Scrivener LaTeX Users?

Just a quick question to learn if/how many Scrivener users have integrated their Scrivener document with LaTeX, including any of the many flavours, e.g. pdfLaTeX, XeTeX and LuaLaTeX.

With the new Lit&Lat writing app in beta testing, I’m curious if the Scrivener->LaTeX connection will be maintained for those of us who have found the power and utility of having Scrivener as an incredible frontend, that then opens up to the astonishing world of LaTeX. (Words don’t do LaTeX (or Scrivener for that matter) justice.)

Without such a connection, I’m toast. Pretty much all that I’ve created would be lost.

I’ve been sidelined for a few months with medical distractions, while I continue converting my code from pdfLaTeX to LuaLaTeX to address memory challenges. So apologies if posts here have already addressed my question(s).


Welcome back. I had been wondering what had happened to you. I don’t use LaTeX, but have been trying to get my head round Quarto and/or Typst, though other considerations have taken up my time and energy over the last few months.

Answer, fear not. The new App is not going to change things with Scrivener for the foreseeable future. It is aimed at people who don’t need the power features of Scrivener and who find Scrivener too complicated as a result. That’s how I read it!

From all that I have read, Scrivener is neither being dumbed down nor abandoned.


1 Like

For a many years I have used the LaTeX template provided in Scrivener with success. Like the format, TOC, and sometimes I create an index. The instructions are clear and concise. Only minor tweaks.

Thanks! Good to know.

After sailing (?) beyond my expiration date, I’ve been wondering if I should ‘cut bait’ and document the Styles I created so long ago for other Scrivener->LaTeX users to use. There isn’t a writing or editing session with Scrivener that I don’t use those Styles. A LOT.

Thing is, I’m not a trained coder. My guess is others could code a much better ‘Style engine’ than what I’ve created, to make it easier for others to then expand and embellish. Could be useful for non-LaTeX users as well. The Scrivener framework is SO powerful.

I’m curious as to what others are doing with Scrivener->LaTeX.


The Scrivener → LaTeX connection isn’t going anywhere.

We’ve said that the new application is substantially simpler. I can’t comment on details, but I would expect that people who rely on the Compile command’s more “advanced” features will most likely be more comfortable staying with Scrivener.

I suspect most people who use LaTeX directly are probably using the built-in template or modifications of it. I think fundamentally your styles are also an extension of this? Just as I did for Pandoc, Quarto and Typst, you could share a sample project with styles and section types applied that uses lorum ipsum text. As usual documentation is 95% of the work, and don’t underestimate how much work that is…


As others have noted, the new program isn’t changing anything for Scrivener users, so there is nothing to worry about there. It’s an entirely different program, like Scapple is.

As for the connection you speak of, for that to change it would take a fairly fundamental destruction of the compile system for that to happen—in so far as we are speaking of what the compiler can do to help us automate or avoid direct syntax as a general concept. Of course, at its most basic level LaTeX is just a typing convention, and one doesn’t need any features at all to use it other than a keyboard and a program that stores what you type. So of course what most are thinking of is what the compiler can do to do that typing for you. Styles, section layouts and other such tools are what make the LaTeX template work, and that’s it.

I made that template because it is a popular typesetting system, particularly in some fields, but we might expand that to other systems in the future as they mature.

The main thing to know is that there isn’t a single line of code in Scrivener that knows about LaTeX other than one check on launch that looks for latexmk (which if found, enables a MultiMarkdown → PDF convenience selection to the Compile For menu). The template is wholly responsible for that connection, and everything it does could be used to make another kind of format entirely, like XML-based output for DocBook, or ReStructuredText+Sphinx for Python documentation, Typst, Quarto as mentioned, etc.

So again, for that to stop working, Scrivener would have to, to some degree, stop being Scrivener—and its not going anywhere. In my opinion this is the best way for software to approach these kinds of formats. Unless it is very specificaly a “front end” for them, like LyX, it is better to provide a framework of tools that allow users to create formats, than to try and do all of that centrally with hard-coded assumptions (for example, using XeLaTeX instead of LuaLaTeX).

P.S. Nice to see you back. :slight_smile:


I’m using this combo to produce a curriculum, presently 8 or so a5-size textbooks of 50pp, based on a heavily-manipulated TeX template, (derived originally from Scrivener’s MMD>>LaTeX template, supplemented by code additions from Tex Stack Exchange and the helpful community there), compiled in XeTeX.

My textbooks are formatting-rich, with images and tables, chapter page headings, section headings, embedded pdfs (e.g. covers, frontpiece) etc. Be happy to upload a copy if helpful — is there a showcase section on the forum?


There isn’t a section specifically for that, but there are some tags for common things, like themes and templates that you can apply to the post that is meant to share materials.


Ok, thanks for clarifying that, Amber.

I’ve linked to an example here.


There is so much I’ve been able to do with Scrivener, not the least of which are the Scrivener Styles that I implemented years ago (See Scrivener Styles with LaTeX wish list from Nov 2022). I use the Scrivener Styles to implement LaTeX code from within Scrivener EVERY time I write anything using Scrivener to ultimately incorporate the work into my (Lua)LaTeX project.

Mid-year last year, I experienced a health issue that altered my life, and complicated my research in so many ways. I was waylaid in ways that prevented me from my research and writing. More importantly, the issues took me away from the Scrivener Styles I had developed. This (and early Alzheimers) unexpectedly caused me to actually forget what a few of the 150+ Styles do, bizarre as this may seem. I realized that my omission to document the Styles I developed has came back to haunt me.

I have two questions:

  1. Would others who use Scrivener as more than just a front-end to write LaTeX code be interested in using Scrivener Styles to transparently facilitate embellishing their LaTeX code from within Scrivener?

And if so:

  1. Is there an appropriate place on this Scrivener website where I might upload the Scrivener ‘code’ for the Scrivener Styles I’ve developed?

If the answer to both of the above questions is affirmative, then given my time constraints, I cannot commit to what timeframe I might accomplish such a task. I can, however, offer to add such a goal to my list of ToDos going forward.

Part of my incentive here is to not only share what I have with others, but once others start to learn how to perhaps add their own Styles, they may become far more creative than I, and possibly create new and improved ways to implement the many LaTeX functions that can be made available from within Scrivener.

Also as part of my incentive, I need to re-learn (and document) what I created some years ago.

I envision this as possibly a cooperative project, as others on occasions had questioned my terminology and what LaTeX functions I included. Something that might be addressed if we were to do this collectively. In such a case, what I have to upload would only serve as a starting point in the development of an expanded (and improved) basket of Scrivener Styles.


P.S. As I am dreadful at creating any user documentation, I am unable to vouch for how well I might be able to offer such for the Scrivener Styles I’ve created. Your mileage may vary …