(If you didn’t know, Crichton is an M.D. who wrote Jurassic Park, Congo, Sphere, and many other popular novels.)
And here is the quiz we’ll take at the beginning of class Friday:
- What percentage of the reading did you do?
- Explain a specific concept from his article that stood out to you (something you underlined, perhaps).
- What’s one detail you’d like to improve in your writing style?
- If you were the author of this piece, how would you update it if you were going to do one more revision?
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. Excessive Abstraction: If you don't say exactly what you are trying to say, the audience has no idea what you are talking about. Use specific examples (just as Michael does in each of his sections) to help the audience see what you are talking about.
3.One detail I would like to improve in my writing style is unnecessary qualification. Sometimes I can be very apologetic when I write. If I become more blunt then I will have more direct writing and have even more respect from my readers.
4.The "discussion" section is too long. Although the writer complains about repetition, it seems he makes the same error.
^^Bryce Cook^^
ReplyDeleteLogan Williams
ReplyDelete1.) 100%
2.) & 3.) The section about unnecessary complexity really stood out to me. The example he gives is, "tuluene-containing substances" instead of, "substances containing toluene." I feel like I do that a lot, even though to me, my writing makes pretty good sense. That's actually something that I'd really like to improve upon in my own writing. A lot of people seem to find that I often say things in confusing ways. I would like to learn how to avoid being unnecessarily complex.
4.) I would get a recent medical journal publication and compare it to the older ones he uses. I would compare and contrast them to see if scientists now days have taken his advice and made their writing easy to understand.
I did 100% of the reading.
ReplyDeleteOne concept that stood out to me was the part about unnecessary qualification. It stood out because it is something I have noticed in a lot of the scientific papers I have read. People often add phrases to their sentences that detract importance. Many times when I see it in papers, the phrase will start with the word generally. I had never realized what this actually does to a paper until I read this article. It really does take away from the author’s ethos. When a reader sees that a writer is constantly qualifying things they are saying, it makes the writer sound insecure.
I would definitely like to improve the flow of ideas in my own writing. To be completely honest, I feel like my science background has somewhat hurt my ability to connect ideas clearly. I thought it was funny that Crichton pointed out that science’s complexity makes it a difficult subject to explain well. Even in my part of the research paper for this class, I felt my ideas could have flowed better. It is something I definitely want to work on in my writing.
If I were to update this article, I would add a little bit more explanation in some of the sections. For example, in the section on excessive abstraction, Crichton only includes two sentences at the end to explain his examples. Furthermore, his two sentences don’t really point out what causes the most abstraction in the examples. I understand that it is obvious to most people. However, I think a little more explanation in some sections wouldn’t hurt.
Tanner
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. I enjoyed reading the verbierge section. It is interesting to see how some people use more words than needed. Michael the author of the article said that the New England Journal used too many words in the article. It is interesting that using too many words could make an article looks bad and obscure.
3. I have a hard time to express my ideas in writing. I would like to be able to express my ideas more thoroughly.
4. I will try to get some feedback from my peers before publishing an article.
1) 100%
ReplyDelete2) The unnecessary complexity of medical writing is what stood out most. It's a simple concept, or should be, but it renders nearly all medical articles impossible to get through. This is usually what leads to the other errors that he talked about, like nonsensical word choice and unclear organization.
3) During his conclusion Chrichton talked about the impersonal nature of medical writing and how that tone portrays a cautionary attitude toward what is written, almost like a politician attempting to speak without communicating anything. I want to avoid that at all costs and be as personal as possible while still remaining professional and informational.
4) I would clarify the evident errors in the examples used. I was able to recognize what Chrichton wanted to point out, but I believe that an academic writer, the clear audience of this paper, would be accustomed to the type of writing used in the examples and would remain unable to recognize the errors. This would strengthen the validity of the ten points.
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. It's true, there is a lot of unnecessary complexity in medical journals. I don't know if I would agree with Crichton that doctors write that way to impress each other, but I do feel like they could easily make their writing (if not simpler) more enjoyable to read.
3. I noticed that Crichton wrote as if he was speaking. This is something I have been working on since taking this class. It is not always easy for me but when done right it can be very powerful.
4. I would try and cut back on some of the example medical journal texts that he included. I realize that he needed to include some examples in order to get his point across, but I feel like there were more examples than he needed.
