As a lifelong scientist I’ve written a lot: peer-reviewed scientific papers, laboratory investigations, grant proposals, meta-statistical analysis, class papers, critical analysis of policy options, and state-of-the-science white papers. Much of it was read by only a handful of people. Some of it likely never got read at all. I’ve also written three books, two on famous scientists and one on a technology buff president. So what fiction and narrative non-fiction writing tips can a scientist offer? Here are three:
Cut the big words: This includes jargon, those words that only scientists in the field know. The reasons are obvious. When writing fiction or non-fiction for non-scientists, that is, the general public, the key is to avoid words that most people don’t know. I’m not saying dumb down your writing to primary school or reality-TV-politician level, but avoid tossing in fifty dollar words that will distract from your message. There are no extra points for displaying the grandiosity of your vocabulary or your skill navigating an online thesaurus. Write like you want someone to read what you write.
Be precise: One of the reasons scientists use technical words is because jargon is precise. Each word has a very specific meaning, at least to the group of scientists within that field or subfield. But to the public these same words may mean something completely different (the word “theory” comes to mind). Write your article or book or blog post, then edit it to make sure you are saying exactly what you want to say. Then edit it again. And again; as many times as needed to get it right. If readers have to guess what you meant, or worse, believe it meant something other than you intended, then your writing needs further work. Write active sentences, not passive ones. Use precise, not vague, words.
Don’t be boring: Face it, a lot of science writing is boring. Peer-reviewed scientific papers are the worst: You have to lay out the rationale for the study, describe your methods, list your results, explain how you analyzed the data (with statistics, yuck), and draw conclusions. Most journal articles are read by only a handful of other scientists who specialize in that field. To everyone else they can be mind-numbing. When you write your novel or your non-fiction book or your poetry it’s easy to fall into long descriptions that can, let’s be honest, be rather dull. Sure, you need to place the characters in some time period and describe what they are wearing and thinking, but don’t write three pages describing every detail about the local scenery or everything in their clothes closet. Trust me, your reader will skip over much of it. If they are going to do that, why put it in there?
Bonus tip: One way to avoid being boring is to construct real characters. Stereotypes won’t cut it. Flat characters that don’t inspire either love or hate (or at least compassion or disdain) aren’t going to get the reader involved in the story. Your characters shouldn’t appear to be purchased off some generic shelf; they should have normal human faults and desires and insecurities. Most scientific experiments fail. When they do the scientist proposes a new hypothesis and tries again. People who fail and yet continue to strive to achieve something grand make good characters. Let them fail, then give them a second chance. Perhaps several second chances. To paraphrase Robin Williams, “Reality, what a concept!”
More in my On Writing series (click and scroll).
David J. Kent is President of the Lincoln Group of DC and the author of Lincoln: The Fire of Genius, now available for pre-order. His previous books include Lincoln: The Man Who Saved America, Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity, Edison: The Inventor of the Modern World and two specialty e-books: Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time and Abraham Lincoln and Nikola Tesla: Connected by Fate.
Check out my Goodreads author page. While you’re at it, “Like” my Facebook author page for more updates!
estebang said:
I’ve had several bosses that were also co-authors to varying degrees in my life. I’ve learned a lot from some and a little from others. Finding a healthy balance in precision, brevity, clarity, and readability is a matter of taste and ultimately heavily influences popularity.
One of the best editors I ever had was a prof when I was in grad school. He simply made a several page list with two columns “Item” and “Suggestion”. That was the kindest way of correcting my errors. However, if you talked to him in person, he was one of those people for whom you had to memorize everything that they said and then reinterpret in moments of clarity; those often required writing down the verbal comment and then carefully dissecting the sentences.
My point is he could have used some of your advice, but I still respected him….just not full time…too exhausting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
davidjkentwriter said:
I’ve had professors like that too. Some were brilliant thinkers and absolutely horrible at communicating. Most were better at teaching than writing for the layman. One of the reasons I left consulting was because I felt we were helping the clients and the owners make money without ever helping the public to understand the science. I can’t say I’ve had much impact in my new life but at least I feel like I’m trying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
estebang said:
I think sometimes it can be a compliment when someone (of amazing intellect) is inscrutable. They fully expect you to figure it out. Took me a while to come to that rationalization. But I’m happy with it. Still embarrassed from time to time to come to the realization “Oh, that’s what they meant.” But I suppose most folks do that; else literary criticism would not be that interesting.
