HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimj@cleanplate.EBay.Sun.COM (James D. Jones)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Technical Writing as an alternative to Technial Development
Date: 27 Aug 1992 20:10:46 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cleanplate.ebay.sun.com

In article <1992Aug26.144554.10913@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> thigpen@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Keith Thigpen) writes:
>I've worked in technical software for about eight years, and feel that I'm
>growing stale. I've considered moving into technical writing, but don't 
>really have any idea about how the switch will affect my salary.
>
>Can anyone give me approximate salary levels for technical writers? I'm 
>trying not to be nosy. Sorry if I offend anyone, but this has a direct
>bearing on whether I continue this investigation.

At some places, pay is equivalent with programmers' pay.  At other places, 
the difference is about one pay grade:  a senior tech writer (level three) 
makes about as much as an experienced level two programmer.   The difference 
often lies merely in company philosophy:  some outfits think top-drawer 
manuals are important and are willing to pay, others don't. 

I could give you numbers, but they vary by region.  Where I am (Silicon
Valley), they're much higher than anywhere else except maybe Boston,
Austin, and a few other places.

Also, the more technical knowledge
the job requires, the closer to parity the wages are.  Simply because
people who understand a certain specialized field _and can communicate
well_ in print are difficult to find.  I've worked on
jobs where I made more than most of the programmers because I was very
senior (and had a background in this field) and they didn't.  But a 
programmer with equal experience and background would have made more  
than I.


By reading the net, I see you've already gotten lots of responses on
this from other technical writers, more or less along the lines of "Well,
there's more to it than technical knowledge, you need training and skills
and..."

Well, you do have to prove that you can write, and write everyday.  And
some companies have very high standards for user friendliness.  These are
applications software companies and other outfits that cater to end-users.
Hardware firms and system-software shops, whose audiences are dyed-in-the
wool techies, are less picky about how smooth you are in print.  They're
more concerned that you understand the issues without being led by the hand.  

You might see if, within your current organization, you could switch over
from straight programming to being the programmer who spends some or much
of his time writing up the specs, proposals, and so on.  If such a
role is possible where you are, it's a good intermediate step.

Jim Jones
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Any Screenwriters out there?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:24:27 GMT




In a previous article, johna@intacc.uucp (John Allen) says:

>Time and time again I have
>seen three act structure screenplays filled with plot points and inciting
>incidents but no moment to reality.

Could you explain this further?  I don't understand what it means.

Bonita Kale
From: ehudon@reed.edu (Elizabeth Hudon)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Science vs. story in SF (Was: World Creation)
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:51:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Aug28.055106.23572
Followup-To: yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR


yoshi@nocushuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yohikami) writes:

>I am interested in what the SF-er's think about balancing the
>technology versus having a believable story that could be (in terms of
>situation) similar if not the same as a story here on Earth.  In one
>sense, I find it rather irritating, because if so, only the decoration
>would distinguish SF from any other genre; on the other hand, if SF
>does not appeal to anything that I am familiar with, it may lose my
>interest.

This may all be a statement of the obvious, but here it is anyway:

I think the purpose of SF is extrapolation--to take the familiar world
and spin off into new contexts. Some SF seems to be entirely determined
by its technology (I think Niven's _Ringworld_ is a good example of
this), while a second branch seems to use technology as its jumping
off place for stories with a more humanist bent (see the SF of LeGuin
for example--_The Compass Rose_, etc.)

One final point: One could argue that a story which would be 
essentially the same story if you replaced the SF setting with an 
equivalent modern-Earth one is either
	a) a *timeless* piece of fiction, capable of surpassing its
setting in speaking about the general *human condition*
    or, b) not an especially good story, SF or otherwise
   	 
I agree with b), simply because I think an author using a SF base ought
to have a purpose behind his choice, otherwise (as Mr. Yoshikami said),
SF becomes merely *decoration*. SF can accomplish much more than
nice backdrops.

Elizabeth
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Researching in online catalogues (was Re: Work in Progress:Magic)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:44:36 GMT
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <14832@mindlink.bc.ca> 
 Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) asks:
>Now I need to get my hands on some kind of Nahuatl dictionary...any
>suggestions? I don't think Berlitz has a pocket guide.

No, they probably don't. :)  What guides there are are generally written 
in Spanish, so it helps if you read that language.  I searched some online
library catalogues for you, and am sending about three dozen references by
private mail.  

Everyone else:  if you're on the Internet, online catalogues are a
_wonderful_ resource -- don't forget them when you're researching an
area for your work.

