I would just like to start off this blog piece with saying that I deserve some sort of bonus points for reading ALL of these pieces while perched on the back of a boat at Ft. Peck Lake. Reading science while being surrounded by science... In reality, it just gave me something to do while I watched my fishing pole. Which didn't get a bite all god damned weekend.
Starting with my least favorite:
Polanyi. I tried. I swear I did. Call it kairos, call it "dry," (*enter Doug here) or call it what you may -- there is a reason why "BORING AS FUCK" is written at the top of the article. There is a certain absence of narrator in this piece that kills it for me. He is separate from his writing. This feels like reading a textbook with a scary-ass librarian breathing down my shoulder. While I read it, I kept thinking, "I feel like I should be getting more out of this than I am." I understood his point with the frameworks and their need to be stable in order for an argument to be persuasive, blah blah blah. He used heavy language and way too many numbers. I know we talked about this last Thursday -- audience, etc. but for me, this piece was pretentious (that was also written across the top). I understand that tables and numbers can work rhetorically, but as a reader of these pieces, "The Fall" worked much more effectively in its use of numbers. Those numbers were present for ethos, but didn't make me feel like I needed to punch the author in the nuts for him to trust his readers. End rant.
Favorite article:
Mooallem. Anyone that can take albatross nesting partners and make it interesting to me has got something positive going in their writing. Here, my experience wasn't "dry," instead it was incredibly full and vivid. My deduction for this came to revolve, once again, around the narrator. In this particular piece, I noted a present narrator. It's quite possible that I just enjoy a more journalistic approach to science writing, but I enjoyed this piece for several reasons: Humor, just enough "science" language, a topic I wasn't knowledgable about (but could make connections to), and kick-ass lesbian albatrosses with 7 ft. wing spans. Seriously -- just picture that bird. (Here, I encourage you to not google them, because I was disappointed to find that they just look like seagulls on steroids). I could begin to talk here of my heated discussions on the lake with my family, arguing about seagulls and the best way to catch them. Turns out, you can hook a seagull in midair with a fishing lure. Oops.
Hancock provided some emotional points for me to mull over. These words keep popping up in our readings about science writing such as: "intimacy," "trust," "tenderness"... These have nothing to do with tables and numbers. You have to, like Hancock says, "always have the reader in mind," (1) and I say, "be a present narrator, dammit." This "trust" that she keeps talking about -- what exactly does it mean? Well, in my margins, I wrote, "Don't be a pretentious asshole." Yes, you want to inform your reader. But, you also don't want to make them feel like an idiot. You have to give them some wiggle room. Learning never gets old -- write about something that interests you and (hopefully) your reader. Mukherjee talked about that in his introduction as well. Also, he talked about peas. But, he mostly talked about learning. If we can't be interested in what we are writing, why the hell should anybody else? Which really makes me wonder if Polanyi even like what he wrote. (Pretentious asshole...)
Kelsey,
ReplyDeleteWhile you applauded my optimism, I applaud your realism. You know what you like and dislike, and aren't afraid to say it--I can appreciate that, and maybe should take a leaf from the realism book every once in a while.
I, too, think that it is important to engage the reader in such a way that they don't feel insulted while still presenting them with accurate information. And while I don't always find science writing thrilling (although some of it is totally kick ass and will keep my engaged and thinking) I think that there is definitely a way to write that doesn't sound pretentious. When I say that we need to engage in a conversation with our reader I mean that we need to be sure to write in such a way that does not bore us to death, or our reader. If we can't even read what we've written without thinking that it is the worst thing to ever be put on paper, then we can't expect our readers to think positively about what we've written either. I think that being relatable, and making it easy for the reader to feel informed but not condescended is the key to a good piece of science writing. Which I think is pretty much what you are saying too!
Kelsey,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I wrote on something completely different ion Polanyi, I have to agree with you. He is pretentious. It took me quite a while to get through his article and felt as if there was no charcter behind his words. This could be cause by the fact I had to look up several words in order to fully understand his essay. By the end, I liked his message, but it shouldn't have taken so much effort from the reader to know what he was talking about. He trusted the reader, me, too much. I also thought that he was writing for those who were familiar with Copernicus, Galileo, religion, yada-yada-yada. This was not a problem for me, but others, it very well could have been.
I would also like to comment on your reference to Hancocks words: "intimacy", "tenderness", and "trust". Yes, I totally agree that we should provide these feelings for the reader through our writing. I was impressed by her ability to not only regurgitate this information, but also provide an example of it in her regurgitation. I do trust her words, even if I don't agree with all of them.
I apologize for my awful grammar.
Delete