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.
These thoughts were spawned by the discussion involving pregnancy and disability and
the apologies that have flowed from that.
It is interesting to watch the interaction between writers and readers. One writer
makes a comment to the effect that while she may be pregnant she is not disabled,
adding a disclaimer that she does not INTEND to denegrate anyone with a disability.
Here the writer clearly makes her point and clearly states where her intentions do,
and do not, lie in making her statement.
Yet offense is taken. Not only is offense taken, someone else reading the
interchange takes offense that offense was taken in the first (or second) place. I
would argue, as a point of logic (which may be a mistake), that where offense is not
intended offense is not given; however, it is always possible for offense to be
taken whether it was given or not. The reader in this case took offense that was not
given, and another reader took offense at that, again where offense was not intended
(though that was implicit rather than explicit).
I'm seeing all this as a complex dynamic in the writer/reader interface, which
sounds very complicated and scholarly. We write as if the writer controls the
interface. As writer, if I but make my intention clear the reader will understand.
We seem to ignore--at our peril, I suggest--that readers refuse to be passive
parties in the writer/reader interface.
In short, we can't control how others will perceive what we write in all cases. That
doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Perhaps we should try even harder with our
contemporaries not to create opportunities for offense to be taken. But we have to
recognize that we do not control how readers will respond to what we write.
Personally, if I can't control it, I can't own it.
This all makes writing much harder than I perceived it last week.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts
Check out the new release of RoboDemo, our easy-to-use tutorial software.
Plus, buy RoboHelp Office in August and save $100 with our mail-in rebate.
Get details and download free trial versions at http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l
---
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.
