Going to be brutally honest: this software is a hot bloated mess of jank.

[HTenere]

I've had two books published some years ago. I used Word for everything--formatting for my editor, editing, etc.

People in various author forums and groups kept recommending Scrivener to me. I took a several year hiatus from writing to focus on family/raising a kiddo, but this past few months I've been planning a new book series. So, I finally picked up Scrivener.

Yikes.

Just yikes.

I'm honestly not sure why people are in love with this software. It's bloated and full of distractions, the compiling is a horrific pain to learn to do correctly, and apparently the editor I use before submission/agent hunting won't accept any Scrivener-formatted manuscripts because they turn out to be an absolute disaster.

I'm not even going to get into the fact the learning curve is so steep you have to watch hours and hours of tutorials to even make a clean manuscript with this thing.

Sorry guys, either I'm missing the magic or this is the most overhyped software I've ever used for writing. I'm going back to Word and Bibisco.

[johnnyalpha]

As with most things, you get out what you put in (and I'm not referring to the manuscript.)

[HTenere]

I'm not going to spend a month learning a software program that doesn't do anything much simpler programs can do much more quickly, and without hours and hours of tutorials. And again, my editor won't even TAKE a manuscript compiled with Scrivener because of how sloppily they tend to turn out.

So I guess be salty about it. Anyway, this is a feedback forum and that's my feedback. You can like it or not, but unless you're a developer, I suppose it doesn't matter

I'll bow out now as this feedback was meant for the developers, not white knight users.

[pigfender]

Yeah. I guess if Word does absolutely everything you want, then all the wonderful writing features that many of us love *would* feel like bloat — especially if the basic paradigm of writing in one way (structure/format) and outputting in another doesn’t appeal.

The good news is - you’ve found a solution that works well for you! Free trial for the win! If you’ve got a bit more time left in your trial, though, I’d strongly encourage you to persevere a bit longer. I spent some time at the weekend playing around with ebook outputs (I got a kindle and wanted a copy of my WIP on the device) and I agree it takes a bit of work to learn first time round - but you may find that you end up liking it!

PS - have a word with your editor and check they’re okay, they seem a bit grumpy. [Only the Sith deal in absolutes]

[pigfender]

PPS - I had to look up what “jank” means. Thank you for teaching me a new word!

[Twolane]

I'm honestly not sure why people are in love with this software

Many of us are in love with Scrivener because it allows us to produce output in record time, thanks to some of the bells and whistles included in the L&L product. Beyond that, I cant' speak to anything else.

Obvs, your mileage has varied.

[kewms]

I'm honestly not sure why people are in love with this software. It's bloated and full of distractions, the compiling is a horrific pain to learn to do correctly, and apparently the editor I use before submission/agent hunting won't accept any Scrivener-formatted manuscripts because they turn out to be an absolute disaster.

People don't love Scrivener because of the Compile command. They primarily love it because of all the ways it helps writers get to that point.

Wishing you all success with your projects, whatever tools you may choose.

Katherine

[Orpheus]

I'm not even going to get into the fact the learning curve is so steep you have to watch hours and hours of tutorials to even make a clean manuscript with this thing.

No pain. No gain.

[RuffPub]

I'm not even going to get into the fact the learning curve is so steep you have to watch hours and hours of tutorials to even make a clean manuscript with this thing.

Sorry guys, either I'm missing the magic or this is the most overhyped software I've ever used for writing. I'm going back to Word and Bibisco.

I have to confess to being confused.

Apart from the great features such as being able to drag scenes around as desired, there is just so much good shit in Scrivener.

I started with Scrivener, wrote my first novel, then used the standard Compile to Word using Manuscript output, which produced the output the agents demand (we won’t get into the fact they are stuck in the dark ages, only accepting Word).

I haven’t watched a single tutorial, and found the learning process pretty easy after asking a couple of questions, which is one of the reasons for these forums.

Each to their own and good luck with that evil monstrosity Word. Seriously, if it’s the best option for you, use it.

[sirmichaelot]

@HTenere,
I typically stay away from things like this.

First: Scrivener isn't the end all be all. It can't be. Does it do way more than I need? Yes. Which is why I have basically all functions hidden except to basically type. Then, in subsequent drafts, I reveal more and use more features. Otherwise, I personally find it too distracting. That's me. That's my writing process.

Second: So, why am I replying? Frankly. Because I'm calling B.S. on your premise and declaration of "feedback." Because I'm speaking from experience too as a writer, community leader in the writing world, and former product manager for a major (Fortune 100) technology company.

apparently the editor I use before submission/agent hunting won't accept any Scrivener-formatted manuscripts because they turn out to be an absolute disaster

I have literally worked with hundreds of agents and editors--literally. It was my job, for years, as a leader in an organization dedicated to helping writers. So, your claim about formatting disasters, this was never said of Scrivener. Nor have any of the authors and leaders in the industry said this ever since.

I'll bow out now as this feedback was meant for the developers

B.S. Since you're a writer, you'd accept "Your book is a hot bloated mess of jank" as useful in helping you improve your work? You'd see someone's run and gun then subsequent attempt at a double-tap as useful feedback for the developers? Honestly?

What did you actually provide that was useful to developers? A, [your product is] "a mess of jank." is helpful?

Look, I don't mind flipping people's words back at them; since there's a fine line between helpful critic, critic, and jank-hole. But unloading non-helpful info, doubling down on it to dismiss people with counterpoints, that's just an easy unsolicited shot at someone's work . . . If you write--actually write--you'll know which of the three characters you crossed into.

Finally:

I'm going back to Word and Bibisco.

Perhaps, this is why you truly came here, to covertly plug another program. I'd say well-played, but it wasn't. It was ill-played, ill-claimed, ill-acted to shoot and run, to never actually provide anything you said you came here to.

So, pardon all my frankness. IF you're an author--one worth your salt--you'll learn from this actual "feedback," which is highly specific. You'll research or learn what a developer actually needs for feedback. You'll apologize and move forward from your ignorance. If you're not an author, you'll stick with your unreliable narrative and inconsistent claims and hope someone buys it.

Feel free to label me and others if you want as white knight users, but some of us can see things for what they are: B.S. And if this gets me in trouble with L&L for posting this . . . so be it.

[Twolane]

Bibisco? Shure. I guess.

Bibisco’s latest version is based on a different technology than its previous version; the former runs on node.js while the latter is based on java. Because of this, it is advisable for creators not to leave their projects on the previous version midway and import them to the new version since they won’t be compatible.

There ya go. Fixed it for ya.

[Orpheus]

I'm going back to Word and Bibisco.

Perhaps, this is why you truly came here, to covertly plug another program. I'd say well-played, but it wasn't. It was ill-played, ill-claimed, ill-acted to shoot and run, to never actually provide anything you said you came here to.

Salient point. Never heard of Bibisco before and searched for it.