Finally! A Simple, Flexible, Robust Integrated Writing System: Three Apps, Minimal Switching

A Unified Writing Workflow: Scrivener, Pages, and DEVONthink

After considerable evaluation of writing applications over recent months, I have settled on what I believe is an optimal workflow for sustained professional and personal writing. This system addresses the distinct demands of book-length manuscripts, ongoing article series, formal presentations, and research integration.

The Writing Context

My work encompasses several categories of writing, each with particular requirements. I am completing a 33-chapter nonfiction book that integrates theory with practical guidance. I write monthly blog articles for professional audiences, prepare educational materials in thematic series, and deliver speeches requiring precise formatting for oral presentation. Additionally, I produce formal reports and professional correspondence. All of this writing involves extensive footnoting, occasional tables and images, and frequent cross-referencing between current projects and previous work.

The Three-Application Solution

The workflow centers on three applications, each serving a distinct purpose without redundancy.

Scrivener manages the book manuscript exclusively. Its organizational structure handles 33 chapters with research files, notes, and outline tools designed specifically for long-form projects. The compile feature will export a properly formatted document to Atticus, which serves as the bridge to Amazon publishing. Scrivener remains on the MacBook Pro, where its interface excels. On the iPad, I write chapter text in Apple Notes or Pages, then paste into Scrivener later using match style.

Pages handles all other writing. Blog articles, educational materials, speeches, reports, and correspondence are composed directly in Pages. The application provides native footnote support, precise visual formatting for speeches, and clean export to PDF or direct copy-paste to web platforms like Squarespace. Pages works identically on iPad and MacBook Pro with seamless iCloud sync. Finished documents remain in Pages format within organized Finder folders.

DEVONthink functions as the unified library for both research and writing. I maintain two databases. The research database archives source materials, journal articles, and reference documents. The writing database indexes my Finder folders containing all Pages documents. DEVONthink monitors these indexed folders continuously. Any changes made to Pages documents, whether opened from DEVONthink or directly in Finder, appear automatically in the index without manual export or import. I can navigate through articles using arrow keys with instant preview in the reading pane, exactly as one would in a dedicated writing application. Tags and smart groups provide organizational flexibility beyond simple folder hierarchies.

Cross-Database Linking and Graph Inspector

DEVONthink item links connect research sources to finished writing. When composing an article on a complex topic, I insert item links to source papers in my research database. When preparing a speech, I link to previous articles or educational materials in my writing database. These connections create a web of related content across both databases, making it simple to trace the development of ideas from initial research through multiple published pieces.

DEVONthink 4 introduces the Graph Inspector, which visualizes these connections graphically, similar to Obsidian’s graph feature. The Graph Inspector displays documents as nodes with lines representing the links between them. This visualization reveals patterns in how research sources connect to finished writing, how articles relate to one another thematically, and where ideas have developed across multiple projects. The graph responds interactively, allowing exploration of connection pathways and discovery of related materials that might otherwise remain hidden in folder hierarchies.

Practical Benefits

This system eliminates application-switching friction during active writing. I write blog articles, educational materials, and speeches in Pages without interruption. When I need to reference previous work, I switch to DEVONthink, navigate to the relevant document, preview the content, and copy what I need. The document opens in Pages if editing is required, with changes automatically reflected in the DEVONthink index.

There is no format conversion cycle. Everything written in Pages stays in Pages. No markdown export, no DOCX review, no formatting cleanup. Speeches remain formatted exactly as needed for delivery. Articles paste cleanly into Squarespace with minimal heading correction.

The workflow accommodates content reuse naturally. Material from one article appears in speeches. Blog content informs educational materials. Sections of articles migrate into book chapters. DEVONthink makes locating and referencing this material efficient through full-text search, tagging, and smart groups organized by theme or topic.

Version history and backup occur through iCloud sync for active documents, with Backblaze providing continuous backup and periodic manual exports to Google Drive for redundancy. DEVONthink archives both current writing and research with its own internal backup systems.

The system scales appropriately for the future. When the book is complete, blog writing and educational preparation continue in Pages with DEVONthink providing the library infrastructure. The research database remains available for continued writing and teaching. No subscriptions expire. No proprietary formats require migration.

This workflow emerged from extensive testing of alternatives, including Ulysses, Obsidian, and various combinations of applications. The Scrivener-Pages-DEVONthink triad provides superior manuscript management for long projects, native formatting for presentations and correspondence, and unified reference capability for both research and finished writing. The system minimizes friction, eliminates redundant export cycles, and leverages applications that excel at their specific tasks without forcing any single tool to serve purposes beyond its design.

For those managing similar writing demands across multiple genres with extensive research integration, this approach merits consideration.

8 Likes

I’m curious why you continue to choose Scrivener over Ulysses. Is it mainly to avoid the subscription model, or do you still find Ulysses’ cloud sync unreliable? I have both and personally prefer Ulysses, though I don’t write nearly as much as you do.

They are both excellent, for different reasons. Frankly, I have gone back and forth between them but have kept the content of the book up to date in both. Several factors convinced me to remain with Scrivener over Ulysses.

