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!
Megan,
ReplyDeleteObviously, I need to borrow some positivity from you. My question for you is: What did you NOT like about the readings? I ask this not because I don't think that what you have written isn't insightful, but because, instead, I think we can learn just as much from what we don't agree with.
As far as the intimacy within science writing - I enjoyed that section of Hancock as well. I'm interested in our experiences as creative writers by trade. I wonder how this affects the way we look at other writing. Are we pretentious in thinking that only our creative writing can be emotional? I feel like I was that way when I entered college. Since being a writing tutor, I think that my view has changed, simply due to the amount of passion I see writers enter the Writing Center with, regardless of what paper they have in their hands. When someone is truly interested and excited about a lab report -- you know they have something special going on with that subject. I will be interested to see how our creative writing background shapes the way we approach any science writing we may tackle in this class -- and if we approach that writing with the same amount of "intimacy" as we do a poem or short story we may write.
I'm interested in your last lines of writing. If your "key" to good science writing is to engage in conversation -- would you define rhetoric as an act of communication? Better yet, how would you define rhetoric? I ask this because of curiosity and nothing else. I am on the fence myself. I can't quite decide if it is a conversation, a type of communication or an interaction.
The mulling continues...
Thanks for letting me read your piece, Megan!
Kelsey
Megan,
ReplyDeleteI am an Environmental biology major and I congratulate you for seeing the light. Its true, when I first thought of science writing, I thought it would be a good way to combine my passion for the outdoors and my skill as a writer, but never did I think I would be able to exercise my creative side. Call it naivety, if you will. We are hardly ever exposed to good, creative science writing in our adolescent years-- just text books, papers, and lectures--at least I wasn't.
Although, Hancock practiced what she preached, and made us feel close to her words, and thus "trust" her writing, I was wondering if there was anything you disagreed with her about coming from a creative writing background.
I also agree with your last statement: engaging a conversation is the key to good writing. It is a way that we can communicate with each other and ourselves.