Scrivener

[Rekrab]

I didn't say I wouldn't use a writing program, just that I would consider what the trade-offs might be. If I built a garage, I would as many power tools as possible. Wood is a pain in the ass to work with. What I'm suggesting is that -- possibly -- some of the "flaws" in a plot, such as disconnects, lapses in continuity, contradictions, logical errors, dropped threads -- may actually be strengths, if they reveal something of the author's mind on a subconscious level. The "unreliable narrator" sort of thing. Or, they make just be screw ups. But I'd be careful not to put up barriers to the workings of the subconscious when it comes to plot building.

 

[mjp]

possibly -- some of the "flaws" in a plot, such as disconnects, lapses in continuity, contradictions, logical errors, dropped threads -- may actually be strengths...

I'm sure some readers may find those kinds of things to be strengths. I would never finish a book that did any of those things, so admittedly I'm not a good judge.

I just find the idea that some tool is going to interfere with your creativity to be a bit pretentious. If tools and technology hindered creativity we would have never created any musical instruments, because hollowing out that first log to make a drum would have tainted the purity of the music-making process.

What do I know. I am an avid proponent of some creative technology and a harsh critic of others, so I doubt I make much sense in a discussion like this (or any other kind).

 

[Rekrab]

Creativity is a mysterious thing. I don't think a tool would interfere with it, per se, so much as possibly distract you by providing an order where maybe chaos would be more productive. Or, maybe I'm pretentious. That's highly possible. I'm not against using a computer to write (although I won't even try to defend the idea that it was different writing on a typewriter. I know a losing battle when I see one.)

 

[mjp]

You want to stop now? I thought it was just getting good! ;)

So I'll just keep going.

Using a manual typewriter didn't make anyone more creative than they would have been writing on a computer. Or with a quill and ink pot. Or a snot and charcoal mixture on a cave wall.

The words are either there or they aren't. The tools are inconsequential.

 

[Hosh]

I used to think creativity was some kind of sacred mystery, and that things like structure and convention were antithetical to true art. Then I tried writing long pieces -- screenplays, novels, etc. And goddammit, I just couldn't do it. I couldn't keep all the fraying threads in line; couldn't gather and keep the narrative clicking along, and couldn't separate the stuff that mattered from that awful "two people talking in a room for no apparent reason" feel so much bad writing has. And maybe I haven't made any strides in that department. But the organization I do now, it makes the whole process more deliberate -- like the decisions I make have reasons behind them. Plenty of editors disagree...but I like that I can more easily explain "why" to myself (especially when a fresh reject lands in the box, and the temptation is to scrap the whole damn thing!)

 

[number6horse]

This.

The words are either there or they aren't. The tools are inconsequential.

Years ago, I worried that switching from paper to computer would "harm the muse" somehow. My thinking was that I needed to see physical stacks of paper to feel accomplished or vindicated. Nonsense. The sight of dozens of Notepad and Word documents on my computer screen does exactly the same thing.

 

[Rekrab]

It wasn't that the typerwriter made you better. The difference was how you approached the task. Faced with having to retype a long manuscript if changes were needed, you tried harder to get it right the first time. It became more of a stunt that you pulled off. You didn't always get it right, but you tended more to be on your game. That's the difference. With the computer, changes are easy, and you aren't faced with that challenge. It's not better, just different. Ask a baseball player if it matters what kind of a bat he's using. Wood bat, aluminum bat. Same talent, different situation. I prefer to write on a computer. I'm more productive, can be more of a perfectionist, but I no longer have that discipline to muscle up and get it right the first time. But that's just me.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

my first draft, whether it's on a typewriter or computer or by hand, is there to get the ideas and flow down before I forget them. unlike most writers my first draft is almost skeletal and then I add to it, whereas other writers take away the excess.

the tools don't change the talent, but they change the process and that takes some getting used to before it becomes second nature.

 

[Rekrab]

I seldom take away anything from a first draft. I may add a little, but mostly I just fine tune.

I agree: the talent doesn't change, but the process can change with different tools. No one method is critical -- computer, program, typewriter, longhand. Whatever works for you.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I should point out that scrivener is awesome. It just took me a week or so to get used to it.

 

[roni]

I should point out that scrivener is awesome. It just took me a week or so to get used to it.

this is my turn to come in and tell everybody (again) to GO THROUGH THE INTERACTIVE TUTORIAL !!!
It'll take 2 hours and you won't regret a single minute of it!

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I'm a bit slow. That's after I went through the tutorial.

It's a good thing I'm pretty.

 

[roni]

I'm a bit slow.

Me too. I use about 1% of that software and of this I'm only using about 2% the way it's meant to be used. You can guess, how that statistic would look like without the tutorial.

 

[Bukfan]

Come on, the only true way of writing is to do it yourself with pen and paper. That's the only way to get the true artistic feel of the writing process. You gotta carve each letter onto the line with a pen in order to feel the beauty of them and how they relate to one another, otherwise you'll miss all the the artistic magic. :rolleyes:

 

[hoochmonkey9]

But you have to make your own ink and paper. Otherwise it's a compromise to the creative process and you are a fraud and the muse will never visit you. Fraud.

 

[mjp]

I'm the most pure kind of writer there is -- I don't put anything on paper or computer. The stories exist only in my head, as pure and unfettered as a newborn donkey.

 

[Rekrab]

Nothing quite like a newborn donkey.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

tru dat.

 

[roni]

[...] The stories exist only in my head [...]

Ha! Lame!
I don't even make up any story in my head! Not even words. Nothing.
The most creative and senstive act is to not create. To refuse creation.
And I still take it a step further and don't even do that!
Now come up with a climax, baby!