Franz Grieser
3/16/2012 11:06 am
Dr Andus wrote:
We seem to have different approaches:
* I use Scrivener (or an outline in Noteliner plus Word documents, if my publisher needs Word files) for writing non-fiction (and fiction) that will be printed or published electronically and is hierarchical in nature.
* I just give ConnectedText a try as a knowledge base for 2 projects. Here hierarchy is less important for me, I hope to find connections between topics that may not be visible when using a tree structure and folders for organizing material.
Why I prefer the tree in Scrivener (or in Noteliner/Word): My writing projects usually are organized top-down. In the end, the books/textbooks/articles will be printed/presented and read in consecutional order. Having the tree visible keeps me focused. When I rearranging chapters or sections this is immediately visible in the tree (ok, in the Noteliner-Word combination I have to do the rearranging manually). This way I know what information the reader already has - and what I might need to add. And, what is important from an economical point of view: I will not start writing a chapter/section beforeI know where in the hierarchical tree it fits - this way I avoid writing stuff that might be nice and interesting but won't end up in the book/article. Off course, this does not mean that I do not throw out sections when I realize later that they do no longer fit in or that I have tool much text.
Franz
...
Because Scrivener's tree hierarchy is constantly in your
face, it exerts some pressure on you to have to keep the entire structure and the
hierarchical relationships constantly in mind. And naturally as the content
changes, the hierarchy might become irrelevant, in which case it demands to be looked
at. CT's wiki logic in this sense is more easy-going, because by packing away a
document it is sunk into an invisible depth, from where it can be recalled, however the
overall structure doesn't become a constant, nagging thing. So in this sense I can see
how writing in CT can be a liberating experience.
...
We seem to have different approaches:
* I use Scrivener (or an outline in Noteliner plus Word documents, if my publisher needs Word files) for writing non-fiction (and fiction) that will be printed or published electronically and is hierarchical in nature.
* I just give ConnectedText a try as a knowledge base for 2 projects. Here hierarchy is less important for me, I hope to find connections between topics that may not be visible when using a tree structure and folders for organizing material.
Why I prefer the tree in Scrivener (or in Noteliner/Word): My writing projects usually are organized top-down. In the end, the books/textbooks/articles will be printed/presented and read in consecutional order. Having the tree visible keeps me focused. When I rearranging chapters or sections this is immediately visible in the tree (ok, in the Noteliner-Word combination I have to do the rearranging manually). This way I know what information the reader already has - and what I might need to add. And, what is important from an economical point of view: I will not start writing a chapter/section beforeI know where in the hierarchical tree it fits - this way I avoid writing stuff that might be nice and interesting but won't end up in the book/article. Off course, this does not mean that I do not throw out sections when I realize later that they do no longer fit in or that I have tool much text.
Franz