Snowflake et al.

Posted by 22111
Dec 7, 2013 at 08:56 PM

1)
Pigeonhole Organizer has been mentioned 7 times here, without anybody mentioning how primitive it is. From this screenshot

http://m8software.com/clipboards/pigeonhole/pigeonhole.htm

(= 175 items = 5 rows à 35 entries, in up to 20 groups)

you could assume that it’s a “quick and simple”, “minimalist” tool for the above task (lists of scenes, characters, locations, themes… = for one work, 175 such items should be enough), or for some special tasks in IM (I hope readers will have got that literary creation and IM is quite the same, for our purposes, at least 95 p.c. of any remark applying to one should apply to the other, too, and vice versa).

This is not true. Years ago, I had trialled it, and in light of the post above, I checked it out again; thankfully, there is an online help file

http://m8software.com/clipboards/pigeonhole/help/1.htm

from which you will deduct how primitive it is (as it was years ago):

- no formatting (neither of entries nor of notes)

- no import, no export (not of entries or single notes, and let alone groups, not even printing ( > not even “printing” to file, either))

So, between “plain and simple and really useful” and “outright primitive”, there is a world, and just for the fun of it:

“Gene and Roger [Ebert, Zeoli’s obituary] helped me to appreciate movies in ways I could never have imagined.

Mostly, they made me realize that filmmakers had a responsibility to make good movies. That as fans we didn’t have to settle for crap.

For that I will always be grateful.” And again, since there is no bolding here:

“Mostly, they made me realize that filmmakers had a responsibility to make good movies. That as fans we didn’t have to settle for crap.”

OMG - I claim exactly this for sw, here, and so many people snap at me for my daring criticising bad and even outright crap sw.

As said, just for the fun of it - this citation is simply far too beautiful to not post it here. (schizophrenia, anyone?)

2)
Re false/manipulative/sloppy interpretation of citations (or simply sloppy writing): In

http://takingnotenow.blogspot.be/2010/03/schiller-on-connections-of-ideas.html

Kühn cites from a Schiller letter to Körner, then he goes on:

“In other words, don’t outline too early ... and: don’t ever use an outliner in collecting your ideas. Trying to force ideas into predetermined slots is counter-productive. The first step in writing should be less judgmental. Outlines come in only later in the creative process.”

And again, for simili-bolding:

“In other words, don’t outline too early ... and: don’t ever use an outliner in collecting your ideas.”

OMG - Schiller never said this (and yes, outlining had been invented by then, see this instructive Kühn post:

http://takingnotenow.blogspot.be/2009/07/medieval-card-index.html ).

So what’s the problem? A third one from Kühn:

http://takingnotenow.blogspot.be/2008/04/capturing-and-keeping-notes-versus.html (again on CT, of course):

“Properly constructed, a wiki does not lead to fragmented, but to deeply connected information, like a multi-dimensional outliner.”

Well said, and that’s what intrigues me in CT, and that’s why I multiply outlines (mine are approaching a 4-digit figure - crazy? just many combinations possible this way, instead of “wanting too much hierarchy” I once had been suspected here of).

And a fourth one:

http://takingnotenow.blogspot.be/2008/04/capturing-and-keeping-notes-versus.html :

“Ideally, an application would allow for all the different ways of looking at the notes one has collected. Starting out from what might be called the “shoebox metaphor,” (...)”

And again, from above:

“In other words, don’t outline too early ... and: don’t ever use an outliner in collecting your ideas.”

So you see, Kühn had just a moment of sloppy writing, but he sees the right problems.

Of course, there is outlining and outlining, and some extremists only see the latter variety, the 7/7/7 one, whilst few people take it easy and do outlining in a very relaxed way, “holding it flat”.

And here, IM joins the first post’ problem in this thread, since indeed, ASSIGNING elements too early both in your “writing process” and in your “IM categorization process”, to groups/categories/subfolders/subitems/whatever entities, DISCARDING them from the “general flow”, will make them (not technically, but psychologically) more or less UNAVAILABLE for other purposes, and this means, for possibly BETTER USE ELSEWHERE, and the above-mentioned outlining in literary creation, vs. “let your characters/situations guide you” is exactly the trap writers can fall into, and indeed, in the history of literature, there have probably been more writers having maintained “card box” structures, for “bits”, and from which they got an element here, and element there, than have been writers who did “outlines” (in the non-flat version).

Also (and as I dared explaining here some weeks ago), this 7/7/7-style outlining breaks your possible associative thinking: Not only those elements “stored away too early” become unavailable for literal use elsewhere, but also, they become unavailable for MAKING YOU THINK ABOUT SOMETHING SO CLOSE THAT IT MIGHT BEAR OFFSPRING elsewhere.

People like Kühn feel this problem, and then tell you, “don’t outline, wiki!” when I say, use your outliner, but make lists with it, and group by divider lines, preferably, don’t discard (too early) into its depths. Profit from outlining’s big advantages, without falling into the traps this concept brings along, too.

3)
OMG - Perhaps I just found the answer to our question why most people avoid outlining outright: They try to do it “right” (7/7/7) in school, it fails for them (predictively), and then they avoid it at all cost - they simply don’t see that outlining does NOT FORCE you to outline in the traditional way: they must be sure discarding things you need though was mandatory!

4)
NOT RELEVANT HERE so skip please
Yesterday, I spoke about “let your characters guide you” as the one concept opposing outlining the tale, but in fact, it’s both ways, intangled, it’s situations that have to follow the “development” of characters, and it’s also characters that have to be redesigned in order to be perfect for the course of the action, and I suppose this latter alternative comes even first, situations being more “productive in characters” than the other way round. A problem arises when the situation ask for a character that is too far away from the one you might have “wanted”, or from the one your readers will probably accept, and then you could be tempted to NOT change your character accordingly, and then your tale will bomb. So this is an iterative process between actions and character “development” which asks for your utmost attention, and for your bravery, i.e. you can’t have it both, this character, that action - you have to let THEM determine what they are able to “tolerate” on the other side… and they will quickly ask for amputations in your original wishes, and if you don’t do them, it will not hold together.

(“Development” of character here meaning SHAPING of characters; their real “development-in-the-course-of-action” coming later and being another problem yet (so some writers leave this out in their strive for not “over-complicating things”: another bad book not worth reading…).)

But just for the fun of it: Even Kühn fell into what I now will call THE OUTLINER TRAP, i.e. the general misconception that outlines have to be deeply indented… and that makes the living of Edoardo. So you can understand Kant, without grasping outlining’s finesses.

Outlining. Your false friend in school. Your enemy for the rest of your life.