Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5042
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5042
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Scrivener does have a Comment or Sticky-Note function. You can also use a Highlight to mark big swathes of text, change the color of inserted copy, and Strike-Through to cross things out.

As John Smithers wisely points out, Scrivener isn't just for writing the draft. It also allows you to gather notes, keep audio and video with your story, create outlines, and cross-link your ideas (rather like a mind-map, as I understand it). So if you give your Scrivener file to an editor, you aren't just handing over the file with the story, you're handing over the entire file cabinet.

As a writer, however, I would _never_ turn over my sole original file to an editor, and as an editor, I would never expect to receive such a file from a writer. It's partly because that's the original, and partly because the editor just doesn't need all the slush material. The editor's job is to polish the final product, not to fact-check the universe. So while an editor _can_ work in Scrivener using commenting and markup tools which are similar to Word's, there isn't a compelling reason to do so. (Other than hating Microsoft, which I totally get.)

When I have handed off my work for editing, I have exported as Word (you could also print to PDF) and the editor has used Word's markup tools for comments and corrections. I then manually move those changes to my Scrivener document, because as the writer, I get the final say about what changes do and don't get made. It is a little tedious, I agree, and if the writer really felt strongly about it, you could make editing in Scrivener work. It's not a workflow I'd recommend, though.

Original score: 13