--
Ellen Keyne Seebacher            elle@midway.uchicago.edu
  "My advice to writers is to look for the intersection of the things you can
   enjoy writing and the things people out there will enjoy reading, and spend
   most of your time writing that."  --Robert Plamondon (robert@weitek.com)
From: ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon)
Newsgroups: misc.writing,talk.bizzare
Subject: WANTED:Witness Protection Info
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:42:11 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.


Can anyone tell me what kinds of things can happen to someone who is
placed in a federal witness protection program?  I am trying to formulate
a story here, and I just need a few basics before I can proceed.
I guess I am talking about more immediate proceedures... what happens
during the first 24 hours someone is taken into custody.  
My character may have evidence incriminating a crime family, if that
makes any difference.

--Karen
From: bq276@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Seese)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: What now?
Date: 2 Sep 1992 12:26:21 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


When I run into a dead-end on a novel, I put it away for as long
as it takes and start a new one.  Granted, I'm a neophyte, but
it seems to have worked.  I began my first novel in about 1988,
got about one chapter done, and put it aside. I started my second
in early 1989, and put that one aside, too.  (I'm also a song
writer, so I can use that to keep the creative juices flowing).
I started writing the second one again in early 1991, and
finished it by the end of the year.  I'm now about halfway done
with the original.

Now, if only I could convince a publisher how wise he would be
to print it!
-- 

Michael Seese
Cleveland, OH (and darned happy to be here)
From: Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: World Creation
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:40:33 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Elizabeth writes:

"Yes!  This *perfectionism is a huge obstacle for me.  I choke on world
creation, because I feel so uncomfortable with what I feel are arbitrary
decisions about a world which will ultimately come off as artificial and
affected."

Yeah.  That's it!  Sounds like you're writing fantasy.  I am right now as well.
But every SF or Fantasy author whose advice I've read has said consistancy is
the key to believability.  I think every creation has to start with some
arbitrary decisions.  The details come from extrapolating from those basic
decisions.  McCaffrey's dragon stories probably all started with a desire to
write stories involving believable dragons, and once she had come up with the
explaination for dragons, all other creatures in her story operated within the
rules that allow for dragons.

I've found the solution is to suffer with the imperfection (or accept it, if
you're a good Jungian).  I've worked hard to build lots of details which
strengthen the consistency of my world--far more than will ever appear in the
story.  But crazy ideas still come up and often they are too good to let go.
So I have to find some way to fit them in without violating the framework.

Are you working on anything you want to talk about?  Do you want to hear
anything about my adventures as a world maker?

Alan

Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
Subject: Re: Any Screenwriters out there?
Organization: Marriott Library, University of Utah
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:19:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.030215.18731@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton) writes:

>i just got ahold of _screenplay_, by syd field.

>i haven't dove in yet.  does anyone have any opinions on it.

Yes, it sucks. Syd is more interested with the raw mechanics of scripting, 
and he goes about it very mechanically, and wrongly I might add. The whole 
idea of plot-points is outdated and overly rigid.
	A much better book to get and read is "Making A Good Script Great" 
by Linda Seger. She knows her stuff, and her ideas are very up to date. 


Jeff Jonsson
Marriott Library System Support, University of Utah.
==============================================================================
--"It's the sound of the secret--  jjonsson@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
-- machinery at the center of  --  jjonsson@utahlib.bitnet
-- the world." -Cliff Steele   --  "You talkin' to me?"
From: jerryn@glnserv.UUCP (Jerry Norris)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Language Lists (was Re: Work in Progress: Proposal
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 07:14:35 CDT
Organization: Vermi-net, Houston, Tx. 77098

chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

/* stuff deleted about whether to use earth analogs or not.... */

>
> The problem: if I call a goat a goat, then the readers will know what I'm
> talking about without wastin a lot of time in expository. If I call a goat a
> vrishnu, then I have to stop and tell them enough about a vrishnu for them
> to understand the context.

I don't know about that, Chuq.  A vrishnu's a vrishnu.  A goats a goat.
If you've got a vrishnu behaving just like a goat, and looking much like
them, then there's not much you have to worry about in describing them
unless you think it's _real_ important that people know that they're
goats.  As an example...

     Valmalla patted Gordla on the head as they both watched the herd
of vrishnu.  The summer sun beat down on the knee high hairy backs.  An
occasional mew could be heard from a suckling searching for a birthmother
laden with milk.  It was time to take the herd home and the hiloch knew it
as well as Val.  "Let's go," Val said to his pet and work-mate.  The
hiloch exploded in a six-legged frenzy, whistling it's high-pitched
hunting keen.  Slowly, reluctantly, the hairy vrishnu moved from their
grazing.

