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: 'author' vs. 'write' From:Stuart Burnfield <slb -at- FS -dot- COM -dot- AU> Date:Thu, 29 May 1997 22:45:20 +0800
> I think that "author" was selected to reflect our broadened
> responsibilities, from the times when a writer only wrote (and then
> gave it to a secretary to type - anyone else remember those times?).
That's how I've seen it used: "writing only takes up a third of my
time -- I interview, illustrate, edit, create Web pages, blah blah...".
To me this parallels the "What's my job title?" thread that pops up on
the list every couple of months. Some people feel that their title
should accurately describe all the tasks their job entails. (If your
business card says something like "Knowledge Engineer", you probably
also 'author' things.)
In a perfect world, our titles would increase the admiration and respect
we get from our business acquaintances. In practice, few people even
know what a technical writer is. Anything fancier will *whistle* over
I suspect 19 people out of 20 would associate 'author' with 'novelist'.
Functional Software Pty Ltd mailto:slb -at- fs -dot- com -dot- au