Catching up

Hello all, I'd like to apologize for the lateness of my post last week, as I am churning it out exactly a week after I should have had it completed. Things have been awfully hectic, and this post just had to get pushed onto the back burner until I had a little more time to complete it (although I am not sure 2 in the morning is really "more time to complete the post" but hey, what can you do, right?)

So, I am going to take this post and respond to last week's reading and this week's reading all at once. I am going to attempt to say everything that I want/need to say in a fairly concise and not ridiculously long post, but I make no guarantees.

So I really enjoyed the "Nitty Gritty" chapter in Ideas into Words. I think the reason I like this chapter so much was because it spelled out a lot of the weird things that I do when I write and made them feel a little more normal by including them as an actual part of the writing process. The chapter talks about the questions that writers should be asking themselves, little tricks that we often use to get us back on track, or little quirks that we have to remind us to look back at something we really like or dislike so that we can go back and elaborate on it or change it. Mostly the chapter is great because it brings my back to the basics, and reminds me of things I should already by doing as a writer.

As for the seventh chapter of this same novel, well that's where we get to address my least favorite thing in the whole world--writer's block. Part of me loved this chapter, and another part of me really disliked it. I liked subject headings (for lack of a better title for them) and how they posed questions to me that could get me thinking about how to get out of whatever writing hole I'd dug for myself. Yet, at the same time, I know that if I am truly stuck in my writing, even those things are not going to dig me out of the hole that is writer's block. I know that it is going to take some random burst of inspiration to get me to bring life back into my writing, and I usually just have to wait for it to happen. I can tweak the piece again and again, addressing all of the questions within the chapter, and all it could have served to do was sink me further into the hole I was trying to dig myself out of. Like I said, it's not that I dislike the chapter or the ideas it poses, it's just that I know myself as a writer, and that those things usually won't actually get me anywhere (which really freaking sucks).

I found the chapter in A Field Guide to be particularly intriguing, mostly because it was about something familiar--essays. We've been writing essays (even teeny tiny ones) since we were probably around 10 years old. We have spent years and years of our lives developing and expanding our understanding of what an essay is and what it is comprised of. In fact, I would say that in my 20's I feel like a bit of an expert on essays (although I am sure I am far from it!) I would like to think that I've got a pretty solid understanding of these suckers. And a struggle I have been having throughout this semester, in this class, is that a lot of the time I feel like I am going into a project a bit blind because it falls within a genre that I have little to no experience writing in. But this chapter, brought me back to my faithful friend the essay. This chapter basically told me to look at everything as an essay of sorts. A magazine article is probably a human interest essay. The introduction to a novel, actually an essay. A literature review, an essay. This chapter put into perspective for me that if I look at these genres as if they are essays addressing different things, then I really do know what I am doing even if I have never written within that genre before. And that was really enlightening for me.

Between the quantum and the cosmos

I found this set of readings really intriguing. Each one of them addressed an element of size and it's function within the universe. One discussed the vastness of the cosmos and the infinitesimal importance of a single sub-nuclear molecule. Another talked about the immense potential of energy. Finally, a third talked about how size matters, and the effect size can have on the way a creature functions.


I think it was most interesting to me because size is something that we often have a hard time fathoming. We cannot look at size objectively, and often if something is on either of the extreme ends of the spectrum, it cannot be truly understood by a human being. We can only look at size through the eyes of a human, therefore, we are limited in our view and understanding of what size is. We will inevitably compare the size of something to our own human size, and thus are limited to a fairly small range of understanding. We know an apple is generally about the size of the palm of our hand. It can be seen that a bear is probably 2-3 times the size of the average man. We easily compare a tube of chap stick to approximately the size of a pinky or ring finger. But we tend to have a hard time understanding, wholly, what we cannot see. We can't see an atom, nor can we see the entire universe. These things we can only understand to a certain extent. We can imagine them in comparison to the sizes of humanity, but we cannot truly grasp their expanses. We can't really compare an atom to the size of anything we can see. Maybe we could imagine it like a grain of sand, but even then a grain of sand could be infinitely larger than an atom itself. We can think of the universe in terms of the ocean, vast and far-reaching, and yet even the largest ocean is just a fraction of the size of the universe. The scale of it all is nearly impossible for us to truly understand because we have nothing to truly compare it to to gain human understanding of such things.

