[justin66]

> He could've just as well used a typewriter - literally just writing doesn't require a computer at all.

That's completely silly and strange.

One thing about retrocomputing that is hinted at in the article, and is genuinely interesting, is that people used to pay as much as you might pay for a car to get a computer that could, for example, run WordStar. For those who write for a living, the productivity boost over something like an electric typewriter was that big.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period.

[qayxc]

> I'm not trying to be offensive, but I am guessing you've either never written much with an electric typewriter, such that you would be capable of making the comparison to writing (and more importantly - revising and editing!) with a word processor, or you've never written much period.

Right back at you - in fact electronic typewriters came with a similar feature set to that of early word processing programs (of the 8-bit era): from monitor connections to integrated digital storage to the ability to run programs.

Modern electronic typewriters have error correction buffers, too.

Some authors (and that's who we're talking about here!) prefer typewriters for other reasons, too: seeing their work directly on paper and not having to worry about any kind of leaks (unless someone breaks into their house).

With authors in particular, what matters just as much - if not more - than just typing their work down, is making notes and keeping track of story arcs, characters, world-building, etc.

A word processing program doesn't help with that and this requires either specialised software or a different workflow altogether that doesn't benefit from traditional word processing functionality anyway.

[justin66]

I actually used some of the hardware you must be referring to. I never found any of it to be very good at all, and I grew up with access to both 8-bit (and later, 16-bit and 32-bit) computers and a few electronic typewriters. (contrariwise, I do have fond memories of the IBM Selectric, as does anyone who learned to touch type on one, I'm sure)

But I am utterly interested in what typewriter model you'd nominate as equal to the DOS + WordStar/Word/Sprint + PC combo of its era! If it's hardware you used and liked for some reason, that'd be something to hear about... not a lot of people reminisce about that hardware. (because it was horrible... ahem)

[qayxc]

It depends entirely on personal preferences.

You might find it baffling because some authors were early adopters of word processors and PCs in general, but others were not and some prefer to not use computers to this day.

I don't argue that there is no use for word processors in writing, what I'm (obviously very poorly) trying to communicate is that productivity (measured by what exactly in this context?) doesn't depend on using these tools.

Quentin Tarantino once told Reuters that he prefers to use pens and a notebook (the paper kind). Similarly with Joyce Carol Oates:

> I always sketch out material “by hand.” Why is this so unusual? Every writer has written “by hand” until relatively recent times. Writing is a consequence of thinking, planning, dreaming — this is the process that results in “writing,” rather than the way in which the writing is recorded. [1]

Creativity doesn't seem to suffer when not using a PC.

Neil Gaiman shares this sentiment [2], so even quality sci-fi doesn't require much tech.

Danielle Steel managed to write 179 books without using a computer [3] - quantity isn't it either.

George Clooney apparently has his writing partner do the typing as he himself prefers to write everything out by hand as well:

> I'm probably the least computer literate writer there is... Literally when I cut and paste, I cut pages and tape them together. [4]

So the superiority of word processing software simply doesn't materialise for everyone who's in the business of writing.

Writing is, after all, first and foremost a creative process and everyone has a different approach to get the most out of their creativity. The tools used are the least important part in determining whether that productive (e.g. successful) or not.

For some (including me, most of the time) technology is a welcome helper and improvement, while others do just fine without.

[1] https://www.salon.com/2012/09/13/joyce_carol_oates_romneys_g...

[2] https://www.verbaltovisual.com/neil-gaiman-on-writing/

[3] https://www.glamour.com/story/danielle-steel-books-interview

[4] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1wdzwq/hello_reddit_ge...

[justin66]

I see what you mean! I thought you were strictly arguing a point about word processor hardware.

It’s true enough that some fairly productive authors use longhand. I believe Neal Stephenson and Joe Haldeman both use fountain pens and good paper. I think Stephenson pointed out that the best paper money can buy will never be a ruinously expensive luxury for an author. People just cannot write that fast.

I think if I were to try this it would be to test myself, to see if I could avoid the habit of constant, on the fly revision... but I’ve never loved my own handwriting.