Writing about TC is often not TC

I’ve been thinking about this oddity this week while creating help materials for engineering students. I realized that my “instructions” about writing a memo weren’t technical communication, or were at least different enough to not appear to be TC. My instructions took on the form of an essay, though I did use headings, sub-headings, a bulleted list or two, and zero references to William F. Buckley. In fact, I noticed when I read through Tom Johson’s recent post “How to Get a Job in Technical Writing — A 7-Step Guide for Students.” His post wasn’t really TC, either; again, more like an essay.


Why is that? Why should a communication-based field use a non-native genre when describing itself? Is TC naturally descriptive while the essay’s explicative style lends itself to explanations? I don’t think so. Good TC documents, like a spec sheet, can contain quite a bit of explicative material such as reasons why a particular product must be used rather than another, similar product.

Or am I wrong? Is it that TCers simply use a style similar to essays when explaining what TC is, but that that similarity is only passing? I bring up these questions because essays are, in a way, antithetical to the kinds of writing TC professionals are routinely hired to write. While an essay may be used to persuade, inform, or entertain, a TC document always needs to do something, and if the writing is also pretty then that’s fine, too. It’s purpose, too: TC documents are usually not intended to do anything but help someone with a problem (or prevent a problem from occurring), whereas an essay isn’t a necessary thing; rather, essays are often artistic and pleasurable. Like the difference between a statue and a column: they may both be made of marble, but one’s needed for support and the other is just. . .well, pretty. But describe the use and purpose behind columns in structural engineering and you may wind up writing an essay. Odd.