe words later, so that's a tremendous time-saver.  But, beyond that, no word processor is going to help me write any faster.  (At least not until we have brain implants and words can go directly from my brain to the page.)  So, no benefit there for me.

[Anarchist]

Ask this question: For those who switched to Scrivener, from MS Word, Google Docs, Other, did the switch help you write better, produce product more quickly?

Yes.

Follow-up question: Is the selection of a tool primarily a personal choice based in the writing style of the author?

Yes.

I write in Scrivener. I format in Vellum.

Then, I upload to Amazon.

Easy peasy.

[VanessaC]

I use Scrivener for Windows, and for all my writing projects. Write and do my first pass edits in Scrivener, then run through chapters at a time in Pro Writing Aid / Grammarly for editing, but the master file is always Scrivener. I also format e-books from Scrivener.

The Scrivener version for Mac might be different - we keep being promised the Windows upgrade, but it's still in beta, I believe, so it may be that there are more things in the Mac version that we'll get soon, like integration with Grammarly etc (I don't know - I'm just speculating).

As and when I get around to doing print, I will probably invest in Vellum, although also going to check out the Dave Chesson project referenced above.

I love Scrivener. I love the fact I can have each scene as a different text file, that I can re-order them so easily, add in placeholders so I don't need to write in order all the time, colour code the binder, and keep document notes in the margins by way of reminders. It also saves all my settings, which makes it really easy to layout the text and format for e-book.

I do not in any way use all the tools in Scrivener - I worked out how to do what I need to do, and then just went ahead with that.

It's an essential tool for me.

However, it does not work for everyone - to echo what's been said above - it is very much personal preference, and how you work.

[Post-Doctorate D]

When researching things you might find useful in a different application, also research to make sure a similar feature doesn't already exist in the application you are already using.

As an example, a couple years or so ago, I remember people loved this new app that was out because it offered distraction-free writing.  Meaning that you could set it to show only the document you're working on and nothing else on the computer.  No menus, icons, etc.  It was akin to sitting at a typewriter with a sheet of paper.  This was considered new and awesome.  The word processing application I use which was released in 2009 has a full-screen mode which is essentially the same thing.  (Maybe earlier versions did too; I don't know.)

I almost never use it, because I don't really have a need for such a thing, but, if I did, it would have been a waste to buy a new app to do something my existing one could already do.

[oganalp]

I must disagree with the “no word processor will improve your writing” part.

Yes, you have to write to improve, but the proper medium can motivate you to write more. It may also help see things you were unable to see before - like using a timeline or a family-tree helping you see relations better.

These are tools that are meant to help you do things faster, easier, and in some cases, better.

Scrivener - I am using it for several years now simply because I could not find a good alternative. It has a steep learning curve. MS Word is good, but it has so many features you will not need when writing; it becomes tiresome. I know MS Word inside out and still use it after I am done with the first draft. Scrivener doesn’t work well with editing software like Grammarly or ProWritingAid. The new Windows version is in a forever beta state. I had a catastrophic crash with it once, and since, I am using both Scrivener and Word backups.

I am looking for a writing tool that helps me to create things like journey maps, character profiles, etc., with ease. So far, I found nothing that works well. I haven’t tried a few subscription-based ones as I do not like SaaS platforms, but I want to pay the price and own it.

[elleoco]

I write in Scrivener but never tried to use its Compile feature to produce a pub-ready file. I use default Compile settings just to get the book out of Scriv when it's close to finished. Final edits and all proofreading are in a word processor. Final formatting used to be in html and now is in Vellum.

Checking the Literature & Latte forums regularly, I'm astonished by some people who post their problems - they use the program but have no idea how it works and screw up their files in strange ways then want help when they don't understand the difference between the file they're working on and a backup and don't know where either is stored. I do think people like that are better off avoiding Scrivener.

For someone happy with what they're already using, I can't see why they'd switch programs just because someone recommends a new one. I switched because I'd done a time-consuming and aggravating revision to a novel just before a discussion on the old KBoards that included Scriv screen shots, and I saw how easy that same revision would have been in Scrivener.

For me it wasn't a steep learning curve either, or a at least it didn't seem like one. I loaded the program, skimmed through only the features I needed in their tutorial, loaded an old 3-chapter novella and played with it a while. Over the years when I needed something I knew Scriv did but hadn't used before, I looked up that one thing and started using it. My guess is if I tried Compiling straight to a pub-ready file, my attitude would be different, but although I messed with Compile enough to get a halfway decent file for beta readers, as above, I never tried for anything pub-ready straight out of Scrivener, and I think Compile is the source of a lot of users' frustration.

[oganalp]

Compile has issues for sure. Also, from a user experience design perspective, if a portion of the users cannot do what they want to do, it is not the users' mistake, it is a design error. Scrivener's UI is not very user-friendly.

[R. C.]

Wow, I expected a thread to emerge but this is awesome.

The rub.  Here an elsewhere, I read over and over (paraphrased): "I use Scrivener then I..." 

