Skip to main content

How do you keep track?

I was talking about writing (anyone know a way to stop me?) with a school teacher the other day, and he asked how I kept track of what I was doing, especially as I might be researching one book, writing another and putting together a proposal for a third all at the same time.

Writers have many different ways of keeping stuff organized, from the traditional big notebooks to high tech databases. I use a compromise between the two - a high tech notebook, namely Microsoft's OneNote software. For me this has proved ideal. You can use as much structure as you want in terms of different tabs and sections... but then you can just pour bits and pieces onto a page wherever you want it. Text notes, pictures, web links - all slapped on as you would in a paper notebook, but with the advantage that notes are searchable, pictures can be pasted back elsewhere and weblinks are live. I also embed copies of documents, up to and including full manuscripts, so everything is kept in one place. Oh and checklists - it does great checklists.

It might not work for everyone, but for me it has been absolutely brilliant. You can find out more at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com - worth taking a look.

Comments

  1. Great Blog, Brian.

    I found it very interesting and I love the room you work in.

    Best wishes,

    Annie

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, Annie. I love it too - shame we're selling the house!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh no! Can I just have your writing room please....

    Good luck and best wishes,

    Annie

    ReplyDelete
  4. You can have the writing room free! All you need to do is buy the rest of the house...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense