Right off the bat, the first thing I notice is how the text compares technical writing and communication to a science of sorts. “Since technical writing is by definition a method of communicating facts it is absolutely imperative to be clear… The point of view should be scientific: objective, impartial, and unemotional” (Gordon H. Mills and John A. Walter, Technical Writing: Methods for College English Teachers, P. 7). In my opinion, I like the comparison between the two, however there is one thing I’m confused on. In the above quote, it states that technical writing should be unemotional. That being said, when we talk about technical writing in class, we always talk about how the tone of the document alters the reader’s perspective drastically. I feel as though the two, emotion and tone, kind of go hand in hand together, so I can’t say I totally agree with the above definition given. As I kept reading along, I became particularly entranced by the essay’s argument about rhetoric. Again, keeping in mind that technical writing is being compared to science, or at least that’s how I see it here, the essay says that “if rhetoric is irrelevant to science, technical and scientific writing become just a series of maneuvers for staying out of the way.” (P. 613)When I was reading this particular argument, for some reason, this is where I grew the most confused. It kind of condescends rhetoric, unless I’m interpreting it wrong, and tells about how it isn’t as important as some make it out to be. As long as it has the logical edge that it needs to be considered a technical document, I feel as if this article is saying it’s okay to ignore some of the rules of rhetoric that most people look at or pick up on when reading a technical document, or any document for that matter. All in all, I do find that the article does have quite a persuasive edge to it when talking about whether or not technical writing should be considered a humanities course. I must say I agree that I believe it should be, because the essay is right. “The examination and understanding of one’s own activity and consciousness, the ‘return of consciousness to its own center’ is, as Walter Ong has suggested, the central impulse of the humanities (P. 617). I feel as though that argument alone, that one quote, is enough basis to really consider technical writing as a humanities course. Very interesting read this was.
I feel like this picture kind of represents a "scientific method" of sorts for the beginning stages of creating a technical document, such as a memo or formal letter.