That's also what's so amazing about size. It both intrigues and terrifies us, something that Jeans is quick to point out, "We find the universe terrifying because of its vast meaningless distances, terrifying because of its inconceivably long vistas of time which dwarf human history to the twinkling of an eye, terrifying because of our extreme loneliness, and because of the material insignificance of our home in space--a millionth part of a grain of sand out of all the sea-sand in the world" (3). We want to know and understand the great vastness of everything that is out there, but it also terrifies us that we can't really know what else is out there, that we can't even begin to wrap our minds around how far-reaching it all can really be.

Writing and Whatnot

We often see science writing as dry, or boring, or a horrible waste of an hour that we will never get back. It is necessary that science and scientific discoveries are properly documented so that they can be passed onto the public in the best possible representation, and this is where science writing gets more interesting. When a layman reads science writing, and then caters it to a layman's reading needs, things can get lost in translation, which is why original science writing must be so dense and difficult to get through.

As we've covered a few times in this class, science writing doesn't necessarily have to be the god-awful boring reading experience that it often seems to be. Science writing doesn't have to be just about facts and figures, it doesn't have to be almost entirely comprised of materials, methods, and results. When we change the rhetorical situation, when we change the audience, we get to change the entertainment level of the writing. The main purpose, when presenting something to the public is "to celebrate rather than validate," according to Fahnestock. The job here is to inform the public on the discovery that has been made, and to celebrate that discovery. It is to create "the 'wonder' appeal" when talking about "'never before' achievements" of whatever was accomplished.

I think that when it comes to science writing it is important to remember to celebrate the success, as Fahnestock points out. It is important that we focus on the people that were a part of the achievement, and what the achievement can bring to the greater whole of humanity. What makes science writing interesting to the average person is what it can do for them or for society. The "why should I care" element is largely important here and I think that's really what Fahnestock's piece really empasizes. It seems to be the same things we've already covered again and again--the human element of science writing is all important.

Questions and Answers

So Doug asked us to do some question responses instead of reading responses and analyses. I'm all about it!

1.  How did you used to see, and how do you now see, the relationship between writing and following rules? Do you associate rules more with one kind of writing or another, or not really think much about rules at all, or think about rules in all your writing? (Again, try to give me, if you can, how you thought about this when you entered college, and how you think about it now, and if your thinking hasn't changed, that's fine, just say so.) 

I would have to say that upon entering college I thought that almost every type of writing had a certain structure it was supposed to be following. I thought that there were certain grammar and writing rules that dictated the way a student was/is expected to be writing. For years and years we are taught to write five paragraph essays that include an introduction, 3 body paragraphs that describe to the reader everything we want to say, and then a conclusion that sums it all up. "It is Molly and I . . ." they said. "Passive voice is wrong" they said. "Write for your audience," they said. Those are just some of the "rules" of writing that we are given as young writers. When in fact, the case is not so black and white. It isn't always "Molly and I . . ." sometimes, in fact, it actually is grammatically correct to say "Molly and me." Passive voice is not wrong, has it's place and function in writing and is necessary for a writer to emphasize certain parts of a sentence (thanks LING 238 for teaching me that my use of passive voice is purposeful and meaningful!)  Also, you don't always need to write for your audience, sometimes you need to write for you and then cater to your audience later.

Upon entering college and delving more deeply into my studies of writing, I have come to learn that the rules of writing are dictated more by personal style, professor style, and the genre that you are working in. I have found that in my writing in college I have been given more freedom to break the "rules" that had been imposed on me throughout the years (I mean just look at the idea of using blogs as writing assignments, I think my AP teachers would have a heart attack if they could see me using blogs to respond to readings!) I've also noticed that we college students are more highly encouraged to put ourselves and our own voice into our writing. It seems that even when doing technical writing, it is important that the writer's voice is still present even if they're bias should not be. That is something that I never felt encouraged to do in my high school years, unless it was a more creative writing sort of piece.

Now, I would say that I don't necessarily "think" about the rules of writing any sort of piece, I feel that I've simply developed a pretty strong understanding for how genres function and how to write within them without consciously thinking about how the rules of that genre dictate the writing.

2. What did you and do you think is the role of personal opinion in writing? Is there writing that should be more personal and other that shouldn't be? Is there writing where opinion isn't allowed? Is there writing that should be as purely objective as possible, and if so, can/should that writing also be personal?

I think that opinion has it's place in writing, even when it isn't supposed to. Even when we say we are writing an objective, un-biased piece of writing, our own thoughts and opinions will inevitably leak into the writing. There is no way that humans can be completely objective, and we cannot help but put bias into our writing even if it isn't on purpose.

