>>15957
Laconic though it be, it ain't wrong.
>>15955
Depends on the kind of writer you are. Outliner writers may consider all those tools a godsend. Discovery writers find it constraining. I favor Michael Crichton's take on computer aided whatever software. At best it may aid you, but it may not do even that. What software cannot do is to do the writing for you.
"Books aren't written - they're rewritten. Including your own. It is one of the hardest things to accept, especially after the seventh rewrite hasn't quite done it." –Michael Crichton
From an organizational standpoint, one of my favorite writing anecdotes was from Gore Vidal on his last successful attempt to write a murder mystery. "Halfway through the last one I forgot who the murderer was and had to find a substitute." It worked for him. So much for organization.
I would suggest you learn a bit about typesetting or, in today's world, web page design. The point is not to become a typesetter. The point is to learn what you should not be spending time on. Writing is not typesetting.
Grammar checkers won't teach you grammar. The traditional fuckup detector is to pay someone else to look at your writing, or being blessed with a professional editor. Leaving your work sit for a month and coming back to give it a read can do wonders in a pinch.
I use Emacs. As an all encompassing monster of feature bloat on par with Microsoft Office it will try very hard to get in your way of writing. A blank page, cut, paste, spellcheck, and file save. That's the whole of the feature set I use from Emacs. To be fair, one may successfully use this method with any word processor. I like having a Mediawiki installation available as well. What organization I may apply (character notes, plot outline, reference artwork, etc) fits the wiki model. I also use an online grammar checker as a finished product first pass fuckup detector. It's OK, just not a maker of miracles. Miracles remain the domain of editors.
