To me, professional writing differs from other kinds of writing due to the sheer tactics that are involved in creating successful professional writing. Reading Bowdon and Scott’s piece about the Rhetorical Toolbox I was reminded of tools I’ve learned about through my schooling, like logos, ethos, pathos, and the five canons. Though the text was dense, it clearly examined some of these concepts that I’ve used in my writing for a long time and how important they are when it comes to technical communication.
The study of rhetoric as defined in this piece is, “the art of discovering the available and appropriate means of persuasion in a given situation” (53). In my mind, when compared to creative writing, professional writing is the rule-following, more bland style that is often not read for pleasure. It serves a purpose and typically is succinct and effective in its text choices and delivery (especially when it follows the concepts talked about in Bowdon and Scott’s piece).
Going through each section, I tried to think about my groups’ issue we decided to work with, the opioid over-prescription epidemic in the United States. When it came to the concepts of audience, text and subject, it was easy for me to think about our topic because the example that was primarily use was one about an STD pamphlet in university health centers. Last week, we juggled with who we want our audience to be, as we were between doctors, the prescribers of the medications, or patients, the users and sometimes abusers of them. Bowdon and Scott refer to the works of many writers, but their reference to Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede’s “audience invoked” versus “audience addressed” helped me think about the decision we had to make. Audience invoked is, “the audience the writers call to and, in a sense, help shape through the language and design of the text,” while audience addresses is, “the actual readers who encounter and use the text” (35). The audience addressed is “almost always [the] more complex” of the two, and presents the idea of a secondary audience (35). The secondary audience is compromised of people who may also see the work, on its way to your primary, or invoked, audience. In our case, we thought to make a pamphlet for doctor’s offices. Though our primary audience would be patients waiting for their appointment who may be taking pain medications, it could also reach people who have never taken pain medications before, people who have a loved one or friend taking them, doctors as they pass through the waiting room, receptionists as they refill the boxes/brochure holders…the list could go on! After audience is established, the concept of text is utilized.
Text is “determined by the purposes, audiences and uses of a document” and “follow the conventions of particular genres not simply to conform to rules or standards, but to fulfill their audiences’ expectations and to enable their readers to better follow and act on the information in their texts” (36). Text doesn’t only refer to the copy itself, but to many things surrounding it, including sociocultural contexts/cultural norms and the medium in which the text is being distributed. When brainstorming with my group last week, we came up with ideas that varied from legislation, to brochures, to flyers, and each of these has its own purpose. A flyer would contain significantly less information/copy and has a different method of reaching its target audience and achieving its purpose than formal legislation, such as a petition would. While trying to reach this audience, it also is important to be aware of cultural norms and subject-specific standards when wording touchy information, such as drug addiction.
After reading this piece, rhetoric in technical communication makes more sense to me and it showed me how important rhetoric tools are when it comes to persuasion and informing of the public in specific situations.
Felt like you lost steam a bit toward the end! Take a stand and have something to say about what you read, don’t get too caught up in trying to list what you know about audience and text based on the reading. I know you have something to say! I saw glimpses of it early on in the working through about audience.
You list some great possibilities about secondary audiences. It really can be a rabbit hole of sorts. I guess, what I always wonder about, is what secondary audiences are you intentionally engaging vs. secondary audiences that may simply just sort of happen upon what you write..or, that you just don’t care about. Sort of priortize, you know? So what might your group focus on in that respect? Who do you want to reach? Or who might you *have* to reach (e.g., writing something that doctors would endorse enough to pass out to others). Interesting early stage thinking on you and your group’s part early on!
I’m interested in your thought about professional writing being “the rule-following, more bland style that is often not read for pleasure.” Why do you think this? Is it ingrained in something that society as a whole has sort of taught us to believe about professional writing? Or is it based in something you’ve discovered over the years in your own readings of professional writing?
Personally, I do think that there is some substance to the belief that professional writing is, generally speaking, a bland genre; it can be bland, and many people do find it to be bland. (I’m guessing this is due to “professional” being included in the name, although I cannot speak for everyone.) I do think, however, that it’s possible to make professional more exciting and appealing to readers.
I would argue that there are three different possible goals to any kind of professional writing: to inform, to persuade, or to entertain, all of which can be used independently or in any combination with one another. The goal most commonly associated with professional writing is probably “to inform,” which is what makes the connotation of it so bland. When writers are trying to entertain or persuade, I think that there is a greater chance or more personality to be injected into their writing. The only issue with this, though, is that as we discussed in class, they may run the risk of losing their audience from overselling themselves or providing misinformation.
I second Jena’s question regarding the ‘blandness’ of professional communication. I would argue that both creative and professional writing have equal potential to be interesting or bland and both require an attention to audience. Perhaps there is just a different set of rules which can be equally as restrictive or guiding for creative writing. Do you think that “professional writing” TOTALLY encompasses writing for the public? Or is there a subset of writing for the public which is exempt from this typical blandness? Perhaps not exempt, but has its own rules requiring that it not be bland?
I really enjoyed reading your blog post, especially with regards to the many references and connections you made to your own topic, it was interesting and useful to see it connected to a thought process that we are all going through as well. You’re definitely right, the reading was dense but this connection made it a little bit more relatable. I especially liked your discussion of audience invoked vs audience adressed. Reading this section in the assigned reading made me think what ways we can acknowledge and possibly account for the audience addressed? To what extent can we control the audience invoked? And at what point do attempts to allow for the complexity of the audience addressed take away from the quality of our focus on the audience we intend to communicate with? This clearly complicated ebb and flow invokes a LOT of other aspects especially text and production and raises questions for what ways we will go about determining our audiences in our own projects.