“Situational Editing: A Rhetorical Approach for the Technical Editor” by Mary Fran Buehler

“Situational Editing: A Rhetorical Approach for the Technical Editor” by Mary Fran Buehler, focuses on the argument of whether to edit something grammatically or situationally. As an editor works with a writer, they begin to bridge the gap from writer to reader. The editor is also considered a reader during this stage and has to consider what edit will best represent the work and its meaning. Going against the grammatical edit, Buehler gives examples when rhythm and significance play a more important role than a straightforward, direct sentence. She notes how the best editors work with writers in real time to help with the conciseness of the piece. Overall, Buehler confirms that the situation of the writing is the most important editing viewpoint to deliver the best content, while grammar comes second.

Listening to Beuhler’s argument really struck me because as a high school teacher, I have to teach the grammar component, but then while I am conferencing or grading student work I consider the situation they are in. I also consider their ability and compare that with their product. Buehler gives strong examples, including writing/editing an acknowledgment, that prove how situational editing is more important than grammatical editing. That example really stuck with me because in some senses, I feel that Buehler focuses on situational tone. It is always important to remember what section one is writing or to whom they are writing for. That in itself creates a situation where the editor can “loosen” up or put proper grammar to the side. While in opposition, a technical document needs grammatical structure to be taken seriously.

When defining the two sides, Buehler outlines, “‘Follow these rules,’ says Grammar, ‘and you will always be correct.’” while the other side states, “‘Consider the individual situation,’ says Rhetoric, ‘and you may be able to communicate effectively’” (459). Not only do I agree with these relaxed definitions, but they are the two sides my head argues every time I am writing or editing. Following rules is important when it comes to equalizing your work to a readable level, but if it does not fit the scenario it is meant for, what is its purpose? There is a fine line between these two mediums that if crossed too far to one side can ruin the intention, meaning, or readability. At the very beginning of this discussion, Buehler notes how the word “rhetoric” is used as a synonym for language in the news. Misunderstanding the definition of rhetoric from “solid achievement” to just “language” hints at how many times writers have crossed the grammar vs. rhetoric line (458). This is where editors need to step in and gracefully correct writers to equalize their grammar usage without forgoing their situation.

Buehler defined writing using two important sides: grammar and rhetoric. As editors evolve, they must learn to follow the thin line between the two and help writers become successful at both.