![\"50139727\"](\"https:\/\/adamf2016.edublogs.org\/files\/2016\/12\/50139727-w04fxm-300x190.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
If you have ever spent time studying rhetorical patterns\u00a0in popular media, you might have a keenly developed *nonsense* detector. I know I do. It isn\u2019t actual *nonsense* we detect \u2013 it\u2019s other things, like bias or\u00a0unfair power dynamics \u2013 but the\u00a0view of our\u00a0world through a critical lens\u00a0sets off those tiny little alarm bells anytime\u00a0we think someone\u00a0might be\u00a0trying to influence us\u00a0against our sensible wills.<\/p>\n
One of these alarm bells goes off anytime I leaf through templates. While\u00a0designing my infographic this week, I was both grateful for the visual\u00a0support and leery of the many decisions\u00a0I was agreeing\u00a0to through this\u00a0single choice. It is too easy to accept what is offered without considering all the different decisions it bundles. It\u2019s outsourcing your design without drafting an RFP. Uninformed as\u00a0I was when I made\u00a0the selection, it was only while\u00a0I working within its playground that\u00a0I became aware of its features. It\u2019s choosing something for superficial reasons\u00a0and hoping it works out.<\/p>\n
Move up the title box and a separate\u00a0dropshadow reveals itself. Select all items in the header and discover that odd\u00a0symbol (equal parts signpost and speech bubble) is\u00a0actually hiding a tree top\u00a0so the eye can so subtly detect\u00a0similar elements used to frame each section title below. Clever, but I can\u2019t claim credit\u00a0for the design. At most, it\u2019s because I chose well.<\/p>\n
To be fair, it\u2019s not over til it\u2019s over. Choose the wrong story logic, try it out, learn through your mistake, make a better choice, keep going. The writing process of drafting and editing isn\u2019t linear and neither is, nor should be, immune from the welcome influence of outside suggestion.<\/p>\n
So maybe that\u2019s the point. When you or I choose a good template,\u00a0we reap a double benefit of having something that looks the way we want it without having to build it from scratch. We can learn about our message by trying on an offered suggestion, and adjust it ourselves as we go along. Once\u00a0we press the \u2018publish\u2019 button and stamp our name to claim responsibility for the good and bad, we\u00a0can be\u00a0assured through our own due diligence as a writer that\u00a0someone else\u2019s generic template matches the impact we intend. We offer credit to the template designer as credit is due.<\/p>\n
And as for being leery of templates, perhaps simply being aware of the influence they\u00a0can have is half the battle.<\/p>\n
Crossposted from the\u00a0blog, Writing for Learner Engagement.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you have ever spent time studying rhetorical patterns\u00a0in popular media, you might have a keenly developed *nonsense* detector. I know I do. It isn\u2019t actual *nonsense* we detect \u2013 it\u2019s other things, like bias or\u00a0unfair power dynamics \u2013 but the\u00a0view of our\u00a0world through a critical lens\u00a0sets off those tiny little alarm bells anytime\u00a0we think … <\/p>\n