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.
Subject:Re: Simply red From:Stuart Selber <SSELBER -at- MTUS5 -dot- CTS -dot- MTU -dot- EDU> Date:Tue, 21 Sep 1993 09:31:08 EST
ie. The red pen thread. One issue that has not been discussed about using red
ink for review comments is the way in which it might contribute to an
unproductive relationship between the writers and reviewers. And I think it
mostly stems from the folklore surrounding editing with red ink, as opposed to
anything inherent in the color, obviously. I know when responding to student
writing, I try to comment as an expert reader or reviewer, remembering that
I am suggesting changes/revisions to *their* work--they are the authors.
I think technical communicators are also authors, but not in a traditional
sense. We work hard on some writing and make a lot of decisions that surround
it, but then at times we get "told" in certain terms what to include and not
include, and then our names are ommitted in place of the corporations. We take
on contradictory subject positions concurrently, and I think frustration
arises out of it. I think most writers would want reviewers to treat them as
authors or owners of the work, and make review comments less authoritative and
more suggestive (unless, of course, there are blatant errors). And I think, for
many, red ink simply connotes authoritative remarks. They often have for me,
anyway.