Pseudowriters

["Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- att -dot- net>]

>
>I disagree. This is a waste of time. Conventions and standards only have
>meaning to a team of tech writers. Other people (like engineers) could care
>less about standards. A lone writer should do this in his/her head.
>

Both conventions and standards are important to your audience, although
pseudowriters think otherwise. It shows rather plainly in the writing of
pseudowriters, and in their speech. They often lecture others about what it
takes to be a good technical writer, but examination of the work they offer
shows they are pseudowriters. They stopped learning when they learned the
first thing about writing. That's all they know, and their work shows it.

>
>> The main reason THIS lone writer was hired was to make consistent the
writing
>> at
>> our site.
>> My managers WANT me to make plans, and I just finished our style guide.
>> They'll be
>> using this
>> as a measure of my future progress.
>
>Companies use "writers" in many different ways. If all you're doing is
making
>style guides and enforcing standards, you're not a "writer".  This is the
job
>of an editor or project coordinator. *Writers* write documents based on
>information they acquire.  They don't just enforce standards.
>

Real writers write documents based on what their audiences need.
Pseudowriters think they are "writing documents". Pseudowriters think only
of themselves and attempt to convince anyone with the misfortune of being
within earshot that they are good writers. Pseudowriters are profoundly
insecure and work out their neuroses by trying to impress authentic writers.


>> > Find a way
>> > to work inside existing patterns first.  Showing up and demanding
everybody
>> > start conforming to some arbitrary documentation process is a great way
to
>> get
>> > yourself ignored and shoved in a corner (and possibly fired).
>>
>> Many writers are hired to establish the process, and will be "possibly"
fired
>> if
>> they don't.
>
>This is a misuse, then, of the term "writer."  As I said, "writers" don't
just
>implement processes and enforce standards.  If a place hired me and told me
I
>would be *writing* and then demanded I do the work of an administrative
>assistant, I'd quit long before they could fire me.
>

Pseudowriters think editors do the work of administrative assistants and
have disdain for the conventions and standards that promote audience
comprehension and retention of information. Pseudowriters refuse to subject
themselves to anything but their own egos. There is no real desire to
communicate, so pseudowriters manage to make a living by "writing documents"
of low quality instead of communicating facts and ideas using methods,
conventions, and standards that are recognized as effective in promoting
reader understanding and retention.


>*Writers* (note the emphasis) are hired to *produce documentation*.  The
use of
>standards, style guides, and tools are incidental to that goal.
>

Pseudowriters think writers are hired to "produce documentation". Real
writers know writers are hired to communicate a message to an audience.
Pseudowriters' last thought is of the audience, and it shows in their work.

>*Editors* or *project coordinators* are hired to enforce standards and
>implement style guides.
>

Editors clean up after pseudowriters. They rewrite the often laughable
"document" that pseudowriters produce.


>This is why the term *technical writer* is so misused these days. Some
people
>call themselves writers, when in fact they are really just editors. This is
not
>to diminish the need and value of editors, but writing is NOT the same as
>editing.  A good writer must be BOTH capable at producing content AND
editing
>that content.  An editor merely needs to be able to edit content.
>

Pseudowriters think editors don't need to write. Pseudowriters think that
editors don't need to rewrite the product that pseudowriters spew forth.
Sadly, most pseudowriters don't have editors, so much of what is called
"documentation" is really pseudodocumentation, written by pseudowriters.


>If all you do is edit content and enforce standards - you are NOT a writer.

When pseudowriters who ignore standards and find themselves well above the
need for conventions create a product, it is often puerile nonsense that
needs rewriting. Content written by pseudowriters is bad and needs a lot of
rewriting. Pseudowriters are also known for their lack of ability to design
a document and plan its contents. Editors clean up after all of this.


