Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Do writers use highlighting to clarify ideas in their work in progress?

+0
−0

In programming we often use syntax highlight in order to have a better picture of what the role of particular bits of code is (using different colours).

I wonder if writers do something similar - while writing a work-in-progress, using some unusual formatting (bold, italics, colors, etc.) in order to mark certain concepts and make ideas clearer during the writing process.

If you do, how do you do it?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/2526. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

2 answers

+1
−0

This is a terrible idea. If you, who wrote the damned thing, are having trouble telling characters apart, keeping track of scenes, identifying key ideas, reflect on how much more trouble your reader, whose only source of insight will be the black-on-white text, will have! Seriously, if things are that dense and confusing, time to back up and rethink what you're doing.

I'm a little skeptical even of ordinary organizational tools like time-lines and outlines. Again, how can the reader digest all this information and keep it in his head if the writer can't? The only reason I give them a pass is because the much greater time involved in the process of writing compared to that of reading.

Whenever I see a novel of fiction with a map, a family tree, or, God help us, a glossary, I'm strongly inclined to discard it unread. Although certainly fine novels have had these features (many people enjoyed the Lord Of The Rings books, which had maps; I, Claudius started with a tree of the Claudian family; later editions of A Clockwork Orange came with a nadsat dictionary) but I think those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

In general the reader's, and the the writer's, understanding of a work should come from the text. We are writers, not typographers, illustrators, genealogists, or cartographers, and we should be doing what we are (supposedly) best at.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2534. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

I mostly agree with Malvolio's first paragraph. I think color-coding might be useful in early drafts as you're settling pieces on the chessboard, but you should have each character's distinct voice very early on. You shouldn't allow yourself to use it as a crutch. You need to experience your writing as the reader does, as best you can.

@alexchenco, given the writing samples you've showed us here, I think for you it would be useful in the first or second draft to flag dialogue vs. narration, as Dale suggests, so you can balance your scenes better. But again, this is a crutch, and shouldn't be used later on as your drafts become more sophisticated.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »