Re: More evidence for why XyWrite is best

[Peter Evans peterev@xxxxxxxx]

I like XyWrite. I dislike Word. Both statements happen to be true, but
more importantly I've displayed my allegiances so you're all nodding
appreciatively.

Jaron Lanier:

>Yes, the automatic features [of Word] can be turned off, but
>that is so hard to do that entire Web pages exist just to
>explain how."

It's so easy to do that it's explained in a couple of pages of that
excellent book *Word 97 Annoyances*. If we dismiss as unreasonably
difficult anything that needs a couple of printed pages to explain, we're
really writing ourselves off as morons. Also, the disabling of this or
that "feature" is not that difficult to find by yourself in Word's menu
system, though I'll grant that using Word leaves a Xywrite user such as
myself in no mood to explore beyond the immediately obvious.

Entire web pages exist just to explain all sorts of things. (Think you
know how to lace your shoes? Think again: the American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, no less, has supplied "Lacing Techniques for Proper
Shoe Fit" at http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/pat_educ/lacing.htm ) So?

>To my mind, this demand that every writer conform to the ideals set by the
>software can be only bad. It stifles individuality and demands conformity,
>which are both essential to the field of creative writing.

Poppycock. If people are too dimwitted or timid to turn off or fiddle with
features or misfeatures of their software, their individuality is not being
stifled and conformity isn't being demanded of them.

Jaron Lanier is giving one of my favorite leisure activities, Word-bashing,
a bad name.

By contrast, let's look at the recommendations or requirements of the style
manuals: Chicago, MLA, APA, etc. Ah, perhaps I should be more precise, for
example *The Chicago Manual of Style*, 14th ed. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1993). Yes, they differ among themselves on the details of
"style" (MLA for example recommending "U Chicago P"), but I think all
demand a place of publication for every book, no matter how well known and
unambiguous its publisher--presumably to prevent any risk of confusing
Chicago's University of Chicago Press with Peoria's, Budapest's, or
Bamako's. So hundreds of thousands of earnest students and scholars
dutifully type out this "information" about (say) the University of Chicago
Press merely for "consistency" with rules that may indeed usefully
distinguish between (say) Pelican of Gretna, La., Pelican of Harmondsworth,
Middx. and perhaps other Pelicans besides. Result: much time-wasting by
authors hurriedly rushing to the library to look up, say, the nominal
primary location (Tampa? Miami? Gainesville? Tallahassee?) of the
University Press of Florida, unnecessarily bulky books, and a few more
trees slaughtered.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Peter Evans