Literary vs. Technical Writing: Substitutes vs. Standards for Reality

Abstract

This article proposes a means of characterizing the difference between technical and literary writing, involving a theory of representation in which these distinct writing types are comparable to distinct types of visual representation. Any difference is only intelligible relative to a background of similarlity, but recent discussions of technical writing emphasize its similarity to literature and ignore significant differences. Distinct types of line drawings replicate the literary/technical contrast in a visual medium. This arises from two factors: 1) the way in which the drawing/text is perceived by the viewer/reader, as a substitute or as a standard; and 2) the predominant type of detail in the drawing/text, iterative or contrastive. Literature is most effective if perceived as a substitute for reality, predominated by iterative detail. Technical writing is most effective if perceived as a standard for evaluating reality, predominated by contrastive detail.

Journal
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published
1988-07-01
DOI
10.2190/uakn-cmqf-4dfd-7vx9
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

  1. Pedagogy
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  5. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (2)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. College English
Also cites 8 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/004839318101100305
  2. 10.2307/375964
  3. 10.2307/376773
  4. 10.2307/376975
  5. 10.2307/354886
  6. 10.1353/saf.1985.0029
  7. 10.1038/scientificamerican0972-82
  8. 10.1016/0024-3841(85)90011-7
CrossRef global citation count: 5 View in citation network →