Ross A. Laird

Following on the heels of today's conversation in class:

In a recent workshop on the materials and tools of writing, I asked the group to indicate which method they used to input text on a computer. Almost everyone used Microsoft Word — with the exception of a sole advocate for the OpenOffice word processor (which is better than Word by far, and which uses the open source XML file format).

This homogenization of word processing, whether on the Mac or PC, inevitably delivers a consistent — and therefore conformist — experience to the act of typing on screen. The method of input unquestionably influences the output. By way of subtle cues and imagery (icons, menus, procedures), word processors inculcate a particular type of consciousness. Works of writing from different authors but produced on the same word processor will be more similar than those produced using separate tools. The differences will be subtle but not inconsequential.

Moreover, all word processors introduce a level of aesthetic abstraction that is perhaps not useful to the writing process. Word processors encourage us to fiddle with fonts and spacing, with countless page layout options, with the visual aspect of work that in its initial stages should be primarily visceral.

And word processors are ergonomically inefficient. The mouse, which requires the full use of one arm, is a primary tool in word processors, as are menus and keystrokes assigned for mnemonic rather than ergonomic functions (control-S to save, for example, requires the removal of the left hand from the home row of the keyboard). As I begin to understand that my persistent arthritic aches are essentially caused by mouse and keyboard use, ergonomics becomes a core consideration.

Now, to alternatives and solutions. Take a look at Bram Moolenaar’s seven habits of effective text editing. Learn to reduce the number and increase the efficiency of the keystrokes you make. Wean yourself from the mouse. And notice that Bram uses vim, one of the most robust and efficient text editors available (Bram is Vim’s main creator). Vim was originally designed for the Unix operating system, but its current version is used mostly by Linux users (like me; I use Ubuntu Linux). However, cream is a vim equivalent for Windows. Vim is cryptic, it has a steep learning curve, and some of its functions are improbably arcane. In this sense it mirrors the writing process — unlike word processors, which blanket that process, covering it with neat type.

Although Vim and other minimalist tools such as BBEdit (for the Mac) and Emacs (which I use) are employed mostly by programmers, writers are increasingly recognizing the advantages of such tools: less is more (see Charlie Dickinson’s essay on Vi).

Neal Stephenson (author of Cryptonomicon) puts it nicely:

In its beginnings and its evolution, the act of writing is about the bare bones, the essential, the elemental. Use a tool that delivers, rather than distracts, from that wonderful trajectory.