Ulysses syncing did not factor into my decision. Since the last several updates, Ulysses sync has been fast and rock solid. The subscription model is a consideration, but not the primary one. Here is why, in no particular order, I am staying with Scrivener for the book:

  • I have reversed course by using the MacBook Pro as my primary computer and the iPad as a complementary device. I was striving mightily to use the iPad as my primary device. It is close, and it can be done, but relying on the iPad introduced unproductive friction and complexity, especially for large complex projects with footnotes and extensive citations. The MacBook Pro simply works better.
  • Given my decision to make the MacBook Pro my primary computer, Scrivener is the superior application for large books. Mine will be somewhere around thirty-three rather long chapters with extensive citations. Scrivener’s outlining, Scrivenings, Snapshot, research folder, and revision tracking are extremely helpful for projects of this scale. I dislike Scrivener’s mobile application, but when on the iPad, for example when traveling, I compose text in another application and copy it into Scrivener.
  • I find Scrivener’s compiling almost inscrutable, but I will export to Atticus for final book formatting.
  • I can use Scapple with Scrivener for visual planning.
  • Scrivener has a very active and helpful forum.
  • I no longer want to fix formatting to meet my needs and preferences after exporting from Ulysses. That just adds more work.

Ulysses remains an elegant and capable application, but for a complex manuscript requiring extensive organizational scaffolding, Scrivener proves indispensable. For other writing tasks, I use Pages.

1 Like

Had never thought of using Pages for writing blog articles!
Can you share more details about how you organize the blog section in Devonthink, mainly how you manage published vs unpublished folders

You will want to test this for your blog platform. Copying and pasting from Pages to Squarespace works fine. I only have to format blog headings. This may not work as well on other platforms like Wordpress.

I keep it simple: Drafts, Ideas, Published.

1 Like

Thank you for explaining. My plan was always to switch to Vellum for formatting once a project got big, but Scrivener’s outlining and research features seem too good to ignore. I’ll definitely give it another try.

By the way, while I rarely contribute to the forum, I always read your posts. They are wonderful, no matter the subject.

4 Likes

That is very kind of you, humbled. :pray:t2:

I don’t have the technical expertise that so many on this forum have, so if I ever say anything helpful, I’m grateful. I learn far more than I contribute.

So what format are you formatting to? PDF, epub?

And how do you like Atticus? I have looked at it, but never tried it. Currently, I compile to epub and then use Sigil to fix things up.

@Bmosbacker – So, you’ve explained your software workflow, but I’ve got a question: which MacBookPro do you have and why do you have the MBP over the Air for writing? Honest question! Reviews I’ve seen in YouTube all go for the Pro, but they also all do video production. Is it the extra inch in the display or what?

I’m still in the drafting phase of the book, but I expect to format it for Amazon Kindle. As to Atticus, I have messed around with Atticus, and I also have Vellum. I have not yet finalized a project with either (my prior published works were formatted with Word and sent directly to the publisher). The main point I was making is that I will need to rely on Atticus (or Vellum), because I find Scrivener’s Compile feature to be complex and confusing. :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

I use the Pro because of screen size and screen quality and the ports. I would seriously consider the 15" Air if it ever gets an OLED display, which is unlikely anytime in the near future. I’m hearing that new MBPs will have OLED, which is what I’ll upgrade to. I’ve been spoiled by the M4 13" iPad display. :slightly_smiling_face:

Addendum: I just realized I failed to tell you what MBP I use. I have an M4 14" MBP.

2 Likes

I assume you never got into Markdown. I primarily use Obsidian for my database of notes and research materials. It has a graph view similar to what you showed above. Have you ever considered Obsidian over Devonthink?

I have used Markdown extensively. I have iA Writer, Drafts, Ulysses, and I used Obsidian several times for extended periods. But, I have largely moved away from Markdown and from Obsidian. My reasons, in no particular order:

I moved away from Markdown because:

  • It added additional steps to my writing. I wrote and then had to render and send the article to another app because my use required, or I desired, a more refined format.
  • Markdown is fine if your writing consists of relatively simple notes and articles and perhaps only the occasional citation and link. However, my articles tend to be 2-5 pages in length with footnotes, links, and the occasional table and/ or image. Markdown is not ideal for that type of writing.
  • Markdown comes in many different flavors and ends up rendered differently depending on the app.
  • Markdown creates visual clutter that distracts from writing.

Why I use DEVONthink instead of Obsidian:

  • I don’t want to depend on plugins (nor do I want to manage them) for my workflow.

  • The mobile app, while improved, is not to my liking.

  • I prefer native apps.

  • DT has a good Markdown editor, but in addition, one can create different types of notes.
    CleanShot 2026-01-11 at 08.10.27@2x

  • DT has an excellent quick entry menu bar icon and keyboard shortcut for creating a note or capturing web content.

  • DT now has a graph inspector (view).

  • DT can convert files into a lot of different formats:

  • DT’s OCR and search are excellent.

  • DT’s wikilinks feature is as good as Obsidian’s.

  • DT’s Smart Groups are excellent.

  • DT comes with scripts that I could never create on my own.

  • DT has a script for importing and archiving my Apple Notes.

  • DT has a superb templating system

…and I could go on. :slightly_smiling_face:

For my purposes, DEVONthink is the right tool. Obsidian will be better for others. The same goes for Markdown. Markdown does not offer me anything I need and creates additional work and friction.

3 Likes

Yeah, my writing is nothing like yours. I mostly write notes for myself and the occasional document for work. Devonthink does sound like the better option for what you’re doing, but I think it would be overkill for my needs.

The Obsidian mobile app is terrible, I mostly use it just to view notes on the go. If I need to edit a note, I use iA Writer which is a much better Markdown editor. So that is a bit clunky having one app to organize and another to edit.

2 Likes