Reading Response

Personal Response: When people ask me, “What are you studying in school?” I respond that I am majoring in English. Then they ask, “Oh, are you going to teach?” Then, I respond no. Then, they ask, “Oh, so what are you going to do?” I respond that I am in the Rhetoric and Professional Writing program at NIU and I am going to write. Then they ask, “Oh, are you going to write poetry or books?” I respond no. Then, they ask, “Oh, so what are you going to do exactly?” I respond that I am going to do technical writing. Then, they ask, “Oh, so you’re going to write how-to manuals?”

Reading Response: Having a technical writing background, I have felt like the proverbial underdog. I truly appreciate the articles Dr. Reyman asked us to read for tonight’s class. In particular, I appreciate the Slack et al. reworking of the role of the technical communicator beyond “a purveyor of meanings…” and “a mediator of meanings…” I appreciate their push to view the role of the technical communicator as an “author who acts as articulator.”

I agree with the authors that outdated notions and analogies of technical writers as mere transmitters of packages of information and encoders telegraphing to decoders have defined the traditional technical communicator. I agree that these simplistic views limit the role and scope of the work done by the technical communicator. What I hoped for next in the article was a clear delineation of the new and improved technical communicator as authorial articulator. In a rare moment of agreement with Walter Jacobson, I, too, stumbled on the “identity train.” The analogy served to be more of a distraction than an enhancement to my understanding of the authors’ claim. I do agree that technical communicators influence the information they re-write through a Bakhtinian “articulation of voices.” I agree that technical communicators act as the author of technical text and do have an authorial power. I do not believe that they will ever attain the “status” of the traditional author. Shakespeare we ain’t.

In the last portion of the article, the authors push theoretical knowledge as being critical to the technical communication field. I think that the notion of the technical writer has changed since this article was conceived. Searching through job ads on Careerbuilder.com or Monster.com, one can see job postings for the outdated technical writer archetype as a 'robotic' cut-and-paste typist diminishing. The demand for a sophisticated communicator who can “skillfully use effective grammar, edit, media management, and so on” must also participate in “the early stages of project design”, manage the project, and act as a critical thinker is on the rise. The call for a master’s degree in many, many job postings, for me, implies that employers are searching for “technical communicators as authorial articulators.” I think that this article may have been relevant to the writing community at some point. However, it seems a little redundant now. I think the writing community has gravitated to the idea that a technical communicator does act as an author – at least as a collaborative author. I think digital media has significantly affected the job function of a technical writer. Just speculation, perhaps technology has enabled the technical author to move beyond formatting and re-typing and granted more “authorial power” and collaboration.

Anyhow, the people who ask me what I’m going to do for a living can and will continue to think of me as a “messenger.”