Of course, the old rule of explaining only what needs to be explained
applies; mosquitos aren't frial until they start to sting and suck, etc.

>
> On one hand, I think I run the risk of being too earthlike and lose the
> verisimilitude of the environment. On the other hand, I run the risk of
> boring (or perhaps worse, simply confusing) the reader with lots of weird
> terms and names, plus slow down the book having to fill in the details.

I don't always see it that way.  Sometimes I like the wierd stuff, but a
lot of it depends on whether it is essential to the story.  Do you want to
insure that the reader realizes that they are not on a fantasy earth?  Or
does it matter?

>
> I'm leaning towards sticking with more common names except for the
> geography, culture and specific items of importances (they definitely won't
> be living in Cleveland, for instance -- and I promise my names will be
> pronouncable. No welsh or gaelic), but I'm still unsure whether this is the
> right tradeoff. Thoughts?

Well, you pretty much have them.  I'm currently working on a culture for
dragons, which includes such things as parasites, language structure, and
dominance/religious structure.  They could live on any planet, but the
current plan is to work with them in an "olde" earth.  So I can call a
goat a goat and get away with it.  The goats aren't important.

I think that a lot of it depends upon how _you_ want to deal with it.

But, I've been known to be wrong ;).

later,
jerry.


email address:  xcluud!glnserv!jerryn

All flames judged on original content and local color, with preference
given to those using cobalt as a coloring agent.
From: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: FUNSIES: Antonymous Collectives
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:57:03 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Sep2.173940.8103@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>, perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
|> In article <57680025@hpscit.sc.hp.com> fish@hpscit.sc.hp.com (John Fisher) writes:
|> >
|> >A block of writers???
|> >
|> >Ack!  I can't believe I did this!
|>
|> That's not contradictory! Writers get writer's block all the time.
|>
|> How about "a dyslexicalis of writers"? Or maybe "an illiterati of
|> writers"?
|>

Ok, ok, you roped me into this one. 

A volume of novelists
A collection of short story writers
An issue of journalists
A file of "manual laborers" (technical writers - two puns here for one 
                             low price!)

Luckily for you, that's all for now.
<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|  Len Olszewski                | "Down with categorical imperative!" |
|  Technical Writer             |                                     |
|  saslpo@unx.sas.com           |                                     |
| "Have cursor, will curse."    |    - Rhetorical contradiction       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Subject: Re: short story writing vs. novel writing
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:56:33 GMT
Organization: Dobonia


In article <Btwt4r.IBK@unx.sas.com>, sascmc@pecos.unx.sas.com (Christopher Mark Conn) writes:
|I've got a question for you experienced fiction writers:
|
|How important do you think it is to write short stories
|(and I'm thinking primarily of writing SF) before you 
|tackle a novel?  

I can't speak authoritatively about the special considerations of SF,
but in general I think there are two questions here:

1) Should you practice writing short stories to hone your skills before
tackling a novel?

2) Should you try to get short stories published before trying to get a
novel published?

The short answer to both is "before AND during."

I wrote quite a few short stories, essays, poems, and short plays before
successfully completing a novel.  I also started a few novels that never
saw completion while working on all that other stuff.  I think the short
stories were a big help because they gave me a feel for the size of an
idea--in other words, when an idea for a story strikes me now, I can say
with some confidence whether it is an idea for an exercise, a short 
story, a very long story, or a novel.  The short stories also gave me
practice creating characters and writing descriptions, two parts of
my writing that I particularly pride myself on.  If you do not have the
discipline to set exercises for yourself, writing short stories seems
to me to be excellent practice for novel writing.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the short stories may not be
all that good as short stories, and that doesn't have strong implications
for the quality of any novel you may eventually write.  Some people are
better at short fiction than long, some the other way around.  I happen
to think that the longer the piece (the "bigger" the idea), the better
my writing gets.

As far as the publishing question goes, I think this varies from editor
to editor.  Some will undoubtedly be likelier to read your manuscript if
you have short story publishing credits that they consider significant.
That means, for example, they recognize the name of the journal that
published you, and it has a reputation for exercising some
discrimination.  Other editors will probably ignore your short story
credits completely.

Your biggest payoff from writing short stories before, and while, you
work on your novel is the feeling that you are getting somewhere with
your writing.  A novel takes a long time, and probably won't be accepted
for publication (face it, the odds are heavily against you, or any
first-time novelist).  I know it's a good feeling when you're bogged
down in mid-novel to be able to show your friends and loved ones a new
short piece you "whipped off." It's probably a great feeling to be able
to show them the piece in a real-live magazine or literary journal, but
I wouldn't know from personal experience, eternally unpublished as I am.
  
