At what stage do others transfer their manuscript to word?

as
asotir
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:38 pm
Platform: Mac

Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:41 pm Post

Here is a way to work around OSX's lack of built in styles when compiling out of Scrivener. I'm still working out the details so if anybody else uses this or something better, let me know!

1. Organize as usual with folders, text enclosures, and so on.
2. Be consistent about the paragraph styles you use. A good way to do this is to employ the "painted in" styles in the formatting toolbar (corrected to how you like to look at them, of course).
3. Compile straight to HTML.
4. Open the compiled file in OpenOffice or LibreOffice.

If you look at the source of the html file, you will see that OSX has changed all the paragraph styles. Some hierarchical styles do transfer over (H2, H3 for example) but others do not (blockquote). Instead, they are text body substyles such as "p.14" or "p.21" -- this is the way such styles work in the underlying OSX rich text programs.

Once you know that "p.7" is what you meant to be a blockquote, you can use LibreOffice or OpenOffice's Search and Replace / Search for Styles, to replace all "p.7" styles with "blockquote" styles.

Another twist is to save all your styles in a template or .ott file, open that, and insert the compiled html file as a section. Removing that section then makes it editable so you can replace "p.16" with "my_blockquote_style"

I presume much the same process works in Microsoft Word, but it has been years since I used Word.

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24407
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:41 pm Post

And MultiMarkdown writers get to export to OpenOffice format with full stylesheets intact. Evil Laugh. Of course, we have to type like it's 1983.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

as
asotir
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:38 pm
Platform: Mac

Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:02 pm Post

For serious work, MMD really does seem to be the way to go. I am amazed at what you did with the tutorial.

I just get tired or forget to type in the asterisks for italics and bold in MMD. Lazy!

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:12 pm Post

User wickiup's very intelligent post on the usefulness of Word styles in long documents was deleted through a moderator error. :oops:

The moderator apologizes profusely, and wishes to reassure both wickiup and the forum at large that the post itself was in no way problematic.

I knew I should have had a second cup of tea this morning.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

dr
druid
Posts: 1721
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:29 pm
Platform: Mac, Win + Linux
Location: Princeton NJ, USA

Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:00 pm Post

kewms wrote: The moderator apologizes profusely, and wishes to reassure both wickiup and the forum at large that the post itself was in no way problematic.


We will have to demote your sword icon to a penknife. :P

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:11 am Post

druid wrote:We will have to demote your sword icon to a penknife. :P


Nah, I need the sword there to remind me of the damage I can do if I'm not careful....

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

User avatar
Alan Petersen
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:10 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:07 am Post

When I have to send my manuscript to my editor and proofreader... that's when I compile my manuscript to Word. Not a second earlier. :)
Alan Petersen
Using Scrivener to write high-octane thrillers!

User avatar
ptram
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:43 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Recanati, Italy

Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:08 pm Post

There is a point when I feel the need to start thinking in a more linear way. Usually, at that point my text is complete in a rough form - sentences are not yet levigated, some paragraphs might still need a different equilibrium.

I don't export to Word, a program I've long got rid of. I export to Nisus Writer Pro, where I work with the outliner open at the side of my document. It is not much different than working with the Binder open in Scrivener, but (while I can still rearrange blocks of text) I'm no longer invited to restructure everything. That's the final sequence of chapters and paragraphs.

Paolo

De
Declan
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:40 pm

Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:46 pm Post

"Levigated" is from the Italian "Levigati".

In English it seems to be used of powders and so on, whereas in Italian it can be used of writing style.
In this context it means "polished."

... in case anyone was wondering...

Declan

User avatar
ptram
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:43 pm
Platform: Mac
Location: Recanati, Italy

Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:05 am Post

Declan wrote:"Levigated" is from the Italian "Levigati". In English it seems to be used of powders and so on, whereas in Italian it can be used of writing style. In this context it means "polished."


"Polished" is indeed the right word, thank you. But, as a second thought, "levigated", as powder on a rough material, would work as well in this case (if you accept the metaphor).

(Alas, I cannot hope to become more than a pidgin writer!)

Cheers,
Paolo

mo
mokane
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:56 am

Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:48 pm Post

Amber,

In the context of this thread, I have a question. It's all well and good for everyone to say "wait till the last possible minute" before transferring your draft to Word; the problem is that there are all sorts of reasons why you might need to come back to Scrivener. For what I can see, this transfer is not easy.

