Could anyone recommend to me a good writing software suite? Some I know walk you along through the writing process, to the degree that they claim to write a novel for you, a ridiculous and almost vulgar concept. I'm looking for a powerful organizational tool that doesn't interfere with the development process, and can't afford to pay much. Could anyone point me in the.. write direction?
- Status
I've played around with a few shareware writing applications, but not the 'auto-write' type 
There's a good list of useful and affordable writing tools at Hopefulwriter.co.uk. They're generally just word-processors with a few extra features to make it easier to keep track of characters, plot points, timelines etc. Some people prefer using pen and paper, or keeping it all in their head (argh!), while others appreciate keeping it all on the screen. Whatever works for you.
I recently switched to a Mac, so my options are somewhat limited. I suspect I'll have to bite the bullet eventually and grab a copy of Microsoft Office for OSX, which I've heard can be had for just a few hundred dollars and the soul of your firstborn.
There's a good list of useful and affordable writing tools at Hopefulwriter.co.uk. They're generally just word-processors with a few extra features to make it easier to keep track of characters, plot points, timelines etc. Some people prefer using pen and paper, or keeping it all in their head (argh!), while others appreciate keeping it all on the screen. Whatever works for you.
I recently switched to a Mac, so my options are somewhat limited. I suspect I'll have to bite the bullet eventually and grab a copy of Microsoft Office for OSX, which I've heard can be had for just a few hundred dollars and the soul of your firstborn.
Man, your signature line gives me the heebie jeebies! Any way you can stop that @#%$ flashing?
As for writing software, I suggest you keep notes using maybe Excel or just in separate documents for outlining.
There's no substitute for the software between your ears.
As for writing software, I suggest you keep notes using maybe Excel or just in separate documents for outlining.
There's no substitute for the software between your ears.
Careful what you say Katdad. You don't want to piss off the inventor of immortality and the prophet of the new age. When Alex Chiu annoints the new Messiah, Won't you be sorry!
And yes, I'm joking.
But check out that site. It's the freakiest thing on the internet. Be sure to check out the "World Corporation & Messiah FAQ".
And yes, I'm joking.
But check out that site. It's the freakiest thing on the internet. Be sure to check out the "World Corporation & Messiah FAQ".
I use Open Office from openoffice.org which seems to do everything those high priced word processing programs do and it is free.
It has spell check, thesaurus, and you can format it any way you want.
I think that and imagination is all a writer needs.
It has spell check, thesaurus, and you can format it any way you want.
I think that and imagination is all a writer needs.
If I had to recommend costly software for organization, I suppose it would be something like Storyview or NewNovelist, but in truth there's nothing any of the writing software can do that you can't do with a word processor.
If you need an extra place to keep notes on separate areas of a novel, you might try Notesbrowser.
You can relabel the title in the notesbrowser windows to read "Characters," "Plot," anything else you like, and you can open new pages, large and small. The only thing any of the expensive software gives you is a place to make notes about different aspects of a novel. The main purpose of such software really seems to be taking money from one pocket and putting it in another. Try something like Notesbrowser instead. It can sit in the system tray, the quick launch bar, or on the Offce toolbar, and be always at hand.
The freeware version is all any writer needs. www.notesbrowser.com/
If you need an extra place to keep notes on separate areas of a novel, you might try Notesbrowser.
You can relabel the title in the notesbrowser windows to read "Characters," "Plot," anything else you like, and you can open new pages, large and small. The only thing any of the expensive software gives you is a place to make notes about different aspects of a novel. The main purpose of such software really seems to be taking money from one pocket and putting it in another. Try something like Notesbrowser instead. It can sit in the system tray, the quick launch bar, or on the Offce toolbar, and be always at hand.
The freeware version is all any writer needs. www.notesbrowser.com/
Well, first, thanks everyone for sorting me out a bit on this. Otherwise, I may've wasted a great deal of money when all I really need I already have -- but that's I suppose the great human vice, to simply want without aim, regardless of the quality of what one has. Dostoevsky kept over a hundred pages of raw notes for The Brothers Karamazov, and it didn't seem to hold him back, that strange consumer's guilt of not having an expensive piece of writing software to do it for him.
