The following article was solicited in response to one published several months ago on the value of having literate aystem's pro6rammers in data centres. Mr. Lillington is one of the better examples of this sort of system's programmer. However, it is apparent from this article that these people (the programmers) are not always on our (the technical writers') sider --ed. When as k ed t o w r i t e t h i s a r t i c l e ( o r p e r h a p s I v o l u n t e e r e d - - t h e d i s t i n c t i o n was n o t v e r y c l e a r a t t h e time) I was u n a b l e t o o b t a i n any c l e a r i n s t r u c i n s t r u c t i o n s a s to what th e s u b j e c t m a t t e r s h o u l d be. The thou6ht struck me that this must be a familiar enough situation to most technlcal writers, and this, in turn, triggered a temporary feeling of forgiveness for those faceless people who have managed to create for me my most memorable periods of chaos. My f i r s t e x p e r i e n c e o f b e i n g on t h e s h a r p end o f t e c h n i c a l w r i t i n g ~ e r se ( I d o n ' t c o u n t p a s s i n g annoyances such a s d i r e c t i o n s f o r th e o p e n i n g o f child-proof containers, or instructions t r a n s l a t e d from t h e German on how t o p l a y t h e f l u t e ; I s t i l l remember th e v i v i d m e n t a l p i c t u r e I had o f t h e a u t h o r a s a 2 1 - f i n g e r e d v i r t u o s o who o b v i o u s l y n e v e r needed t o t a k e a b r e a t h ) was when I f r i s t s t a r t e d working a t IBM. One o f my f i r s t i n s t r u c t o r s l o s t no time i n t e l l i n g h i s c l a s s t h a t IBM manuals were w r i t t e n by " l i t t l e old l a d i e s i n P o t t g h k e e p s i e , who a r e i n s t r u c t e d t o sa y n o t h i n g s p e c i f i c . " S i n c e i t was t h e same g e n t l e m a n who t o l d us t h e somewhat a p o c r y p h a l story about the IBM salesman and the grizzly bear, I took the comment as being wholly in Jest. Having since had much more experience of IBM manuals (not to mention IBM salemen) I wish I could meet that instructor again, and apologise humbly for doubting his words. t h i r d word, e v e r y c o n j u n c t i o n , and t h e e n t i r e first paragraph. I n d o i n g s o , he had o b l i t e r a t e d e v e r y s h r e d o f t h e o r i g i n a l meaning a n d h a d created a series of c u n n i n g , plausible lles. He was delighted with the result. I told him that I might Just possibly agree with what he had said, but disputed his right to say it in just that way. My a t t i t u d e was stained up i n t h e ~ h r a s e ( c o i n e d by a t e c h n i c a l t r a n s l a t o r o f my a c q u a i n t a n c e ) | It is magnificent, but it is not the railway station. But all that was long ago. Since then, I have myself produced several technical documents, and am now fauailiar with some of t h e unwritten rules of the game. So when the Great Chief Progrmmer in the Sky calls me to account for them, I can state in clear conscience that I have done my d u t y a s i t was p o r t r a y e d t o me, viz4 To s a y I what e v e r y o n e knows i n a form t h a t anyone may r e a d and no-one wants t o ; • To cau se o f f e n c e t o n o - o n e ; $ To a v o i d any o p i n i o n s o f my own; My first direct contact with t~chnical writing came about when I was given the task of preparing a series of technical hints for TSO. There existed within the organlsation a technical writer who would, I was told, "put them into shape for me." This man, who took great delight in mutilating t h e English language e v e n more t h a n the average North American (he didn't so much mince words as hack them to pieces with a meataxe), took my carefully-written explanatory prose and turned it into what I can only describe as "Blunt English." It was half the length of the original, and appeared a t first glance to bear upon a totally unrealted subject from my own. On closer earn!nation , however, I saw that he had taken my precisely-chosen technical words and phorases, and substituted near-equivalents of hi._s own. He had contrived to halve the length of the piece apparently by a process of omitting every • To eschew vague and f l o w e r y l a n g u a g e ; $ and To add n o t h i n g w h a t s o e v e r t o t h e sum o f human knowledge. ]5 ©U

/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/cunning-plausible-lies-56asmpJLl1