Actually like many other things, if you put in the time to become really good with Dramitica Story Pro, it may work quite well. The question is, taking into account the learning curve, the necessity to change your way of working, and the cost of the software, did it really improve things overall sufficiently to justify the effort? I also suspect that if you (not you in particular) write individual scenes/chapters/blocks at a time and do them out of sequence, then organising software may well be useful. I write in sequence - start, middle, end. But I'm not closed minded. I would really be interested to know if there is something I'm not seeing. Oh, like the new avatar
@Wreybies I just read the theory behind Dramatica. It sounds to me like the things it claims to do are the very things a writer should be able to do for himself. Am I missing something?
I think the key lies in the should part of your statement. Of course the writer should be able to do all of these things him/herself, and as I was mentioning to Bryan, I don't really have an opinion to give on the matter yet other than that at this point I still am in agreement with you: a writer should be doing all these things for him/herself. I made my little aside more as a statement of sceptic involved in exploratory experimentation. Had I listened to the naysayers actively proselytizing their "MS Word is the one and only, God-stamped, party-approved, all else is heresy" bullshit, I never would have tried Scrivener and come to love it as much as I do. For me, it has been a joy to use because it answers to my personal process as a writer. For me. That answer isn't true for everyone, obviously, and I am not only willing to admit that, I am preaching it. There's more than one answer to these questions pointing me in a crooked line, to quote the spectacular Indigo Girls. I'm engaging in this experiment with Dramatica Story Pro because I know that not everyone has access to classes. Not everyone engages well with 'how-to' books. Not everyone comes to writing from a history of scribbling since childhood. Not everyone knows and understands the parts of a novel. Many don't know that question is even there to be asked. I doubt that any two have identical writing processes. In short, we're all different. I may very well come to the conclusion that this app is a crock and isn't worth the time it took to download, much less the money I spent on it, and has nothing to offer me or anyone, but if I come to that conclusion, I will have come to it through knowledge and hands-on experience.
I don't know, it's a great way to structure you prep work, but I've always felt that preparation does not necessarily lead to inspiration. We see it on the forum all the time, people who have mapped out all their character backstory without writing a single word. That being said, I sincerely hope it works for you, it's just not something I would try.
I have a demo version, but I can't say I like it too much. For one, it's more academic and abstract than I like. A second thing is the plot progression tool is rigid. Once you have something for one throughline, the others get more limited. You get to decide half of it and it fills in the rest whether you like it or not.
... but, and I know you didn't say this, but there is a common misconception concerning these kinds of software, so for anyone reading this... It doesn't ever give you what to write. It's not a write-by-numbers deal as some are fond of saying. This much I have learned so far. What @Robert_S is talking about is deeper structure than simple plot points or events and has more to do with core interactions of players, groups of players, and purpose of each player. And when I say purpose, I am again not talking about plot, but deeper thematic rolls. Now, you are correct as all get-out when you mention it being academic and abstract. It could have been presented in more laymen's language and would have been much friendlier to use.
A great difficulty is arranging it as I think it should be. I can't figure out yet how they decide the other fields. If I did, I might be able to finagle it better.
Word v.x.x has been around since Windows started. It competed with WordPerfect and a few others. Twenty years from now; who will be competing with Word? Does it matter? Word will still be here, costing less than it did in 1990 and doing every single thing a writer needs. Fonts, italics, bold, subscripts, hyperlinks, attachments, photos, graphs, bibliographies, etc.. WordArt is pretty cool too Every agent I have contacted, in my search for one, has the exact same requirements. .docx or .PDF. THAT IS IT! No exceptions. If you send in your work in .rtf or .wpf or html? Pass. "Well I can convert!" Good lord, why would you want to? Write your word doc in word and save a step. If you want to save money, I get it. To me, Word is a decent investment.
Any decent writing program can output in either. The idea behind Scrivener was to break the work up into manageable pieces, rearrange and relate so the writer doesn't have to write in a linear fashion. It's meant to conform to the writer, not the other way around.
All of this presumes that MS Word is the only word processor that creates .doc without need for conversion from another filetype. This isn't true. Scrivener creates perfect .doc files. Not converts them from something else, creates them new and fresh and virgin. Just like in MS Word. No different. And again, I spent cash on both, so it's not about saving any money, it's about what works best for me.