Not only do opinions leak into our writing, but there are times and places in which opinions are necessary in writing. When we write memoir, editorials, and opinion pieces, obviously the author's thoughts and opinions are essential to the piece. Yet, there are also times and places in which opinions do not at all belong in writing. When reporting on the findings of a study or the outcomes of an event, it is important that personal opinion is held out of the writing as much as possible. 

I also find that even though some writing shouldn't have opinion in it, doesn't mean it can't be personal writing. If a writer is passionate about a topic, their voice is going to slip into the piece and make it feel more personal, even if it remains as objective as possible. 

3. Are there places or scenes of writing that you associate more with the personal and opinion-based writing, and other scenes you associate more with objective and impersonal writing? If so, what are differences in those scenes -- what are they associated with?

As with the previous question, I see more personal and opinion-based writing to be reserved for pieces of writing that function as personal and opinionated: memoirs, editorials, opinion articles. These are places in which the author's thoughts, opinions, and experiences should be prevalent in the writing. I see more "impersonal" writing as things that function as a source of information: manuals, research papers/articles, lab reports, news reports. These are places in which facts are to be presented and not opinions. Again, this isn't to say that these types of writing are totally devoid of human element, but rather they are typically places that I see as more impersonal pieces of writing. 

The beauty and nature of science

First let me say that I find it extremely interesting, and thought-provoking, that Carl Sagan's piece begins with a description of a world that the author feared would come into existence, and that very description is the world we seem to live in today: "I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time--when the United Stats is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness." Okay, so maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration of the state of the world at the current moment, but it does seem valid on at least a few points. I don't necessarily have a lot of cool thoughts or ideas surrounding this fear of Sagan's but rather find it interesting that the one thing he fears seems to be slowly becoming the reality of the state of the US.

The readings from last week and this week seem to address, most commonly, the idea that there is a certain beauty and nature to science and the way that it functions. Additionally, this chunk of readings addressed the way in which a writer can convey the beauty and nature of science in a way that hooks a layman reader and keeps them interested in the science being presented.

Beginning with Chapter 4 of A Field Guide for Science Writers I quickly found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the advice given on how to effectively write a piece of science writing. While I agree that keeping things in layman's terms is important, as is the flow and content of the piece, I don't necessarily agree that a reader needs every single thing spelled out for them in the simplest of terms. The author introduces an A to B, B to C, C to D path of logic for the reader to follow. This is important because it allows the reader to follow a linear stream of thoughts and ideas that are all interconnected, thus making the concept being conveyed more readily understood. Yet when the author of this chapter says, "The reader needs to be held by the hand, and walked through the idea, every step, step by step" (29) I cannot help but disagree with the author. Again, I recognize the value of giving the reader a step-by-step explanation and analysis to follow, yet I also recognize that readers are intelligent and can come to conclusions all on their own. I think that saying the writer must hold the readers hand and pull them through the text word by word is overkill, and underestimates the reasoning capabilities of the readers. I also think that over-explaining or over-simplifying for the reader has the potential of decimating the beauty and nature of the science that the writer is trying to talk about. I think that this concept is best put in The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, by Lewis Wolpert, "Science often explains the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar" (233).

D2L Sucks

Sooo, I have been trying to access D2L to get the texts for tonight's post; however, it is down... Still. It's no biggie, it's not like I have homework to do or anything. Thanks D2L.

This is how I feel about D2L!

Needless to say, this is me saying that I have no access to our texts and thusly have nothing I can post about for tomorrow's class. Sorry Doug and classmates for not having anything valuable to say about the texts that I have no access to. I also don't have the syllabus saved on my computer (I know, I'm a terrible student!) so I don't even have access to that. Therefore, if the readings for Thursday are from the books, I have no idea and still can't write a post about them. Hopefully D2L will actually be functioning in the next few days so that I can read our texts and find something cool to say about them. Sorry team! But I do have some funny pictures for your enjoyment instead!

