In a world of online ease and work productivity, the software we use often comes with a price. That price in both dollars (pesos, Euros, etc.) and conformity can warp reality and demand a writer's soul in exchange for a steady job. Or at least that idea is what scared me about a recent discussion on LinkedIn about the evolution of workware (my word) and ownership issues.
The original article touted the "death of the document" and the need for programming, which would allow workers to cut and paste across a corporation. Innocuous on the surface, this idea of taking all creativity out of corporate communication even bothers the editor in me who makes a good living on understanding house and specialty style guides and adhering to standards. I would rather wade through someone's original ideas, which ultimately could help that writer grow in his or her ability to think and write, than have the job "simplified."
Don't get me wrong, I am forever grateful to the programmers who shared HTML, JavaScript and cascading style sheets. And in that spirit, any coding that I create that would help further the work in that community is freely shared. But my writing is personal, and just because someone came up with the alphabet eons ago doesn't mean the "community" owns my private works.
The very idea that all writing should come down to topics, content and conclusions, which workware encourages, says that the technical and scientific worlds have no room for original works. As a writer who appreciates the occasional software guide that is witty or even charming in its approach, leave our documents alone and let writers in every field "own" their creativity.
The original article touted the "death of the document" and the need for programming, which would allow workers to cut and paste across a corporation. Innocuous on the surface, this idea of taking all creativity out of corporate communication even bothers the editor in me who makes a good living on understanding house and specialty style guides and adhering to standards. I would rather wade through someone's original ideas, which ultimately could help that writer grow in his or her ability to think and write, than have the job "simplified."
Don't get me wrong, I am forever grateful to the programmers who shared HTML, JavaScript and cascading style sheets. And in that spirit, any coding that I create that would help further the work in that community is freely shared. But my writing is personal, and just because someone came up with the alphabet eons ago doesn't mean the "community" owns my private works.
The very idea that all writing should come down to topics, content and conclusions, which workware encourages, says that the technical and scientific worlds have no room for original works. As a writer who appreciates the occasional software guide that is witty or even charming in its approach, leave our documents alone and let writers in every field "own" their creativity.
No comments:
Post a Comment