Conceit, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Competition (long)

["Eric J. Ray" <ejray -at- RAYCOMM -dot- COM>]

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

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