<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: monkeyPi&#8217;s Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/</link>
	<description>Enough random posts...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:23:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: monkeyPi’s Law at monkeyPi Writer River</title>
		<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/comment-page-1/#comment-55304</link>
		<dc:creator>monkeyPi’s Law at monkeyPi Writer River</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monkeypi.net/?p=236#comment-55304</guid>
		<description>[...] monkeyPi’s Law at monkeyPi.  Tom Johnson &#124; August 12, 2008 &#124; permalink  Tags: literary writing, technical writing   &#160; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] monkeyPi’s Law at monkeyPi.  Tom Johnson | August 12, 2008 | permalink  Tags: literary writing, technical writing   &nbsp; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: w0</title>
		<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/comment-page-1/#comment-54360</link>
		<dc:creator>w0</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monkeypi.net/?p=236#comment-54360</guid>
		<description>Hey - I like your post.

I&#039;ve ruminated about this issue for years too. Here&#039;s what&#039;s funny: with the recent rise of blogging, I&#039;ve had a chance to read many peoples&#039; views about writing. The dichotomy that always pops up is while tech writing is my day job, real writing occurs on my time. Like you said: pure and not pure, and on some level this has always offended me. 

I&#039;ve thought to myself, tech writing is so far from creative writing, why would you even assume there&#039;s even but the flimsiest connection. And why would so many people who love writing-for-writing&#039;s-sake go into tech writing as a career. To me, a technical writer is better described as an engineer, tech support person, business analyst, lab technician, etc. who is purely concerned with communicating information in his or her field of expertise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey &#8211; I like your post.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve ruminated about this issue for years too. Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s funny: with the recent rise of blogging, I&#8217;ve had a chance to read many peoples&#8217; views about writing. The dichotomy that always pops up is while tech writing is my day job, real writing occurs on my time. Like you said: pure and not pure, and on some level this has always offended me. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve thought to myself, tech writing is so far from creative writing, why would you even assume there&#8217;s even but the flimsiest connection. And why would so many people who love writing-for-writing&#8217;s-sake go into tech writing as a career. To me, a technical writer is better described as an engineer, tech support person, business analyst, lab technician, etc. who is purely concerned with communicating information in his or her field of expertise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DP</title>
		<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/comment-page-1/#comment-54334</link>
		<dc:creator>DP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monkeypi.net/?p=236#comment-54334</guid>
		<description>Great post! Thank you for making me feel a little more noble! Ever since I read Stephen King&#039;s &quot;On Writing,&quot; in which he spoke rather disparagingly about technical writing, I&#039;ve been a little depressed about the way I make my living (ok, not seriously depressed...). But you&#039;re right. Writing is all communication, and it&#039;s all &quot;pure.&quot;

Even this, I suppose, is a pure statement. 

Peace - D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post! Thank you for making me feel a little more noble! Ever since I read Stephen King&#8217;s &#8220;On Writing,&#8221; in which he spoke rather disparagingly about technical writing, I&#8217;ve been a little depressed about the way I make my living (ok, not seriously depressed&#8230;). But you&#8217;re right. Writing is all communication, and it&#8217;s all &#8220;pure.&#8221;</p>
<p>Even this, I suppose, is a pure statement. </p>
<p>Peace &#8211; D</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rhonda</title>
		<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/comment-page-1/#comment-54291</link>
		<dc:creator>Rhonda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monkeypi.net/?p=236#comment-54291</guid>
		<description>This blog post was:

Useful + Enjoyable = Great writing

Thank you for stating the obvious so clearly. I&#039;ve been trying to explain what I do in terms of fiction and non-fiction, lumping poetry and marketing writing into my definition of &#039;fiction&#039; and technical and business writing into &#039;non-fiction&#039;. With marketing writing there&#039;s clearly a lot of overlap - product brochures and advertising may fit into my &#039;fiction&#039; category, but product data sheets and the like clearly fit into &#039;non-fiction&#039;. In your paradigm, marketing writing fits in the &#039;meant to be used&#039; camp, with perhaps some overlap into &#039;meant to be enjoyed&#039;. Yours is a much easier classification than fiction/non-fiction.

I also like how you debunk the &#039;noble&#039; writing myth, and face the &#039;fiction writing is enriching&#039; dragon head on.

Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This blog post was:</p>
<p>Useful + Enjoyable = Great writing</p>
<p>Thank you for stating the obvious so clearly. I&#8217;ve been trying to explain what I do in terms of fiction and non-fiction, lumping poetry and marketing writing into my definition of &#8216;fiction&#8217; and technical and business writing into &#8216;non-fiction&#8217;. With marketing writing there&#8217;s clearly a lot of overlap &#8211; product brochures and advertising may fit into my &#8216;fiction&#8217; category, but product data sheets and the like clearly fit into &#8216;non-fiction&#8217;. In your paradigm, marketing writing fits in the &#8216;meant to be used&#8217; camp, with perhaps some overlap into &#8216;meant to be enjoyed&#8217;. Yours is a much easier classification than fiction/non-fiction.</p>
<p>I also like how you debunk the &#8216;noble&#8217; writing myth, and face the &#8216;fiction writing is enriching&#8217; dragon head on.</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: theMonkey</title>
		<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/comment-page-1/#comment-54250</link>
		<dc:creator>theMonkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:13:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monkeypi.net/?p=236#comment-54250</guid>
		<description>@ another writer - good catch... I guess &quot;verbal speech&quot; is a bit redundant, eh? I suppose I meant &quot;spoken language.&quot; However, that doesn&#039;t include everything... for instance, gestures can be used as communication, but aren&#039;t a form of writing.

Any suggestion as to a phrase that will help me to make that point?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ another writer &#8211; good catch&#8230; I guess &#8220;verbal speech&#8221; is a bit redundant, eh? I suppose I meant &#8220;spoken language.&#8221; However, that doesn&#8217;t include everything&#8230; for instance, gestures can be used as communication, but aren&#8217;t a form of writing.</p>
<p>Any suggestion as to a phrase that will help me to make that point?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: another writer</title>
		<link>http://monkeypi.net/2008/07/13/monkeypis-law/comment-page-1/#comment-54241</link>
		<dc:creator>another writer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://monkeypi.net/?p=236#comment-54241</guid>
		<description>Second paragraph: &quot;verbal speech&quot; means what?.. People often use verbal (&quot;with words&quot;) when they mean oral (&quot;spoken&quot;). Did you mean to mean &quot;wordy speech&quot; or &quot;spoken speech&quot; or just &quot;speech&quot; as opposed to writing?

Great post by the way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Second paragraph: &#8220;verbal speech&#8221; means what?.. People often use verbal (&#8221;with words&#8221;) when they mean oral (&#8221;spoken&#8221;). Did you mean to mean &#8220;wordy speech&#8221; or &#8220;spoken speech&#8221; or just &#8220;speech&#8221; as opposed to writing?</p>
<p>Great post by the way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