>
>> > 3. DO NOT confuse the idealistic theories of books (like Ms. Hackos'
book)
>> with
>> > the harsh realities of everyday writing.  The world is not a
well-ordered
>> > place. People resist change and order unless there is a clean path to
>> success.
>>
>> Which often requires a plan...
>
>No, it requires the skill and ability to take the good ideas from books and
>find realistic ways to implement them. Planning merely gives others some
sense
>of what you are doing. If you don't have the skill to implement things and
get
>the job done - it doesn't matter how much you plan.
>

If you can't plan ahead, you're a pseudowriter. If you can't honor
conventions and standards, you're a pseudowriter. If you eschew methodology
because you are afraid you can't operate within its confines, you are also a
pseudowriter. If you don't plan your documents, you're a pseudowriter. If
you don't plan what you're going to say and when you're going to say it,
you're a pseudowriter. But if you haven't got an editor, you probably won't
ever be told the truth.

>
>> > Tech writers are judged by the outside world on their ability to
*produce*
>> > insightful, useful, and technically accurate documents.
>>
>> Which requires planning and consistency.
>
>Again, this is a very small piece of the pie. Tantamount to saying that
flying
>to the moon requires clean water and hydrogen. Well, yes - but that is only
one
>chunk of a very large pie.
>
>The overriding issue is one of skill. Can a person accurately and
effectively
>digest complex ideas to produce documentation. Planning and structure are a
>small part of that. The real emphasis lies inside the brain of the writer
who
>is willing and able to handle complex problem solving.
>

The task is not "producing documentation". That is the passive, sickly view
of what we do. That is the attitude of the pseudowriter, who can think only
of himself. The question is not whether the person can "digest complex ideas
to produce documentation."  The idea, which seems very strange to
pseudowriters, is to communicate that knowledge to other people.

>Too many writers seem to think that if they organize things and make an
>exquisite plan - BOOM - their job is done. This isn't true. One can make
art
>out dung - but do your really want it in your house?
>

I don't believe any writer would ever say that. Nope, you must be making
that up.


>Likewise, one can organize meaningless words into meaningless structure
using a
>meaningless plan and make - you got it - meaningless documents.
>

Pseudowriters think that the plans of others are meaningless, and they
cannot imagine that a clear-headed person might come up with a clear-headed
plan and write a document that will be helpful to its audience.
Pseudowriters can't think too clearly, so they assume everyone else's plans
are as meaningless as their own would be if they tried to make them.


>Planning and consistency are not the key to successful writing.

Pseudowriters think planning and consistency are "not the key". In fact,
they are the key. They are the source of all else that a writer does.
Without a plan, pseudowriters come up with gibberish. What's truly sad is
that they think their documents are of high quality. Real writers, however,
see immediately that they were created by pseudowriters, who can use
language no better than they can plan or be considerate of their audience.

>
>
>> Anyone else here glad they don't work for Andrew?
>
>I am sure a lot of writers could not stand the environment at my firm. I
only
>hire a few writers a year and when I do, I pick the best of the best. We
pay
>well and the expectation is very high.  Bureaucrats and people who want to
>build little empires don't survive at my firm. But capable, problem-solving
>writers who want to learn cool new technologies and do a wide variety of
>different work fair very well. At my firm, writers have A LOT of authority
over
>their own work - but that comes with accountability. I don't care how they
get
>the work done, as long as it makes the client happy.  If the client wants
9000
>pages of planning and is willing to pay for it, then we snap our heels and
do
>it.  But most our clients don't want that. They just want good docs from
>technical savvy writers.
>

The last concern of a pseudowriter is communicating with the audience. Toys
are important, but quality writing based on planning isn't a priority.

Bonnie Granat
http://home.att.net/~bgranat




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY.
http://www.weisner.com/training/dreamweaver_help.htm or 800-646-9989.

Take XML and Tech Writing courses online!  Our instructor-led courses
(4-6 hrs/wk) give you "hands on" experience at your convenience. STC members
get 20% off!  http://www.online-learning.com/index.html.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.