And then on to this site. Unfortunately the blinking banner can't be stopped. This might be surprising, but the ferocious and awkward site it advertises makes the banner seem almost tame. Take a look and learn how you can live forever by wearing a pair of magnetic Immortality Rings to bed every night. Gasp in awe as you learn (through the medium of animated GIFs) how the world will one day be united under the utopian leadership of one massive corporation. Alex Chiu, the inventor and legend, is dead serious, and his cult of personality can not be stopped! An excellent few hours of entertainment and refreshing enlightenment in the world of science and magnetism.
And then on to this site. Unfortunately the blinking banner can't be stopped. This might be surprising, but the ferocious and awkward site it advertises makes the banner seem almost tame. Take a look and learn how you can live forever by wearing a pair of magnetic Immortality Rings to bed every night. Gasp in awe as you learn (through the medium of animated GIFs) how the world will one day be united under the utopian leadership of one massive corporation. Alex Chiu, the inventor and legend, is dead serious, and his cult of personality can not be stopped! An excellent few hours of entertainment and refreshing enlightenment in the world of science and magnetism.
dugwyler has been visiting numerous ezboards and inserting the banner ad for Dr. Chiu's immortality device. Check his profile.
i've always wondered how a person can stay on his first post... obviously magnetism is involved, but how? and if i wear that ring to the casino, will they throw me out if i screw the slot machines up?
in anything i ever advertise, i plan on guaranteeing that you'll pick at least three correct lottery numbers in additional to whatever other benefits i'm tauting. just not all at once. i'll leave that last part out. in ancient mardarin, backwards and upside down, it'll read 'for entertainment purposes only.' that's how i sell all my fake coupon books so cheap.
in anything i ever advertise, i plan on guaranteeing that you'll pick at least three correct lottery numbers in additional to whatever other benefits i'm tauting. just not all at once. i'll leave that last part out. in ancient mardarin, backwards and upside down, it'll read 'for entertainment purposes only.' that's how i sell all my fake coupon books so cheap.
You know, we'll all feel real odd if it turns out Dr. Chiu has discovered immortality.
But I guess I'll wait and see. If he lives forever, then I'll sign up myself.
I have a friend who swears by magnets, but he doesn't wear them on his fingers: he wears them on his backside where his wife kicked him.
And I'm also a pompous existentialist writer. A strange and disturbing coincidence, no?
Also, I don't think Alex Chiu's a doctor, unless a keen understanding of magnetism and a willingness make hypothetical claims about cell regeneration qualify you for an honorary doctorate.
Dugwyler might be a fraud (good work on that), but like any writer with a good hook, he did get us to look.
And yes, that is one funkily deranged site. It plays like something a five-year-old would write (and draw) if he had the heart of Donald Trump and the brain of a glue-sniffing retriever.
And yes, that is one funkily deranged site. It plays like something a five-year-old would write (and draw) if he had the heart of Donald Trump and the brain of a glue-sniffing retriever.
About the software question, though, remember that all the world's greatest books, from Huckleberry Finn to Call of the Wild to Moby Dick and on back through to the Odyssey and the Bible and the Upanishads, were written by hand by the light of candles and oil lamps.
Word processors help a great deal with editing and making legible copies, but in the end it all comes back to you.
Word processors help a great deal with editing and making legible copies, but in the end it all comes back to you.
I wouldn't want to say it out loud, and I certainly wouldn't want to post it in a public forum where anyone could read it, but I think the more software a writer uses, the greater the handicap against producing quality writing. At least in the early stages.
The word processor is a great final draft and editing tool, but I think it's a poor first draft tool, and gives too many the impression that you can write junk, then edit it into fine prose.
I'm incredibly glad Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, London, and a host of other writers didn't have word processors.
writing technology
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>About the software question, though, remember that all the world's greatest books, from Huckleberry Finn to Call of the Wild to Moby Dick and on back through to the Odyssey and the Bible and the Upanishads, were written by hand by the light of candles and oil lamps.<hr></blockquote>
Come on now. There weren't even BIC pens then! You can't prove those books were better because they were written by hand, because those authors had no other choice.
If they had a Waterman or WordStar or WordPerfect and still chose the quill, then the point is valid.
I personally write (better) drafts by hand, and use computer as editing and revision tool.
