The creative writer's environment 2005
DIFFERENT STROKES . . .

Mike Linaker

A third writer from a very different part of the spectrum said, "I hate Windows, I really hate MSWord. My word processor of choice was WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. Until a year ago, when my video card blew and took out the motherboard, I shelled out to DOS and used 5.1. Using Windows XP is a chore and there's no good way to use DOS programs."

What was it he didn't like about Windows, I wondered?

After using an Amstrad PCW with LocoScript, I moved to a PC and Windows '98. I used this for a number of years until I had a new PC built which had Windows XP Professional installed. It's flexible, full of aids to make the writing process easy. I can edit, copy/paste, change fonts, etcetera. I understand personal preferences, and that what suits one doesn't suit another, but maybe I was missing something.

The critical friend's explanation, when asked, was highly technical, but finally came down to: "Mostly, moving data and programs was easy in DOS. In Windows it requires and act of God or a deity even higher, Bill Gates."

He also said, "I had to hide the fact I used my first word processor until the mid '80s, since I actually had an editor say she wouldn't look at anything done on a computer since she wanted the author to write the books."

This was stunning. Did the editor really think the computer would do the creating while the writer sat back and drank coffee? If this was ever so, just tell me the key sequence and I would give it a try! Where did they get her from?

Another question asked was whether anyone had experimented with dictating their novel to either a tape machine or a secretary, assuming any of us could afford one!

I tried doing a book on tape. It came out at 100,000 words, but by the time I'd removed all the "ers" and "umms" and "oops", it was down to less than 10,000. . . .

Seriously, I did try it once as an experiment but it just didn't work for me. And trying to type it up afterwards was a nightmare, 'cause I couldn't keep up with the speed. Had to keep stopping, rewinding and so on. After a while, I quit and went back to doing it straight from my head.

I write straight to screen. Can't do the handwriting any longer. Except for brief technical notes that need correct facts/figures before slotting into the main script. Handwriting the story takes too much time. Like writing the book twice. If you're going to write, why not do it on screen, then do your editing? Needs the same thought process but only half the effort. Not lazy, just making use of the current technology.

The freedom that a word processor offers means you don't need to worry over mis-spelled words, or any other kind of mistakes, because you are not committed to printing off until all is correct. Spell checkers do the correcting and errors are so easily put right on screen. All you have to do is write. Ignore mistakes until you feel ready to edit, then do it at your leisure. Cut, paste, move, large or small chunks of text. It's so easy, it leaves you free to do what you really love — write.

The book I wrote for Gold Eagle recently was written in sections, almost like they make a movie. Not from page 1 to 420, but scenes here, there, added, removed. I did it simply as an exercise for myself to see how it would work out, and enjoyed the challenge. The edited completion came out fine. It let me write scenes I dreamed up out of context, and with the ability offered by the word processing programe I was able to knit it all together.

Now I couldn't do that with a typewriter.