Re: Conceit, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Competitio n (not-so-long)

[Jason Willebeek-LeMair <jlemair -at- ITEXCHSRV2 -dot- PHX -dot- MCD -dot- MOT -dot- COM>]

Like Eric, my degree was in a foreign language (Spanish).  I was not
even a typist.  It took a lot of mentoring, trial-and-error, and
learning to become a TW.

But, if you go back to the original "do not grow" post, I believe the
poster stated that "don't try....not unless they're really eager for it
AND willing to take some classes...Typists do not grow into technical
writers," which I agree with completely.  Nor do engineers, Spanish
majors, Stephen King, or the Pope -- not without the DESIRE or
WILLINGNESS to LEARN to be communicators.  Without that, they are just
typists, engineers, Popes, etc.  (Even Stephen King has to learn to chop
his word count a bit 8-) )

I had that desire, so did Eric, and so did the rest of  us on this list
who did earn a degree in technical communication or spurt from the womb
chunking information.

So, before we all pounce on the original poster for not being PC and
saying "Yes, anyone can automatically become a TW as a matter of
course," re-read the post and realize that the poster was saying that,
just because they can type, they are not automatically in the career
path for TWing; that you can't put in X number of years of typing and
expect to be a TW without putting in some learning time.

After all, just because I had an electronics kit as a kid does not make
me automatically eligible to design circuit boards.

Jason


> ----------
> From:         Eric J. Ray
> Reply To:     Eric J. Ray
> Sent:         Tuesday, August 11, 1998 6:50 AM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      Conceit, or,             How I Learned to Stop Worrying
> About Competition (long)
>
> From one contributor:
> >they don't already express themselves at least reasonably well in
> writing,
> >then no amount of training will turn them into worthwhile technical
> >writers even if they become technically competent.
>
> >I've encountered a sizeable belief among management that any college
> >graduate is able and qualified to be a tech writer. This is an
> assumption
> >that I suspect is in play here, and the assumption is wrong. Good
> >technical writing is an art that focuses on the representation of
> things
> >or actions in the real world as much as it is learning either
> grammatical
> >rules or software packages.
>
> And another:
> >As for training them to be tech writers, please don't try....not
> unless
> >they're really eager for it AND willing to take some classes. The
> last
> >thing our profession needs is more untrained typists who think that
> >because they can run spell-check and use a tool like Frame, they can
> be
> >tech writers. Typists do not "grow into technical writers."
>
> And from a letter to the editor in a professional publication,
> written by a regular contributor to this list:
> >...best technical writers are engineers and programmers who
> >not only know their business but also have enough brains and
> >patience to realize that it's their responsibility <SNIP> to tell
> >the rest of us how it works.
>
> Now, if I didn't know better, I'd suspect that quite a few
> tech writers are awfully worried about untrained, under qualified,
> not-yet-graduates-of-the-school-of-hard-knocks people
> coming in and taking their jobs.
>
> I'm, quite frankly, baffled at the people in this profession
> who, although they obviously entered the profession at
> some point with no experience (unless they were born
> with it), think that it's simply impossible for anyone _else_
> to just jump into this profession.
>
> I'm dumbfounded at the people who claim that only naturally
> good writers can be technical writers--and that there's no way
> to teach or learn effective communication.
>
> I'm astounded that professionals in a field that completely
> depends on the ability to learn quickly and well, could claim
> that it's impossible for anyone who doesn't have experience
> to gain professional competence in this field.
>
> What's my point? I don't see where so many people come to
> the conclusion that writing is a skill that people either have
> or they don't. I don't see why anyone in this profession would
> claim that people with non-technical-writing-related jobs
> (like, say, typists) cannot "grow into technical writers."
> I don't see how anyone could conclude that native talent
> is the one and only prerequisite for being a technical
> communicator.
>
> As Deborah put it in a quote in Contract
> Professional (this quote sparked a couple of belligerent letters
> to the editor, claiming that the quote bore no resemblance
> to reality):
>         "Anyone can be taught to write, edit, design,
>         and so on; however, none of these is important
>         unless the technical writer can assess the information
>         needed, gather it, and use it to meet the audience's
>         needs."
>
> From a letter to the editor, written by a former tech
> writer:
> >Deborah Ray's comments are dead wrong. Good writers--
> >and designers--have a gift they have worked hard to improve.
> >Even mediocre writers have a better than average writing
> >ability.
>
> To take these quotes to their logical extreme, anyone
> who already expresses themselves well in writing will,
> with adequate effort, succeed and improve as a technical
> writer. Anyone who doesn't have this "gift", who doesn't
> have background and experience, or who has the
> misfortune to be an "untrained typist" can just give it
> up. Enter Catch-22, tech writer's style.
>
> That's ridiculous.
>
> Let me assure you that there's nothing so difficult about
> technical communication that intelligent, motivated people
> cannot learn to be exceptional technical communicators.
> Yes, you need to express yourself well--but that can be
> learned. Yes, you need to have technical competence--but
> that can be learned too. Yes, you need to be able to
> present information for your audience effectively--and that
> too can be learned.
>
> Carefully note that I'm NOT saying that anyone who sits
> at a keyboard is a technical communicator, nor that
> everyone who claims to be a technical writer is a good
> one. But what I am saying is that ANY REASONABLY
> INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL can become an exceptional
> technical communicator, through hard work and
> being able to rise above the nay-sayers who seek to
> bar the doors to the profession, now that they're in it.
>
> Eric
> (By the way, in 1984 I was flipping burgers at McDonalds.
> My undergraduate degree is in German and Secondary
> Education with one computer-related class and no
> engineering classes. By the end of this year I'll have
> co-authored 11 computer books and more manuals,
> articles, white papers, and other materials than I have
> time to count. If I had known about and listened to the
> "technical communication as rocket science" contingent,
> there's no telling what I'd be doing now.)
>
>
> *********************************************************
> * Eric J. Ray, ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com, http://www.raycomm.com/
> * TECHWR-L Listowner, co-author _Mastering HTML 4.0_
> *   _HTML 4 for Dummies Quick Reference_, and others.
> * See our overhauled Web site at http://www.raycomm.com
>
> ======================================================================
> =====
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF
> TECHWR-L)
>
>
>

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=