I was not raised using a computer. There were no PCs and typewriters were too slow. I can't say that if I were born in the 80s or 90s and raised writing on PC that method wouldn't be optimal for me.
There's evidence though that the tactile process of writing by hand connects brain to paper better than a keyboard.
Software and computers are tools for me, not the answer. I wish it were otherwise as I'd save hours typing my handwritten prose.
Did you know Tolstoy's wife Sophie re-wrote his manuscripts by hand for him because his handwriting was so terrible, and because he was "busy"? Steinbeck's first wife typed his handwriting for him. By his second marriage he hired someone. I'd go for a paid typist
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>About the software question, though, remember that all the world's greatest books, from Huckleberry Finn to Call of the Wild to Moby Dick and on back through to the Odyssey and the Bible and the Upanishads, were written by hand by the light of candles and oil lamps.<hr></blockquote>
Come on now. There weren't even BIC pens then! You can't prove those books were better because they were written by hand, because those authors had no other choice.
If they had a Waterman or WordStar or WordPerfect and still chose the quill, then the point is valid.
I personally write (better) drafts by hand, and use computer as editing and revision tool.
I was not raised using a computer. There were no PCs and typewriters were too slow. I can't say that if I were born in the 80s or 90s and raised writing on PC that method wouldn't be optimal for me.
There's evidence though that the tactile process of writing by hand connects brain to paper better than a keyboard.
Software and computers are tools for me, not the answer. I wish it were otherwise as I'd save hours typing my handwritten prose.
Did you know Tolstoy's wife Sophie re-wrote his manuscripts by hand for him because his handwriting was so terrible, and because he was "busy"? Steinbeck's first wife typed his handwriting for him. By his second marriage he hired someone. I'd go for a paid typist
Re: writing technology
I don't think having choice has anything to do with it. If anything, not having a choice for many thousands of years is one good reason why the brain and the hand work so well together when writing in longhand. They grew up together, so to speak. Writing in longhand and the human brain spent an awful lot of time playing with each other, and it made a difference.
And prove it absolutely, no. But there's some pretty convincing scientific evidence that writing in longhand is much better at stimulating the creative centers of the brain than is using a keyboard.
It isn't the tactile part of writing, it's the fact that we don't write letters, we draw them. In doing so, we're forced to use the same center of the brain that drawing uses. Brain studies have long since confirmed this. This means writing in longhand is automatically a left-brained, creative center activity.
The same studies have shown this doesn't happen with a computer.
Typewriters, on the other hand, while not automatically using the drawing center of the brain, do induce right brained activity much better than computers. The reason here isn't as clear, but it does happen, quite possible because of the loud, rythmic noise theh typewriter makes.
There are many reasons why the overall quality of writing has decreased so rapidly since word processors have become common, but I think the word processor itself is at least partly responsible.
I don't think having choice has anything to do with it. If anything, not having a choice for many thousands of years is one good reason why the brain and the hand work so well together when writing in longhand. They grew up together, so to speak. Writing in longhand and the human brain spent an awful lot of time playing with each other, and it made a difference.
And prove it absolutely, no. But there's some pretty convincing scientific evidence that writing in longhand is much better at stimulating the creative centers of the brain than is using a keyboard.
It isn't the tactile part of writing, it's the fact that we don't write letters, we draw them. In doing so, we're forced to use the same center of the brain that drawing uses. Brain studies have long since confirmed this. This means writing in longhand is automatically a left-brained, creative center activity.
The same studies have shown this doesn't happen with a computer.
Typewriters, on the other hand, while not automatically using the drawing center of the brain, do induce right brained activity much better than computers. The reason here isn't as clear, but it does happen, quite possible because of the loud, rythmic noise theh typewriter makes.
There are many reasons why the overall quality of writing has decreased so rapidly since word processors have become common, but I think the word processor itself is at least partly responsible.
studies
I am aware of the studies and participated in a paid study at Yale.
I've also read the books, done the experiments, and teach them. It's impossible to write without being tactile, i.e. touching.
I like your synopsis of how it all works. Well done.
I cannot write well or creatively on typewriters. Forget it. I know some can and applaud anyone who uses the tool best suited for them.
