Re: Value of technical writers - Sort Of.

[Tom <eagles -at- CONNECTION -dot- COM>]

Cam Whetstone wrote:

> Most just listen to the 'SME'
> and go from there.  If the SME is
> not such an E, and the SM is flawed in
> translation

And whose fault is that? The tech writer's fault?
Should she become an engineer first? From which
discipline? Electrical? What if her next job is
civil? Should she go back to school again? What if
the job after that involves writing proposals for
a mechanical contractor? Should she buy a gun and
shoot herself or spend her next six years in trade
school to become a plumber/refrig tech/HVAC
specialist to properly cover the bases?

> I feel we
> have lost the technical part of
> technical writing.  We have become
> editors.

Yeah, but earlier, you said:

> Today I feel like the technical writer
> is more of a writer than in the past.
> You don't need to have the
> technical skills and knowledge, you are
> provided with all the technical
> content by someone else.

So, which is it? Is it that today we are more
properly WRITERS with less need to be the
TECHNICAL EXPERTS we were in the past? Or was it
in the past that we were truly TECHNICAL writers?
You see, I don't think the words TECHNICAL and
WRITER are meant to be considered separately when
labelling our profession.

We convey technical information in writing. We
aren't necessarily technical experts on certain
subject matter who happen to be hired to convey
(in writing) how to use that product; that's not a
tech writer, but an SME who is told to write. As I
(and many others) understand it, we learn what we
need to learn of the technology to convey "how to
deal with it" to users. Period. Move on to next
project. Repeat process.

Being a technical expert on what you write doesn't
make you a writer. Being a writer makes you a
writer. Getting good SM from the E is a matter of
being a good interviewer and having an E who is an
E and not a pretender. If you're a good
interviewer and a good judge of people, in most
cases it will be easy to separate the Es from the
pretenders.
(It occurs to me that the third sentence above
sounds oddly like people in the sex trade talking
in code)

> A good editor makes all
> the difference in the world.

Absolutely. Just ask John Irving. But then again,
if you read his novels, you'll notice in his (and
to his) credit(s) he mentions that he routinely
checks with countless SMEs on a huge variety of
the subject matter that is discussed in his
novels - everything from WWII Austrian zoos to
pre-modern abortion techniques.

However, by Cam's definition, that makes John
Irving an editor and not a writer.

> My skill as a writer was minimal, but I
> recieved some good training, and it
> improved.  I am not Hemingway.

Hmmm... an economy with words is sometimes a good
thing, thus, Hemingway may have been a good tech
writer. Of course, he'd have to learn to read
schematics. <g>


> But are we really
> writers?  <snip>...

Grrr! Yes! Stop this existentialist Hamletesque
crap! <bg>

> there seems to be less
> and less call for someone who has the
> techincal skills and knowledge to
> work from schematics and drawings.

You have a skill for which there is a demand
(creating user docs from schematics). However,
that doesn't exclusively make you a writer and
relegate the remaining plebes who can't (easily)
read electrical/mechanical schematics to roles as
"mere" editors.

> I am not flaming anyone.  I just think
> the 'profession' has changed, and
> as a writer I have to change along with
> it--only I look back fondly at
> what once was.

While you may not have intended to flame, you have
succeeded brilliantly. By looking back fondly on
the days when writers were writers, you suggest
that those of us who don't read from the
schematics to come up with their SM are not
writers. This merely means you have/had the
luxury/loneliness of drawings as your SME while
the rest of us fortunately/unfortunately have to
deal with people.

And no offence taken, Cam. <g> Hope the same goes
for me.

Tom Eagles
eagles -at- connection -dot- com

... formerly a tech writer, but now I know I'm
only an editor. Sigh.
;-)

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