TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Laura Winkelspecht, briefly delurking to deliver a few cogent comments,
cogently commented <g> that: <<When I edit word choice or rewrite a
sentence, I often use "consider..." It can take some of the sting out, and
it is still giving the writer a choice.>>
Which raises an important point. If you're in the position of being able to
dictate changes to the writer being edited, then you have considerably more
leeway to impose your changes without having to explain them; you'll still
work more effectively with your authors if you negotiate and explain, but
you don't really _have_ to do this. If, like most of us, you have to
negotiate changes, then it's important to develop good persuasive skills and
a collaborative, consensual relationshiop with authors since you can't
impose your choices on them. These two situations represent the extremes of
editorial power (manager-editor vs. peer editor), but there are obviously
many intermediate situations; where I work, for example, our deal is
currently that authors must come see me to discuss any changes they disagree
with, but can accept all other changes with no discussion. This builds a
more collaborative approach, particularly since I'm willing to work with an
author to help them come up with their own solution, which we can then adopt
rather than simply browbeating them into accepting my suggestion. One
advantage of commenting on why you made a change is that this also serves an
educational role; authors may not always learn quickly, but they do (after
enough exposures to my rationale) begin to avoid repeating certain types of
mistake, and that makes them better writers and lets me concentrate on other
problems.
<<When someone is editing my stuff, I try not to take it personally, and I
hope others do the same. The editor is just trying to make the doc better.
That serves my interests as well.>>
Amen. I've become a much better writer by paying attention to several
skilled editors who have greatly improved my writing over the years. (A tip
of the hat to Connie Plexman, John Scarratt, Maurice Martin, Ed Rutkowski,
and Deb Ray.) Moreover, paying attention to my own occasional "are you
nuts???" reactions to edits have taught me a great deal of empathy for those
whom I edit. After all, it's hard for me to wallow in and enjoy my own
emotional responses if I don't acknowledge the rights of my own authors to
feel the same way. Given how heavily I edit, they're occasionally
(frequently!) going to be responding to my work on a more than purely
logical level.
--Geoff Hart, FERIC, Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
"User's advocate" online monthly at
www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/usersadvocate.html
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
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.