I don't think we'll ever know if the great lit of the past would've been written if PCs, BIC pens and the like were available. I like to think humans have evolved in conjunction with their tech inventions.
The visual feedback of computer at editing time is invaluable for me. I can storyboard right on my screen--though I often do that by hand first as well. I'm an advanced to expert Word user, so maybe I approach it all differently; I'm a techno geek.
But writing first by hand always taps the source. I experiemented on myself because I wanted as paperless a life as possible. Pity.
YMMV.
I am aware of the studies and participated in a paid study at Yale.
I've also read the books, done the experiments, and teach them. It's impossible to write without being tactile, i.e. touching.
I like your synopsis of how it all works. Well done.
I cannot write well or creatively on typewriters. Forget it. I know some can and applaud anyone who uses the tool best suited for them.
I don't think we'll ever know if the great lit of the past would've been written if PCs, BIC pens and the like were available. I like to think humans have evolved in conjunction with their tech inventions.
The visual feedback of computer at editing time is invaluable for me. I can storyboard right on my screen--though I often do that by hand first as well. I'm an advanced to expert Word user, so maybe I approach it all differently; I'm a techno geek.
But writing first by hand always taps the source. I experiemented on myself because I wanted as paperless a life as possible. Pity.
YMMV.
Re: studies
Speaking for myself, Wordperfect is all I've ever needed for my own writing. I like to keep things relatively simple when writing. I keep notes in my head, trusting my memory to retrieve them intact later, and then type things in as I have the time.
I've tried to write by hand, but I just cannot do it - my hands cramp terribly before I get more than a page or two done. Not entirely sure why this is, but until I got my first computer I wrote as infrequently as possible by hand. It just hurt too much. Also find typewriters hard to be creative with - my hands are so big I constantly hit more than one key at a time.
One of my best computer related investments was a decent keyboard that doesn't trip me up too often
Speaking for myself, Wordperfect is all I've ever needed for my own writing. I like to keep things relatively simple when writing. I keep notes in my head, trusting my memory to retrieve them intact later, and then type things in as I have the time.
I've tried to write by hand, but I just cannot do it - my hands cramp terribly before I get more than a page or two done. Not entirely sure why this is, but until I got my first computer I wrote as infrequently as possible by hand. It just hurt too much. Also find typewriters hard to be creative with - my hands are so big I constantly hit more than one key at a time.
One of my best computer related investments was a decent keyboard that doesn't trip me up too often
Re: studies
A master transcends his/her tools. Once you're accustomed to the tools of your trade, you don't even notice you're using them - you only see the work.
A master transcends his/her tools. Once you're accustomed to the tools of your trade, you don't even notice you're using them - you only see the work.
Re: studies
I won't argue that the person is more important than the tool, or that great fiction can't be written on a computer, but even masters work better with great tools.
The right and best tool for the job is important, and not even a master is going to sculpt David with a shovel. . .or even with a dull chisel.
I won't argue that the person is more important than the tool, or that great fiction can't be written on a computer, but even masters work better with great tools.
The right and best tool for the job is important, and not even a master is going to sculpt David with a shovel. . .or even with a dull chisel.
Re: studies
I believe this is the important part of the whole deal. Writing in longhand, whether it's done with a quill, a pencil, or a BIC pen, does automatically tap the source.
But while I think being able to automatically tap directly into the creative center of the brain can be very omportant, I also believe a big part of the problem with computers as writing tools isn't with the computer, but with the writer.
I can't tell you how many times I've read or heard writers say they user a computer becauise it's so much faster. . .it lets the hands keep up with the thoughts. I never have figured out why this is supposed to be a good thing? It's certainly counterintuitive to say that speed makes writing better, and that the first thought is the one that should go down on paper.
It makes much more sense to me to have the mind way out in front of the hand. One of the things I most love about writing in longhand is that my mind races out ahead, and I think about a sentence two or three or four times before I actually write it down. Often, by the time I start to write a sentence, it's changed completely.
I think the wonderful editing capabilities of computers also encourage the writing of first drafts that are pure junk. The advice "Just get it down and fix it later" is all over the internet. I think it's rotten advice. The final draft should be much better than the first, but the better the first, the better the final, and with a lot less work involved.