The fact that I can meta tag my scenes is a huge advantage to me. I've been writing a steady 2,000 words a week, and my novel is all broken into sections. But once I'm done with the first draft I'll be able to amalgamate and tag everything the way I want it. Obviously being able to quickly surf back through former sessions is a huge advantage as well.
Are you a Mac user? I believe the Mac version, being so far ahead of the windows version, has a more complete meta-tagging system. Window allows two meta-tags. By default: label and status, though the user can change the title. However, it does allow attaching keywords to each section.
Well the first answer is no. I was trained to use both Macs and PCs which is why I use a PC. But I think you are misunderstanding the way version number's work. The 1.02 for PC is not behind the Mac version, they are almost identical. The version number is the iterations that the program has gone through. Since the PC version has been ported from Mac, it has naturally gone through fewer iterations.
Everybody keeps bringing this kind of thing up. It doesn't just happen in this debate, it happens any time anybody is discussing anything. Yes, you can travel from New York to Los Angeles in an oxcart. So why would you need anything else? All the rest of it is just high-tech fanciness. Yes, you can communicate by carrier pigeon. But why would you want to? We have cell phones and email and text messaging and the rest of it. Word does everything a writer needs. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The problem is that it does a lot of these things badly. And another problem is that it doesn't do a lot of what some writers (like me, for instance) want. It gives me the bare minimum of what I need to submit work to a publisher, but it's a chore to use, and it doesn't have the comprehensive set of very convenient organizational features Scrivener has. And, as we've been pointing out over and over, Scrivener produces .doc files. It does this well. There is no compatibility problem. Raising the compatibility issue as a defense of Word is a non-point. Write your word doc in Scrivener. It's convenient. It's lightning fast. It has eye-popping features once you get it configured the way you want. And it's a joy to use. And it's only forty bucks. Do you hear me? It beats Word every way writers care about, and it's only forty bucks! Give Scrivener an honest try. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. But I think some of you staunch Word defenders will change your allegiances, as I did, after working through Scrivener's tutorial.
The reason to choose a piece of software is to solve a condition that is in your way. Not to find a way to use a new set of shiny features. My opinion is that tools like Scrivener convince you that you have a problem you never suffered from, to convince you that you need their solution. I've looked at Scrivener, as well as many other writing "productivity tools." I remain unimpressed.
The condition in the way of many writers is that MS Word is jack of all trades, master of none. *soft chuckle* That's exactly my complaint with MS Word. All those little buttons up top, none of them do a thing I could be payed to care about, yet I was forced to pay for all of them. Scrivener only does a few things, all of them I want, and it does all of them quicksilver smooth. And I repeat: That's exactly my complaint with MS Word. All those little buttons up top, none of them do a thing I could be payed to care about, yet I was forced to pay for all of them. Scrivener only does a few things, all of them I want, and it does all of them quicksilver smooth. It's not a "productivity tool". Maybe that's why you didn't like it. You were looking at the wrong way. It's a word processor with organizational features.
No, the reason to use software is to make your life easier. Opening up several files of notes and references is not easier, when Scrivener can make it as simple as clicking a link, or hovering over a file.
As I've said, I already knew how to use Word. It does far more than a writer needs, but I used many of those other features in my work. Yes, Word has a bewildering range of features, but it also has everything you need for writing. Everything. And if you spend a couple of hours with the tutorials offered by Microsoft (or other sources), you won't spend so much time fighting with the software. I have no problems organizing. I don't need a special piece of software to organize the way IT suggests. I can understand frustration with Word. There are easier tools to learn, and if all you need is the simplest of editing capabilities, I can see the temptation to go elsewhere. But if you learn how to use Word, it does everything you need to do, and it does it well. And it IS the professional standard. You want Scrivener, by all means get Scrivener. It won't affect me in the least.
I can't imaging a description being further from the fact. You said you had looked at the software. Are you sure we're talking about the same software? I have to assume an error because I have never known you to be a liar, Cogito.
I have never used Libreoffice actually, but I find with word it doesn't allow me to organize all my extra thoughts about a story or scene, or have a readily available character list with descriptions that is part of the open document. I find a lot of the time, I think of little things that I want to include, scenes, words, etc... and I mark these in the little posties section in Srivener within the chapter that I plan to use them, so that when I get to that chapter, I can refer to all my little notes. I think maybe I simply enjoy the way it is organized. I suppose you could easily use multiple word files to do the same thing.
