Scrivener vs. Overleaf for a Technical Monograph

Hello,

I wrote my first book in Scrivener, and it was a mixed experience. I abandoned Scriverener for Word once the editing started because it was cumbersome to continually rewrite the editor’s comments back into Scrivener to keep the original file up to date.

I am currently writing a technical book that includes many equations. I know I can compile Scrivener to LaTeX, but the lack of a WYSIWYG interface for LaTeX equations is daunting.

It just seems that Overleaf would be the more straightforward solution, allowing me to focus on my writing. Avoiding the complexities of MMD, external packages, compilation, and other details is a big plus. Overleaf appears to manage these tasks more effectively than Scrivener.

If there were a simple and easy tutorial for Scrivener for this purpose, it might be enough, but I do not see any.

Has anyone written a large technical book with many equations in Scrivener? What would you recommend?

Thanks.

For LaTeX equations specifically, there are a number of third-party tools that can provide WYSIWYG interfaces for equation generation. You can then copy and paste the markup into Scrivener.

I haven’t used Overleaf and can’t comment on it specifically, but I’d rather have oral surgery without anesthesia than try to write a book-length project without Scrivener’s organizational tools.

3 Likes

Even just a free copy of LyX, which runs on all major (and minor, anyone still got an OS/2 installation kicking? :laughing: ) operating systems, has a serviceable equation editing GUI and the ability to copy and paste the result anywhere you need it. It might seem a bit much of a program for that one purpose, but you could use it without any learning really, as the equations toolbars are one click away, and once you’ve composed it in a dummy new file, you can very simply select the previewed equation, copy, and paste it as raw syntax elsewhere.

On the Scrivener side, there is the Non-Fiction LaTeX template, which would avoid having to learn Markdown as a middle layer, if that isn’t your thing. Let Overleaf handle the packages and rendering environments and all that, but use Scrivener to build the text—seems like a good combination to me, though I’ve never tried it myself.

1 Like

I agree for collaboration with Word users, the back and forth is a pain. I’ve used Overleaf for a large collaborative research grant. Collaborative features are nice, but organisational features are poor/non-existent. For structuring my thoughts, figures, and data analysis it is all ad-hoc and messy. Where I write most of the work, the cost of no-organisation is far greater than the cost of reintegrating comments from others IMO. But to each their own.

Tangentially, but you could consider Typst as an alterative to Overleaf by the way: https://typst.app/ — a much more beautiful and simple experience than legacy LaTeX, with many technical extensions for different fields of specialised layout.

For Scrivener use, as @AmberV mentioned the non-fiction LaTeX template works well I think. For equations, I personally love (and prefer) an online editor where I can reuse equations across projects and apps:

I set up an equation, organise them in themes and save it then copy when necessary (I’m a Biologist so equations are not my main thing however). Having a ‘repository’ of my equations is great.

1 Like

Thanks everyone. And thanks for your MMD work, Amber.

Just a quick update for those with similar goals.

I found that using the MultiMarkdown (MMD) > Pandoc > DOCX template can compile LaTeX equations and tables with just a few unintuitive tricks. I can use it in a way very similar to the normal template with some ugly code for equations.

If Scrivener tried to make using MMD more intuitive or had better onboarding, it could be really useful. But, for writers who just want to write, it has a learning curve.

Another advantage of MMD over the regular Scrivener templates is that it automatically creates a table of contents and makes formatting easier and more consistent. A lack of those was one of the things that always annoyed me about the standard template.

I don’t want to complicate the task of writing, and getting WYSIWYG to work seems too distracting, although I’m unsure why there isn’t a solution that is as easy to use as Word. I remember Scientific Word tried, and LyX kind of does it, but is pretty ugly. Overleaf is probably the closest solution, but it lacks some of the advantages of Scrivener.

Here are some things I had to figure out to use MMD in case it might help others:

  1. You can use hash marks to format headers (# for part, ## for chapter, ### for section, etc.), which works nicely with the automatic table of contents. It is also great for professional editors and typesetters, enabling them to identify levels easily.

  2. Be cautious about special characters, such as ampersands, which must be escaped with backslashes (\&).

  3. Scrivener’s Code Span and Code Block styles don’t seem to work, but if you begin and end your code block with three backticks (```), the code will render correctly. Beware of autocorrect changing the characters to something more topographically appealing (e.g., curly apostrophes). Similarly, using three dashes (---) frequently autocorrects to an em-dash.

  4. The recommended MMD table template doesn’t seem to work, but this formatting does

| Participants | $t_{1}$ | $t_{2}$ | $\cdots$ | $time_{m}$ |
|--------------|---------|---------|----------|---------|
| $w_{1}$ | 1 | 0 | $\cdots$ | 1 |

  1. If you want to use ChatGPT to write LaTeX for you, this prompt seems to work:

Task: Convert the description below into Multi Markdown that will compile in Scrivener 3 → Pandoc → DOCX without any Pandoc warnings.
Requirements (please follow strictly):
Use only Pandoc-supported LaTeX in math blocks.
No starred control sequences (*), \bigl/\Bigr, \displaystyle, custom macros, etc.
Wrap display equations in $ … $ so Word renders native equations.
Start the file with a Title: metadata line.
Use normal Unicode punctuation (–, —, …).
Return only the finished MMD inside a fenced code block; no extra commentary.
Content to convert:

  1. I don’t think there’s any easy way to control the page size and margins, e.g., format as a standard 6x9 book.

I hope this helps someone.

1 Like

I’ve been using this prompt instead:

Produce the output in simple multimarkdown with any LaTeX formulas enclosed in $...$ , formula blocks enclosed in $$..$$ and code enclosed in ```...``` . Any tables should use simple pipe format. Produce a “.md” file for download.