Comments on: Comparing StoryMill and Scrivener

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:24:43 +0000

To be honest, I’ve never really understood why WriteRoom was priced the way it is. Ten, fifteen dollars and it would totally be worth it (I only own it and use it thanks to getting it as part of a bundle; one of the first MacHeists, if memory serves). The nice things about WriteRoom: 1) it launches basically instantly; 2) it offers a block cursor (which I’ve turned out to like a surprising amount); and 3) offers typewriter scrolling (which is really nice compared to editing plain text in something like Textmate, Espresso, or BBEdit).

By: W. David Hurley

W. David Hurley — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:41:35 +0000

I have read several reviews and comparisons of Scrivener and StoryMill. This article, with its responses, is one of the best discussions I have come across. Thank you for a job very well done.

By: Ian Beck

Ian Beck — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:11:07 +0000

Hey Etienne,

Glad you enjoyed the comparison! You can actually view notes and text at the same time if you want in StoryMill; just double click the scene and you’ll open it in a new window. You can then size it appropriately and stick it off to the side while you continue to work in the main window (or vice versa). I will often work in the chapter editing window (what you get by double clicking a chapter) and reference the main window behind and to the side for scene notes and so forth (using command-` to switch between the two). I’ve even been known to have half a dozen windows open, with actors, scenes, and other notes scattered about the screen.

The chapter editing window may also be useful because you can open up the chapter notes drawer (View → Show Notes Drawer or command-R) to and store your scene outline/notes there while you work.

If you think Todd (the developer of StoryMill) is anonymous, you’ve obviously not spent much time in the StoryMill forums. :-) Todd is fantastic at responding to and engaging users. He and Keith are two of the most responsive developers I’ve ever encountered.

You’ll find that StoryMill’s timeline also stutters badly when you have scenes that span large amounts of time (or have large amounts of time between scenes). I’m hopeful for StoryMill 4 (I know improving scenes is a big focus), but we’ll have to wait and see if the timeline can be more useful for the short and long ends of the spectrum.

By: Etienne Navir

Etienne Navir — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:11:24 +0000

Thanks for this comparison. I have both StoryMill and Scrivener. (I used Scrivener for the 2009 NaNoWriMo.)

Although I tend to use StoryMill more often, there is something simply alluring about Scrivener. Perhaps it’s just the interface. Scrivener seems more modern … whatever that means! Also, I like Keith! I get the feeling he’s more committed to the writing process, although I’m sure this is not the case. The StoryMill developers seem more anonymous.

As to features, I agree StoryMill’s Timeline is very useful, although I’ve had some difficulty using it for very tight scenes, where the duration is only minutes, and the end of one scene is the beginning of another. And creating storylines is very counterintuitive (to me).

My biggest complaint about StoryMill is the either / or Notes or Text window. I much prefer Scrivener’s approach since it keeps notes — which in my case are “directions” for what’s happening in a scene — always visible. With StoryMill I’ve adopted the workaround of copying relevant Notes into Text, then deleting them when finished.

I should also mention I’ve used Storyist, but it didn’t seem to offer anything not available with Scrivener or StoryMill that made me want to learn a new application.

I’ll probably continue using both StoryMill and Scrivener, but for slightly different projects.

By: Ian Beck

Ian Beck — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:42:31 +0000

Hey Keith,

Thanks for reading! I’m glad that you find the comparison fair; as a long-time StoryMill user and evangelist I tried to make sure that I wasn’t being too biased in that direction. :-)

Thanks for the clarifications about full screen and so forth, too! I haven’t actively used Scrivener in several months, and I’d forgotten that you can slim down the full screen layout with a little work.

I’m looking forward to seeing what you’ve come up with for annotations in Scrivener 2.0. That and my inability to find things that I know should be there in the menus are the two things that consistently prevent me from using Scrivener 1.x whenever I decide to give it another whirl for a new project.

By: KB

KB — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:46:01 +0000

Hi Ian,
I’m the developer of Scrivener and I just wanted to say thank you for covering Scrivener in your article, which seems to me a very fair and intelligent comparison between the two programs. I just wanted to add a couple of clarifications – hope you don’t mind:
• Scrivener’s full screen mode can easily be set up to be nothing else but your text too (there are no floating windows unless you want them). You can have green text on a black screen and nothing else visible at all if you want. We have a video showing how here: http://www.literatureandlatte.com/videos/Writing%20Environment.mov
• I agree with you about the menus! They have become a little bloated in 1.x. One of my big jobs for 2.0 has been to streamline them and make them easier to navigate as much as possible.
• 2.0 will also have an alternative and improved comments (annotations) system, that falls somewhere between StoryMill’s and Pages’ comments.
All that said, I agree that StoryMill is a great app, and although both Scriv and SM are aimed at writers, they are very different in their approach, so I always recommend users try both (and the others out there) before choosing, as the choice really depends on the individual’s style of working.
Thanks again for covering Scrivener!
All the best,
Keith

By: Alan Schmitt

Alan Schmitt — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:14:09 +0000

I use QC, and find it great. I’ve tried WriteRoom several times, but I have yet to see the appeal when compared to the price.

By: Ian Beck

Ian Beck — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:38:28 +0000

By: Troy Kitch

Troy Kitch — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:27:38 +0000

I started out on CopyWrite back in 2004, but abandoned it because it was never updated. I use Scrivener for a variety of writing projects, and now use StoryMill as well (based on your recommendation, actually). I like both of these tools and, as you point out, each serve a need. Thanks for the tip on QuickCursor. Using it now. What a great idea. I don’t own WriteRoom (it seems a bit pricey to me for what it does, given other tools offer full-screen editing), but I’m going to use QC to edit in Textmate.

By: Ian Beck

Ian Beck — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:27:05 +0000

It would likely work great. I haven’t used Scrivener’s plain text formatting myself, but there’s a vocal contingent of Scrivener users who need and use it. This is definitely an area where StoryMill doesn’t even attempt to cover that feature; you should check the Scrivener forums for specific advice and tips.

You could probably get the best of both worlds, actually, assuming Textmate’s MultiMarkdown bundle is better than Scrivener’s editing interface. Just download QuickCursor and you’ll be able to edit text from Scrivener in a variety of different editors (including Textmate).

Just in general, QuickCursor is a brilliant tool. I’ve been using it a lot to edit form fields online (which are terrible for editing in; always too small) in WriteRoom. (In point of fact, I’m typing this in WriteRoom thanks to QuickCursor right now.)

By: Alan Schmitt

Alan Schmitt — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:09:41 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to write this down. I’m sticking with Scrivener for the moment, but it’s good to see there are great alternatives out there.

One thing I may explore, most realistically after NaNoWriMo, is how Scrivener is fit to write scientific articles. I’ve read many good things at how it can easily be used in MultiMarkdown format, and I’d be curious if it could beat my current Textmate projects approach. (Textmate projects work great, but they lack a bit in organization.)