If the tool does not "...help you do things faster, easier, and in some cases, better." then what is the point of the tool?

If I have to use one tool for basics and another for production of the "end-state product," I will use the end-state tool start-to-finish. 

There must be something I am missing with the value of a Scrivener type tool and the writing process.

Cheers,
R.C.

[Wonder]

The best way to know is to try it out; Scrivener has a rather generous trial period. And the software is very reasonably priced for what you get. I used Scrivener for a few years, and I liked it, but a few months ago switched back to LibreOffice (A Word clone) because I wanted the simplicity of a word processor and a cursor without all the bells and whistles. Sometimes, working in Scrivener, I felt like I was working with scenes instead of story, and the "chopped up" nature of the interface felt wrong for my flow. You can view your document all on one page, but I found the software a bit slow when you stitch all the scenes together into a Word-like document.

Scrivener is packed with neat features. Wordcount trackers, note cards, custom folder icons, notes for every single scene or document, tags, status indicators, all integrated into your file.  Plenty of people prefer that. You might too.

One advantage of using something like Word is it makes for less round-tripping when you need to send a document to an editor or proofreader. I used to export from Scrivener to Word, then send the document, get it back with changes, and integrate the changes back into Scrivener so my source file was accurate. Now that I'm working in a basic .docx/.odt file format, I don't need to work so hard to keep things in sync between revisions.

Let us know what you decide and how it works out for you.

Wonder

[elleoco]

The rub.  Here an elsewhere, I read over and over (paraphrased): "I use Scrivener then I..." 

If the tool does not "...help you do things faster, easier, and in some cases, better." then what is the point of the tool?

If I have to use one tool for basics and another for production of the "end-state product," I will use the end-state tool start-to-finish.

Maybe this is just shaky senior memory, but I think Scrivener was developed as a tool for drafting fiction. Over time there's been desire for more and more features and a lot of those have been added, but at heart it's still a program whose great strength is drafting fiction. So these days it can do a lot of the things the "I want only one program" people desire, but a lot of us prefer to use Scriv for what's it best at and use other programs for what they're best at.

I could still write a novel in a word processor, and a lot of people upload something from Word as their ebook. Obviously some of us choose not to, and the step of taking an almost-finished manuscript out of Scriv and into the word processor for final tweaks and proofing before using Vellum for formatting aren't exactly difficult or time consuming. Well, the proofreading is tortuous and time consuming, but that's no program's fault. For me the way I do it is a luxury, not a burden, but then we're all different in many writing regards.

Sounds like this thread has at least satisfied your curiosity and decided you.

[elleoco]

One advantage of using something like Word is it makes for less round-tripping when you need to send a document to an editor or proofreader. I used to export from Scrivener to Word, then send the document, get it back with changes, and integrate the changes back into Scrivener so my source file was accurate.

That's the main reason I take my work out of Scriv when it's close to final, but for me, once it's out, it's out. The Scriv version is just a relic after that, and since I never stop tweaking until something's published, the Vellum file becomes the real final version.

[Simon Haynes]

I created yWriter around 20 years ago because I was having trouble navigating through a 30-40,000 word document. That, plus I wanted regular backups as I typed, saved to distinct time-stamped files.

Over the years it's grown more complex, but chapters down the left, scenes on the right and a preview window at the bottom works for me.

Export to Epub or Mobi uses Calibre's conversion routines, and I recently included the option to run epubcheck on the file to catch any errors.

With export to Latex (which converts to PDF), I can create my ebooks and paperbacks from a project.

According to someone on Twitter, yWriter works 100% with Dragon Naturally Speaking (as you get in Word or Wordpad), and that would be due to me using the same Microsoft text editor control within the software.

I don't sell yWriter, I give it away, so I honestly don't care whether people use it, or Scrivener, or something else entirely. I only know that for some people the organisation you get with dedicated writing software is essential to finish a novel, while for others it's needless complication.

[Simon Haynes]

One advantage of using something like Word is it makes for less round-tripping when you need to send a document to an editor or proofreader. I used to export from Scrivener to Word, then send the document, get it back with changes, and integrate the changes back into Scrivener so my source file was accurate.

That's the main reason I take my work out of Scriv when it's close to final, but for me, once it's out, it's out. The Scriv version is just a relic after that, and since I never stop tweaking until something's published, the Vellum file becomes the real final version.

I never take my work out of yWriter, not for anything. That's why it has the export to epub and latex, because I absolutely 100% do not want to move my data to anything else.

yWriter's project file is plain text XML, so in a worst-case situation someone could knock up a program to extract everything from any yWriter file.

I still have files in Atari ST Scribus format, and Microsoft Works '94, and others.  I keep emulators with those software programs just so I can access them if need be.

