The Technical Writer's Existential Plight

After two weeks of plague, I have dragged myself from the miry depths of sickness to produce a new article. While recovering, a philosophical quandary took a firm lodging within my brain. previous post, the heroic acts of writers often go unsung in the corporate world. An area where this phenomenon is of particular concern is among the ranks of technical writers.
As I've suggested in a

One of the prevailing trends of late in this particular corner of the writing world is a policy of erasure. Technical documents should be toneless, impersonal, instructions absent personality. For instance, a blog post I read recently suggested that some of the policies taking hold within the industry are causing the proliferation of an "assembly line" approach that attempts to remove writers from the equation whenever possible. What could cause such a promotion of subalternity? The post's author suggests that it is something initially meant to assist technical writers: the topic authoring system.

To give a two-bit summary, topic authoring and more technological implementations of it, such as DITA, are methods for creating content repositories that allow for the easy reuse of pieces of written information, dubbed topics. These organizational systems make it so that there is a reduction in the redundancy of content since writers can simply pull in information that has already been created. Sounds great, right? Well, in theory, yes, but as I've indicated, there are drawbacks as well.

Under the law of topic authoring, no longer are writers to be concerned with narrative. Instead, each snippet of information should be self-contained and able to stand alone so that any document can incorporate it with ease. This, when implemented in a haphazard way, causes chaotic guides cobbled together from myriad sources that vary in tone, structure, and approach. For this reason the holy, impersonal statutes delineate certain varieties of topic that prescribe unyielding templates for information types, such as procedures, explanations, and references.

You may ask why I take issue with this. To put it in a phrase, these standards promote absolutism. They strive for a unified whole that, through the uncertainty of language, is rendered always already incomplete (see my electronic music article for more on this). Okay, great, but what's the alternative? If you'll permit me, I've got a few ideas.

First of all, we need to cease the overdefinition and erasure of the writer within and from the writing process. Even the STC, one of the preeminent organizations in the technical writing field, seeks to alter their title away from "technical writing" to "technical communication." In principle, this seems broader, but in actuality it removes the agency of the writer. The act is no longer in their hands. They are now simply cogs in a great, inexorable machine that churns out instructions. Instead, I think writers should embrace the power their name represents. They are the directors of language's play. If we place the same creative value on technical writers that we do on other writing professionals, such as copywriters, the results might be surprising.

Once this initial shift in philosophical perspective happens, a more effective harmonization between technical writers and other professional divisions can be established. The breaking down of these artificial walls will allow a dialog across the many corporate areas dealing with the written word. When the lines of communication are flowing, synchronicities in thought can be achieved that will improve company-wide branding and stylistic recognition.

Only one key realization is needed to bring this to fruition: technical writers are marketers too. Their words contribute as much to the success of a corporate endeavor as front end advertising processes do. If customers have a unique experience even when looking for solutions to difficulties with a product, they will have an even more vivid recognition of specific brands and will be more likely to return for more service. Remove status, remove fear, leave only the words. Then, we can understand value beyond what reductive structures define for us.

On Writers, the Unsung Heroes of Corporate Culture

Yesterday, I came across an intriguing article by Cord Jefferson on Gawker regarding the fair compensation of writers. It laid out a few thought-provoking points regarding the debate between whether or not asking writers to provide free content is a fair request. Being somewhat concerned with this particular quandary myself, I thought I'd explore it further in today's post.

To me, this is a good springboard from which to launch a campaign of awareness. Whether you realize it or not, writers are all around you. Laboring in the shadows, these talented individuals are, if you'll permit the metaphor, the wheels on the bus of business. You could still start the engine without them, but it would sure be hard to get anywhere.

Another unfortunate truth contained in the image above is that, like wheels, writers often bear a lot of the weight of corporate success without being considered as pretty or visible as the paint job, hood ornaments, or grill. This is a situation to which I can relate. When I was employed as a technical editor, I saw many brilliant individuals in my department working with a tireless sense of duty. Their creativity and commitment drove many successful documentation releases, without which the products that our company sold would have been incomprehensible. Despite this fact, however, technical publications is a field that often gets overlooked. These departments often fail to receive the hallowed title of "revenue generator," and therefore often face budget cuts that leave them unable to pursue improvements that would increase customer satisfaction.

So what does it take to be a revenue generator? Well, based on the explanations given in the link above, it takes having a tangible impact on the profit of a company. Okay, so by extension, wouldn't that mean that technical publications do generate revenue because they make products understandable to users? There, my friend, is the rub. Yes, they do, but not in a flashy way. People consult technical documents often at the pinnacle of their stress levels. They can't find the answer on their own, so they need help. As a result, it's not considered something people want to read, like marketing materials or business proposals. The mistake that often results from this correlation is the thought among executives that these resources aren't always necessary and are often more frustrating rather than helpful. Sure, this assertion might hold water in some cases, but the alternative is a far more confusing realm.

As an editor, I saw my fair share of technical information written by non-technical writers, whether these be product managers, engineers, or any other functions. There are occasions upon which these endeavors can work, such as when the audience aligns in understanding with the profession of the author. That said, without someone dedicated to exploring what customers need to find out and where they go to do so, much gets lost in translation. Research into the types of people using products, the way they use the products, and the places in which they expect to find valuable information about the products is invaluable. That's how technical writers generate revenue. Each day, through the very nature of their work, they gain an insight into how customers think.

Now, this isn't the only literary profession subject to the Invisible Writer Syndrome. As Cord Jefferson points out, journalists often get the short end of the stick in terms of the compensation they get for what they do and are often taken for granted in this age in which news just appears out of the ether. In fact, if you look in most departments at a company, from Marketing to Operations, you'll find various types of writers providing content that keeps the whole thing rolling.

This is not meant as a complaint. I celebrate my chosen profession and revel in the creative backflips it allows me each day. Think of it instead as a call to action. Notice those quiet scribblers tucked away in corner cubicles. Realize that just because they are not at the head of a board meeting or the face you see at business conferences does not mean that they deserve less than those that are. All those company blogs, Facebook updates, Twitter posts, proposals, and manuals come from somewhere. Look in that direction, and shine a light on the individuals there. You'll be glad you did.