I believe this is the important part of the whole deal. Writing in longhand, whether it's done with a quill, a pencil, or a BIC pen, does automatically tap the source.
But while I think being able to automatically tap directly into the creative center of the brain can be very omportant, I also believe a big part of the problem with computers as writing tools isn't with the computer, but with the writer.
I can't tell you how many times I've read or heard writers say they user a computer becauise it's so much faster. . .it lets the hands keep up with the thoughts. I never have figured out why this is supposed to be a good thing? It's certainly counterintuitive to say that speed makes writing better, and that the first thought is the one that should go down on paper.
It makes much more sense to me to have the mind way out in front of the hand. One of the things I most love about writing in longhand is that my mind races out ahead, and I think about a sentence two or three or four times before I actually write it down. Often, by the time I start to write a sentence, it's changed completely.
I think the wonderful editing capabilities of computers also encourage the writing of first drafts that are pure junk. The advice "Just get it down and fix it later" is all over the internet. I think it's rotten advice. The final draft should be much better than the first, but the better the first, the better the final, and with a lot less work involved.
Re: studies
Cramping is an extremely common problem. The main cause is not writing enough to allow the muscles to adjust, so it's sort of a Catch-22 situation.
Interestingly, writing with a quill or a fountain pen reduces cramping considerably. The quill or dip pen because you have to constantly adjust the hand to dip, and the fountain pen because of the design, and because proper technique with a fountain pen puts very little pressure on the part of the hand that cramps most often.
A writing stone also greatly reduces cramps. This is a stone held in the hand behind the pen that stops the little finger and edge of the hand from being closed as tightly, and it helps greatly with cramps. These days, most writing "stones" are made of resin, and form fitting ones can be made from Silly Putty.
But a good pen, proper technique, and writing often enough to allow the muscles to adjust nearly always stops hand cramps, even without a writing stone.
Cramping is an extremely common problem. The main cause is not writing enough to allow the muscles to adjust, so it's sort of a Catch-22 situation.
Interestingly, writing with a quill or a fountain pen reduces cramping considerably. The quill or dip pen because you have to constantly adjust the hand to dip, and the fountain pen because of the design, and because proper technique with a fountain pen puts very little pressure on the part of the hand that cramps most often.
A writing stone also greatly reduces cramps. This is a stone held in the hand behind the pen that stops the little finger and edge of the hand from being closed as tightly, and it helps greatly with cramps. These days, most writing "stones" are made of resin, and form fitting ones can be made from Silly Putty.
But a good pen, proper technique, and writing often enough to allow the muscles to adjust nearly always stops hand cramps, even without a writing stone.
long hand
James,
I know there's truth in what you say. I have attempted first drafts on computer, and the inspiration was lacking.
Then something interesting happened. I participated in National Novel Writing Month two years in a row. What's got me is that this year, some of my best writing ever poured out, especially yesterday when I took on a 10,000-word marathon.
So today I sat at computer, "Let's go!" Nothing--I was back to hand.
I know you don't revise much, but do you mind my asking if you write revisions by hand? I have some, and I'm afraid those revisions may be better.
John Dufresne in his book on writing says he writes revisions longhand, and if he makes one mistake does the entire page over. Whew.
I love my computers, but if writing even more by hand than I do now is more efficient in the long run, I'll go.
I always go back to what I know about playing violin: if I cannot play a passage accurately and in tune slowly, I cannot play it up to speed.
James,
I know there's truth in what you say. I have attempted first drafts on computer, and the inspiration was lacking.
Then something interesting happened. I participated in National Novel Writing Month two years in a row. What's got me is that this year, some of my best writing ever poured out, especially yesterday when I took on a 10,000-word marathon.
So today I sat at computer, "Let's go!" Nothing--I was back to hand.
I know you don't revise much, but do you mind my asking if you write revisions by hand? I have some, and I'm afraid those revisions may be better.
John Dufresne in his book on writing says he writes revisions longhand, and if he makes one mistake does the entire page over. Whew.
I love my computers, but if writing even more by hand than I do now is more efficient in the long run, I'll go.
I always go back to what I know about playing violin: if I cannot play a passage accurately and in tune slowly, I cannot play it up to speed.
- Status