LikeLike
davidjkentwriter said:
I agree that the professors I had that challenged me to think were my best experiences. On the other hand, one or two were so disorganized and incomprehensible that you wasted all your time just trying to figure out what they meant. They had no business being near a classroom but apparently they brought in plenty of grants and yet still had a teaching obligation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
estebang said:
Yes, I think the funding model for universities could be improved. The UK system changed maybe ten years ago; don’t know the impact that has had.
When I was teaching, there was little emphasis on excellence; you’d just have to meet the low bar for an average teaching performance and then spend all other time on raising money. It was sort of a communist dystopia in that way. I think that is changing with so-called “teaching professorships”. But I do think it important to have interaction between teachers and researchers.
The most disorganized folks that I knew were ones that made careers by politicking rather than research or teaching. But that is the human condition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
davidjkentwriter said:
I think you’re right about the need for interaction between teachers and researchers. Students asking “stupid” questions can break one’s thought patterns out of their biases.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Moumita De Sarkar said:
I agree with your post.This is something I can completely relate to. I always try to stick my writing around the first three points mentioned in your post. In my opinion, it’s better to read your article before you hit the publish button. If you enjoy reading your work, then there is a slight possibility that your readers too may like it. Again, if you are not enjoying your own craft, then expecting the same from others is a little too much.
LikeLike
Pingback: Crumpled Paper – Ladyleemanila
Sascha Darlington said:
Words and precision. Yes! I consider myself to have a pretty good vocabulary, but when I compose at the computer sometimes I’ll google definitions and find that a word has a nuance that I didn’t know, even though I’ve used it for years. And, sometimes said word doesn’t work with the meaning or image I’m trying to convey.
I read scientific writing as my day job. If you have a proofreader/editor, someone else has read your chapters, etc! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
davidjkentwriter said:
I do the same, that is, google definitions and synonyms trying to find the word that gets the meaning across that I want. I find my science background helps with my historian background, but it’s still a big change for me to craft something fictional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sascha Darlington said:
My writing has improved thanks to google, but then so has my lack of attention span.
Yes, I can see that it would be an issue of allowing yourself the freedom to “make things up” which you certain can’t (well shouldn’t) do in science or history. It’s liberating, I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
davidjkentwriter said:
I’m still working on it (the making things up part).
LikeLike
Sherry Clayton said:
Great advice. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
davidjkentwriter said:
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
maggietiede said:
Although I’m still in undergrad and certainly haven’t published in a journal yet, I love this advice and the background it springs from! I work as a writing tutor, and many students I work with are surprised that a non-English major cares enough about writing to be a tutor. It’s always intriguing to me. Good writing belongs in all disciplines and fields, and should always follow these basic rules (or variations thereof). Now, if only academic writers would be motivated learn this as well as novelists…
LikeLiked by 1 person
davidjkentwriter said:
I’m glad you found the article useful!
LikeLike
Pingback: Author Interview – Shawn L. Bird – “Grace Awakening” Series (Young Adult Fantasy) “Murdering Mr. Edwards: Tales from Canterbury High” (Short Story Noir) & Poetry Collections | toofulltowrite (I've started so I'll finish)
kcblog31 said:
Interesting that you advise the active voice. I have fought editors for years to use active over passive. I have been told over and over my active voice style is odd if not unacceptable.
Glad to see your promotion of active voice in technical writing.
I’m an engineer also dabbling in creative writing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
davidjkentwriter said:
Active voice is the standard for good writing. However, scientists tend to write in passive voice because scientific papers focus on discovery of what we don’t know, plus acknowledgement of uncertainties. So scientists must remind themselves to write more actively when communicating to the public. As a reader and editor, I tell scientists to avoid jargon as much as possible even in scientific papers. Too many times I find papers virtually unreadable, and for no good reason. Some sentences are so contorted with sesquipedalian words (such as that one) that if you were to parse the sentence out you would find it says absolutely nothing. Say what you want to say. And as I say in the post, be precise in language your audience understands.
LikeLike
Pingback: Over Learning – Nicolas Heartmann