More on Narrative Rationality and Rational Narrativity

So for the Digital Rhetoric class, I just (as in 10 minutes ago) put up a really long post about how I feel about how the real world paradigm and the narrative paradigm cannot be entirely separate and exclusive, and how in this world one must accept the reality that these paradigms are co-dependent (see: Writing in the Digital Age) for further details on that. Rather than go into an extended discussion of the very same topic, I am going to elaborate on how my thoughts on this can be related to science writing. I think that when we refer to a piece of science writing as "dry" or "boring" or "mind-numbing" it is because the writing has lost the element of imagination and narrative that is essential to keeping a reader engaged. However, when we find a piece of science writing that highly entertains us, we tend to question the credibility of the piece and the author. So where might be find our happy medium?


Going off of my post from last week, it is pertinent that we as writers engage a good conversation with our readers in order to hold their attention and interest. If a piece of science writing only presents the hard facts, the reader will be inclined to only study the abstract in order to know what is happening within the piece (I'm guilty of doing this myself). If a piece of science writing focuses only on the human elements, and ignores the hard facts, the reader will be inclined to scoff at what has been written and regard the piece of writing as nothing of value. The best way for me to reconcile the differences in the two paradigms presented in Fisher's piece is to propose that a good piece of science writing needs to tell a story, while also presenting the facts, logic, and rationale in equal measure. Graves goes on to reiterate this point, driving it home by quoting Stephen Hawking on page 112 of her piece, "If rhetoric is integral to human thought, then writing becomes a central element of thinking and generating knowledge in all areas of human inquiry" (112). To me, this essentially says that without rhetoric, without narrative, there can be no scientific discovery, no human inquiry.

Science is intimate?

From the first two sentences of this reading, I was hooked on what was going to be said. To call science writing intimate is something I'd never ever imagined would happen. When the author says that science writing is intimate because you are inviting the reader into your mind, it struck a cord with me, but not on a science-y level--and that intrigued me. To me, creative writing has always been what I consider intimate, because I feel that not only do I put a piece of my mind into the writing, but I place a piece of my soul in it too. So right from the start this piece had me intrigued. Further on the first chapter goes, and I find myself referring back to our class discussion on Thursday. This chapter is more about what it takes to be a good writer, than what it takes to be a good science writer. The most beautiful part of the Hancock chapters that we read for today fall right in the first few pages, "If you are bored, the reader will be bored. If you are skating on thin ice, unsure of the information, readers become uneasy. If you are counting on a first draft to be good enough, the reader will flip on by" (pg 3). I found this to be the most vital piece of information that the author could have given to a potential science writer who is not actually invested in the science. For a person like me, who's interest lies in creative writing far more than in technical writing, this struck a cord. I may not always be able to only engage in creative writing, and I may have to dive into some technical work from time to time, but it will never be my sole focus. For someone like me, it is pertinent that I learn to write in such a way that I intrigue not only my readers, but myself. If I cannot get myself interested in whatever I am writing about, that will telegraph to the readers, and they won't be interested either. I will bore both of us to death, and nobody wants that. It is essential that as a person who is not wholly invested in the sciences that I can at least have an engaging conversation with the reader.

The key to a good piece of science writing: an engaging conversation. Well, I think we can all manage that!

A little bit about me!

Hi everyone,

I am Megan! I'm not sure exactly what Doug is looking for in this introduction, so I'm just going to throw some fun facts about myself out to you all. I am a senior in credits this year, but I am just about a junior in the English program--I thought that I wanted to be a science major for the first two years of my college career (turns out I was wrong!) I am an intern at a publishing company based out of Bozeman, and I've spent most of my spare time over the past year editing novels for publication. It's been a pretty kick ass experience! I am in a sorority, and could not be happier. I really love football, and very avidly follow both the Bobcats and the Seahawks, honestly that's what I spend most of my weekends focused on. As for science writing... Well, I guess it's pretty cool. I think that science is wonderful, even if I am atrocious at it, and I think that writing on science and learning how to write more for that type of genre will be one of those skills that I will be happy to have at the end of this course. Although technical and academic-type writing is not my forte, or even my favorite thing, I am looking forward to what I will learn through this course.

So yeah, that's just a tidbit about me!


I also think it is probably pertinent that I say something about the texts that we are supposed to have read for Thursday, so I'll just throw a little something in here about that too. I would say that the part that struck me the most about the pieces we read this time was the fact that weren't mind-numbingly boring. At 1:35 a.m. I honestly thought I would be bored to death trying to get through these texts, but I was really impressed with the way that they engaged me. The authors of these pieces of science writing wrote in such a way that I felt like I was reading more of a story about stars, or atoms trapped in limestone rather than a piece of science writing. The authors also did a really great job of bringing the people into the piece and making it feel more accessible to me.