lunk wrote:Micha wrote:Imagine you're writing a lengthy document such as a thesis, report, novel.
- - -
it's likely that you want to be able to easily and quickly tag, retrieve and review bits of text of the document that you're creating.
- - -
That lengthy document is already likely split into several chapters and sections, with each section likely a file of its own in Scrivener.
Now imagine having to work with not just a 100 files, each equating to a section within a chapter, say, but 300, or 400 or whatever number of separate files you end up with once you've split all your documents so that you can attach label/s and/or keyword/s to those individual files.
Yes? If you split it hierarchially, i.e split your chapter in sub-sections, and then split your sections into sub-documents, and possibly split those as well into sub-sub-documents, etc, Scrivener is built to handle that for you so you don't really have to bother about the number of files it creates on the HD. You simply use scrivenings mode on whatever level you like and view it like one piece of text while you write. With or without dividers showing the movement through the text.
I honestly don't see the problem. Why does it matter how Scrivener internally handles your text?
Hi lunk,
You're forcing me to think clearly about how I work here, but I'll give it my best shot and try and and answer your question
The long and short of it is that Scrivener may be able to deal with that number of files, but I cannot. At least not during an important phase of writing.
I go through different phases when I'm writing: researching, writing, editing, and the problem is two-fold:
1- this is not a sequential process where I start with research, then write, and finally edit my stuff. It's an iterative process where I step through any of those phases in almost any order, and then I repeat at least several times in probably a different order.
2 - and this is where the rub comes in - I work very differently, and I therefore have different tool requirements, depending on whether I'm writing or editing (let's make this simpler and forget about research for today).
The draft folder in my binder is often structured with one folder per chapter, and within each folder I generally have a file per section or scene (depending on whether it's non-/fiction.)
If I'm in 'creative' mode (I'm eternally hopefully that one day I'll be truly inspired!), then I tend to work in a top-down/high-level mode and I really do not want to be distracted. And, seeing many files in my binder for what is conceptually one section or scene I find very jarring (and yes, I realise it could be just me).
In any case, I want the equivalent of one sheet of paper for the current section/scene that I'm working on, on which to dump those words before If forget them .
I also know that if I wanted to I could hide the binder, and use continuous mode to see all text within all those files.
But it just doesn't work for me...I need a good (for me) balance between seeing the structure and detail. Having my 3-tier structure at hand is sufficient for me most of the time. Most of the time I don't want to see the detail at which I'm tagging words/sentences in files. BUT, when I need to see that detail then it really is very important to me that I can see it quickly and conveniently....usually I'm editing at that stage, and wanting to make sure I've figuratively dotted ever i and crossed every t etc, throughout the whole report/book/thesis.
Please note that I'm not saying that I NEVER go beyond a three-level structure for my writing (where the top level is the book/report/thesis, the second level is the folder/chapter level, and third level is the files within a chapter that make up sections/scenes).
If I were writing non-fiction, and I had sub-sections, then I probably WOULD have separate files per sub-section (and even lower levels depending on how long or complex those sub-sub/...sections were).
However, to my mind that is very different to my requirement to track certain themes or threads throughout my document. I may want to track these themes/threads in this way (ie tagging text as opposed to whole files), for both fiction or non-fiction writing.
I'm sorry I cannot explain this better. I realise that this is very personal way of working, and that not everyone will have the same process or requirements as I do.
But I really would like something that allows me to do what I want without my having to manage it to the nth degree...which is what splitting my files into a huge number would entail.
And even if I did split my sections/scenes to the nth degree - it still wouldn't work particularly well for me. Usually I want to tag just a few words or a sentences. I would either need a file that contained JUST those few words or sentences, or else I would also have to highlight/colour the text of those words or sentences so that when I'm looking for them, I can see them immediately...that is way too much work.
Please also note that THIS reply is NOT me pushing for this requirement to be added to a future implementation list.
I've already done that (and I don't see anything wrong with asking).
This is me trying to answer lunk's question as to why splitting files doesn't work for me.
Good day/evening all.
Michelle.
char, because it is so obvious to the eye "•••", but I'd prefer not having to use two keys and two hands to type that sequence. You might choose otherwise. Also, there is nothing special about the number of chars you choose to use as your comments bookmark search string. I've used three chars but you can use any string length you want so long as it is easy and quick to type, easy to remember, is a string that won't appear in your comments accidentally, and is easy to spot in your inspector's comments list,