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.
Megan, I also enjoyed Fahnestock's point on the fact that we have to bask in the success of writing. Science writing's success, I believe, lies in two factors: communicating science to the lay person and holding the lay persons attention. When a piece can do that, it's probably safe to say that its a success, as long as the science they are writing about is in fact true ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I agree with the word 'celebrate', however. To celebrate is to acknowledge something publically with a social gathering or enjoyable activity. I think a better word would be 'appreciate'. Just saying. You don't generally publically acknowledge that a piece of writing communicated something well. You celebrate the science that was done maybe...Unless Fahenstock was talking about celebrating through writing, i.e. his essay we read.