-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
From: yoshi@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yoshikami)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Any Screenwriters out there?
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:22:28 GMT
Organization: National Naval Medical Center

In article <1992Aug26.180443.25983@intacc.uucp> johna@intacc.uucp (John Allen) writes:
> Time and time again I have
>seen three act structure screenplays filled with plot points and inciting
>incidents but no moment to reality. It seems we are breeding a generation of
>Happy Days writers.

I found it is easy to fall into this trap if you have not read enough
good drama (the same applies to any other kind of writer).  Too many
writers today have characters who walk around like pieces of
cardboard, being about the same as when they started the story.  In
addition, the only distinguishing characteristics many of these
characters have are quite often the cliches they use (in speaking) or
their names (in other words, the cardboard has a little colouring on
it, but it's still cardboard).

>I always recommend anyone who wants to write to read Shakespeare.If you study
>his developement you can watch him kick the habit of poetry and learn to write
>drama. Poetry is language that calls attention to itself while good p\script
>writing is where you look through the language to character and action. There
>are no good and evil characters in Bill's plays. They are people and are not
>formulized and the author stays out of the way of the story. 

Good point.  Study the masters, and learn how they did it.  Certainly
Shakespeare did something right if his plays are still performed
hundreds of years later.  I've probably quoted this before, but the
Star Trek production guys would throw away most of the scripts they
received.  Their complaint is that usually the writer is not familiar
with the series -- i.e. is not familiar with the format, has not read
the back scripts, and lacks an in-depth understanding of the real
relationships of the characters to one another.  They often complain
the writer will create a story around one character, ignoring the rest
of the series regulars, or perhaps write a story impractical to
produce.  Know your audience before you write, and one of them will
include the producers (or editors)!!!

DY :-)

There were no cucumbers to be found at the market ... not even for ready money

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
D M Yoshikami  :-) ;-) :-) | Internet: yoshikami@usuhsb.ucc.usuhs.nnmc.navy.mil
May the Forth be with you! | Bitnet  : yoshikami@usuhsb.bitnet
***  !!xob X*NU V METSYS T&TA eht ni renosirp dleh gnieb m`I  !pleH  !pleH  ***
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Subject: Re: Science vs. story in SF (Was: World Creation)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 10:54:01 GMT




In a previous article, ehudon@reed.edu (Elizabeth Hudon) says:

>
>yoshi@nocushuhs.nnmc.navy.mil (D M Yohikami) writes:
>
>>I am interested in what the SF-er's think about balancing the
>>technology versus having a believable story that could be (in terms of
>>situation) similar if not the same as a story here on Earth.  In one
>>sense, I find it rather irritating, because if so, only the decoration
>>would distinguish SF from any other genre; on the other hand, if SF
>>does not appeal to anything that I am familiar with, it may lose my
>>interest.

>
>This may all be a statement of the obvious, but here it is anyway:
>
>...

>One final point: One could argue that a story which would be 
>essentially the same story if you replaced the SF setting with an 
>equivalent modern-Earth one is either
>	a) a *timeless* piece of fiction, capable of surpassing its
>setting in speaking about the general *human condition*
>    or, b) not an especially good story, SF or otherwise
>   	 
>I agree with b), simply because I think an author using a SF base ought
>to have a purpose behind his choice, otherwise (as Mr. Yoshikami said),
>SF becomes merely *decoration*. SF can accomplish much more than
>nice backdrops.


I've been re-reading my C.S.  Lewis, and came upon two statements I'm not
going to look up again to get the right credit for:

In one place, he says that a writer who merely transfers a Western or some
other type of story to outer space is wasting the genre.

But in another, he mentions how he read James Fenimore Cooper as a boy, and
how he enjoyed the books not just for the plot (Someone's in danger!) but
for the "feel" of the kind of danger, the kind of place and people he was
reading about. 

I think this kind of pleasure is a very great part of SF.  The plot may be
the same as an Earthly plot; the theme will no doubt be familiar.  But the
sense of -where we are- is very different than we get in any more ordinary
book.  There's a different "feel" to the time and place; the people think a
little differently; the society is different.  Very often, the sky is
higher than ours--that is, there are more (or at least, different)
possibilities for them than there are for us.

After all, you could make a similar argument about historical fiction. 
People read it, I presume, at least in part because they want to be
transported to a different time/place.  It's not that the stories are so
different than contemporary ones. 

I'm stuck in this gravity well for life.  How else can I get out? 


Bonita Kale