Best way to get edits back into Scrivener?

[Selene]

So editors normally want a word document, where they'll make edits and comments using track changes. This works well with the compiler, but what's the best way to move the updated text back into Scrivener (once you have resolved all the track changes in Word)? Ideally I'd like some kind of import function that makes a snapshot of all text documents and then imports the corresponding text from the word document. It wouldn't need to handle structural changes, just copy/line edits. Is there a way to do this, or can someone recommend the best workaround for now?

Thanks!

[StarDog2]

Maybe what is needed is a de-compiler!

[Selene]

Does anyone have any tips? Manually pasting back hundreds of text blocks is really time-consuming...

[krastev]

There is no easy way to import back from a Word document into the corresponding scrivener files.

For more info check: http://www.literatureandlatte.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30109

Regards,
M

[kewms]

There are some features to facilitate this in Scrivener 3. See the information on inserting section links in proofing copies. I don't know if they've been implemented in the Windows beta yet, though.

Katherine

[Ahab]

Your mileage may vary, but because Word is the universal language of editors I've found it best to handle back-and-forth edits using Apple Pages (I gave up on Word some years ago). Pages handles marginal comments well enough, and does track changes well enough. Of course, if you have Word, it works just as well, maybe better.

When all the edits are completed and editorial is poised to transmit to production, I take that last edited copy as final (of course there'll be one more proofing stage after the ARCs go out), open it in Pages (or Word), open the pertinent Project in Scrivener, create a fresh Folder called Final, then chapter by chapter, I bring it back in. I don't need the granularity of scene-by-scene breakdowns. At this stage, they're irrelevant. Copying back 28 chapters took me 20 minutes, tops, with arthritic fingers on the trackpad.

Now everything is back in Scrivener, and if any final minor changes are needed before press, I can just plug them into this Final draft. Sure, it's not automated. But sometimes it seems as though we spend more time attempting to automatic every aspect of the writing life than we spend actually writing.

[Major Major]

Not an especially useful reply in a Windows section of the forum.

[lunk]

Not an especially useful reply in a Windows section of the forum.

Why? Don’t you have Word in Windows?

[JimRac]

Not an especially useful reply in a Windows section of the forum.

I assume you're referring to Ahab's reply? On the contrary, I found it quite useful.

Hopefully the OP does as well. As the OP's concern was "Manually pasting back hundreds of text blocks is really time-consuming...", IMHO Ahab's advice to stop working at that level of granularity and instead copy the text back into the project in bigger chunks (from Word or whatever other tool) is certainly something to consider. Particularly if the OP feels the book is at the point where no structural changes are needed, then Ahab's approach of reducing granularity is smart and practical, and frankly, something I will consider for my own work.

The only downside I can see is that compile would possibly need to be reconfigured, if further exports are necessary. In lieu of an automated import process, I'm thinking that's a pretty reasonable compromise.

[Major Major]

Not an especially useful reply in a Windows section of the forum.

Why? Don’t you have Word in Windows?

Yes, but not Apple Pages.

[lunk]

Of course, if you have Word, it works just as well, maybe better.

Not an especially useful reply in a Windows section of the forum.

Ahm...

[devinganger]

Not an especially useful reply in a Windows section of the forum.

Why? Don’t you have Word in Windows?

Yes, but not Apple Pages.

Luckily the post talked about using the same workflow in Pages OR Word, so it applies to Mac and Windows.

[kewms]

Really, people?

Please chill.

Katherine

[Selene]

Thanks everyone for chiming in! Yes, I imagine that for later edits it might be fine to lose the granularity, so I could go with chapters. I've got 40 of them, but better than hundreds of chunks For beta reader feeback and developmental edits, the granularity is what makes Scrivener shine as I'm particularly working with structure and pacing. Looking forward to Scrivener 3 if it'll solve this!