Scrivener is great for creating a first draft.
Because of an excellent compile function, Scrivener is excellent for creating a final product, especially ebooks.
The intermediate step is the killer. There may be six or seven or more drafts or revisions before those two steps. Sooner or later you end up working in Word so that you can share your work, collaborate or whatever--all before you can come back to Scrivener.
Is there an easy way to go back and forth between Scrivener and the doc/docx/rtf world? Maybe import and then compare/merge with the existing Scrivener project?

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24407
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:39 pm Post

Generally speaking, I don't think that is too much of a problem. Most end state work is going to be in Word initially, and then finally in some other post-production layout and publishing tool like InDesign. But the author generally has very little to do with all of that. For self-publication, they might not be as easy to use as Scrivener's compiler, but the compiler was never meant to be a publication engine, I'm afraid I don't agree with you on that. Its typesetting is just based on the core Mac system which is okay, but not something you want to be printing and binding into a book, same goes for the Windows text engine (well, Qt really) as well. With e-books I can more easily sympathise with the desire, but it mainly comes down to which option represents more work for you: (a) copying and pasting everything back into the Binder by hand, or (b) creating your e-book in Sigil or some other tool using the revised text. Either way you're probably going to end up in Sigil (or similar) ultimately, to polish off the work, so I don't know. It depends on your aptitude with the e-book format I suppose.

But as for some way of automatically merging a single document into a 500 node outline (or whatever), that is just not possible. Maybe for the absolutely most basic of cases, where one word has changed or something, but any kind of serious editing is going to make the process of programmatic detection of seams in the concatenated version quite complex. Computers are very stupid. You have to tell them exactly what to do for all cases, and since there are no predictable paths that humans will always take in the process of writing and editing, there is no elegant algorithm to solve that problem. All you have to do is delete the last paragraph of a scene, or maybe move that scene to another chapter, and now the computer is confused beyond resolution.

The only way to do this is to cut everything out into individual files, linked back to their binder IDs from the very start. That's what the external folder sync tool does (on the Mac at least). It works good for some scenarios, maybe it would work okay for yours?
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:23 am Post

How much do you care about matching the intermediate draft (in Word, say) to Scrivener's Binder structure?

While it would be very difficult to deconstruct a Word document back to the Scrivener parts that created it, remember that you don't actually have to do that. If you want, you can just import the Word document in one piece and go from there, creating new splits as needed.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

User avatar
AmberV
Posts: 24407
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:30 am
Platform: Mac + Linux
Location: Ourense, Galiza
Contact:

Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:24 am Post

This is true, and if your proofers do mind putting up with a little "code" in the manuscript, you can use a custom separator that will not otherwise appear naturally in the text, like "<----->", in the Separators compile pane, between everything. And then bring it back in using `File/Import/Import & Split...` designating that separator as the split mark. That will save you much of the "grunt work" involved.

Whether either of these approaches are useful depends upon how much you've invested into Scrivener's various features. A rich outline with snapshots, maybe some keywords, lots of cross-references to research and so on will not be easily reproduced. In that case a bunch of copy and pasting might be ultimately easier.
.:.
Ioa Petra'ka
“Whole sight, or all the rest is desolation.” —John Fowles

Gr
Gregladen
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:31 am
Platform: Linux + Windows

Sun May 12, 2013 2:38 pm Post

A couple of general observations and bits of advice form someone who wrote his thesis on WordPress on Windows 3.1, and has supervised students using every possible combination of software except Scrivener (and is new to Scrivener) so take it with a grain of salt.

He who makes major strategic decisions with the dream in mind of of flawless fully automated citation management will be disappointed. Imagine a world in which you handle the citations fully manually. That is a world in which you understand your literature, which you should do as a scholar, intimately. Think of all that meddling around with semicolons and dates and arcane formatting as foreplay, it will go better. If you can use a citation manager to get your manuscript to third base sooner, that's great, but organizing your digital life around citation management software is not recommended, though everyone seems to do it.

Personally, other than the citation manager part (but see previous paragraph) I'm not sure why one needs to leave Scrivener. It produces a final product that the registrar of your university will accept. If your supervisor needs a Word document, follow everyone's advice here and take the absolutely minimal number of steps to make that happen, which once some tweeking is done in your settings, should be one. Then, if your supervisor makes changes on that manuscript in word using Track Changes treat that as a hand marked up document and go through and make the changes you feel appropriate in your original Scrivener document.