[Matthew]

I've used Scrivener more as a drafting tool, since it lacks the powerful grammar checking built into Word. Scrivener helps you keep everything about the novel self-contained. What I used it mostly for was easy organization into scenes and chapters. Much easier to reorganize a novel from Scrivener than Word. You can get similar functionality with Word if you give scenes a heading, but that's an extra step of formatting to fix later... Scrivener also gives you an outline view, an index card view, folders you can organize photos and research into, revisions, ebook exporting, split view, target word counts... the list goes on.

yWriter as mentioned above is a decent Windows-only alternative. It's got a different design and a different focus. It's a bit utilitarian, but you get a lot of information at a glance -- word and scene counts, scene POV, characters, locations, items in a scene and more. It also lets you open up an unlimited number of scenes at the same time, each with their own window. The only real downsides to me are the lack of grammar checking (really there's not an out of the box solution easily added to projects that I know of), it's Windows only, and it uses an outdated .NET UI framework which means it looks dated and doesn't support dark mode.

Regardless, if you really go looking there are about as many tools trying to aid writers under the sun as there are writers. These have different focuses. I highly encourage you to download and try out multiple tools to see if any of them aid you in the writing process. Personally, I am sticking with a combination of Word and LibreOffice Writer these days. Licensing is a lot less of a headache across different operating systems with Word, and LibreOffice covers the times I either don't have enough licenses, am too lazy to install Word, or am running Linux.

I've been playing around with my own NextCloud / Collabora Online (which uses LibreOffice) setup lately -- it's like having your own Google Docs.

At the end of the day you can write a novel with a plain text editor (e.g. how many people using LaTeX work), so don't stress on the tools too much.

[Post-Doctorate D]

At the end of the day you can write a novel with a plain text editor (e.g. how many people using LaTeX work), so don't stress on the tools too much.

I have written short stories (and started novels) in a plain text editor.  No LaTeX.  Before HTML, I would mark words to be italicized with _underscores_ or *asterisks*.  Maybe I used one for bold and one for italics?  Been so long . . .   After HTML, I would just use HTML <i>code</i> to mark those words.  The text editor I used let me select colors so I used yellow text on a dark blue background because that was supposed to be a color combination that was easiest on the eyes.

I have been toying with using Atom for writing.  Only played with it so far.  My current WIPs are already in Pages so I'm not going to switch in the middle of a book.  But looking at it for the future.  Currently, I have it set for green text on a black background which kind of takes me back to using AppleWorks on an Apple IIe for writing.

[Simon Haynes]

it's Windows only, and it uses an outdated .NET UI framework which means it looks dated and doesn't support dark mode.

There's a MacOS version btw.

And I added a theme engine to the latest yWriter 5, 6 and 7, so they all support dark mode.

Re the dated, I agree - I'm using Winforms and have done so since the Windows 98 days.  The reason I didn't switch to WPF is because I'm waiting for a cross-platform UI, which is on the way apparently.

All the program's features are contained in a separate DLL which runs on Mac, Windows, Linux, IOS and Android without recompiling. I designed a separate UI for Windows and Mac, and then IOS and Android share the same one.

But with .Net 6 there's meant to be a Maui UI which is Windows and Mac, and that's going to take me a few months work to convert to. After that I can wave adios to the separate mac version, and hopefully one day offer a proper release for Linux.

[Matthew]

There's a MacOS version btw.

And I added a theme engine to the latest yWriter 5, 6 and 7, so they all support dark mode.

I haven't checked in a while. Glad to see the updates! (On that note, I couldn't get dark mode to do anything on my computer *shrug*)

Re the dated, I agree - I'm using Winforms and have done so since the Windows 98 days.  The reason I didn't switch to WPF is because I'm waiting for a cross-platform UI, which is on the way apparently.

Ha, I don't really blame you. And in the past I found winforms easier to develop basic applications with. I would say Microsoft would never develop a cross-platform UI, but with their adoption of open source (e.g. Edge, VS Code) we're in strange times!

All the program's features are contained in a separate DLL which runs on Mac, Windows, Linux, IOS and Android without recompiling. I designed a separate UI for Windows and Mac, and then IOS and Android share the same one.

Smart! I noticed that this is actually how most high performance game engines seem to work on Android - it requires a Java wrapper for window / init, then jumps right into the dynamic library. Neat to see it being used for something else. I've actually thought about taking this to a bit more of an extreme and writing a networked API server as the core application. So long as your client can make HTTP requests (to the locally running application, or you can maybe host it elsewhere!) you can swap out the UIs. A concept similar to this with a UI made in Electron is here: https://github.com/canton7/SyncTrayzor . These days I find the concept a bit less... user friendly, since you start to get firewall popups on MacOS and Windows. Oh well, I guess desktop apps will have to stay desktop apps...  a guy can dream.

But I do digress.

Scrivener and yWriter are both excellent pieces of software, and are usually among the first I recommend to people new to writing software.

[Simon Haynes]

If and when Maui is released, there might be a winforms conversion tool. If there isn't, I'll most likely write one.

yWriter only uses a basic set of controls, and no third-party libraries. (There's a textconverter to read from RTF but I've already replaced it with my own. I'm just not game to release it yet, not without a lot more testing.)