~ Nicole Krantz
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. Academic Journals aren't exempt from high literary standards. I love how Crighton debunks two excuses that scientists use as their crutch: Scientists are illiterate - reject as spiteful. The subject matter is difficult to communicate because of it's inherent complexity - some scientists use striking clarity, and all New England Journals tend to be just as bad.
3. Using two or three words when one will suffice. Crighton says that this is super confusing and unnecessary. I think that I do it because I'm searching for the correct word and so I give you 4 to sift through in hopes that you catch my meaning.
4. Crighton comes up with great examples to illustrate the 10 recurring faults, however, he doesn't spend much time explaining or correcting them. It would be sweet if he gave the original passage, followed by a short explanation and then a revision of the original sentence.
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. A piece of writing is not only less credible, but also less interesting when a writer does not write with confidence.
3. Not use as many qualifiers. That is one other thing he mentioned, and I feel that I might do it a lot.
4. Some of the examples that he gives are not adequately explained. The purpose of each example was to let you get confused, showing how bad the writing was, and then resolve it by explain why it was confusing and how it could have been better. After some of the examples he didn't really explain very well why it was confusing, and after few did he explain how it could be improved. This made it so that I got confused because the examples were written terrible, and I stayed confused because there was no resolution.
Stephen Kitto
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. What stood out to me was the verbiage scientists use in their journals. I agree with Crichton. Sometimes I find scientific articles and journals hard to read because of the lengthy sentences. I sometimes get lost and miss the point that they are trying to get across. As a scientist, or any writer, I think it's important to be short and concise.
3. I have a lot of things to improve with my writing. However, one area in particular is my the flow of ideas. When I begin to write, it's like a storm of ideas all clashing together and it's hard to organize them into a well structured paper.
4. I would read over a couple of current scientific journals written in the past three years and then I would compare them to the ones Michael Crichton revised. I would be curious to see if there is any similarities and or differences in they way scientists are writing today.
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. I liked how he didn't give the doctors any excuses for writing in such an abstract manner. If they can speak in such a plain and simple way, then why can't they write that way? He even talked about how when they reply to others' comments about their article, they speak in a very clear manner. He even invalidated the excuse that the subject is just complex, so the paper must be complex too. Other doctors write about very complex subjects but can still come off as simple and understandable.
3. Unnecessary complexity. I think I tend to try to make things sound educated and informed, but it just comes off as complex and discredits me as a writer.
4. I would clarify my explanations a little more. After the section about excessive compression, all he says is that the sentence is ambiguous. The author is being ambiguous here. I realized it was ambiguous, but he had no explanation about it being an example of excessive compression.
Lexi Nielson
100%
ReplyDeleteUnnecessary qualification; don't water down your writing with apologies or defenses of hypothetical arguments. This problem is very common in academic writing, but is useless. Those who do it show they don't know their audience; scientists are skeptical by nature.
Often my writing has a poor flow of ideas. If I get distracted, and try to add more information than I should. The best way to improve this aspect of my writing is to throughly proofread my writing.
Maybe I missed it, but what does obfuscation even mean? Perhaps it is a common medical term, but if not, I'd like a definition.
100%
ReplyDeleteHis reasoning for the tradition of poor writing in the medical community is very interesting. He says that it must have started as a way to confuse other professionals, and he concludes with the great cost in money and knowledge that this terrible form of communication has incurred.
I would like to be better at the flow of my writing. I don't think that I mix up ideas, like he accuses the physicians of doing, but I could use a better flow. Now that I think of it, I need to work on being more specific and not as abstract. Often I'll say a complete idea in one or two sentences instead of expanding it. That is what makes it feel choppy and disconnected.
I don't feel that it's out of date. The same problems that he talks about int he paper are still current today. Although, I would add a section about nominalization. That is also a problem that afflicts medical writers.
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. One concept that stood out to me was in the discussion. It was interesting to note that a reason why medical writing is so confusing is to sound more educated than other doctors and to intentionally try and confuse the reader.
3. I would like to change my verbiage. I often see myself including additional, “fluffy “ information or adding additional phrases to make myself sound more intelligent. This often leads to other problems in my writing as well, and can even make it more confusing.
4. Under each of his 10 points, I would give a brief explanation and example of the principle being critiqued. Then I would use the specific examples found in the original articles studied. The author doesn’t do this starting with a specific example and then trying to explain, making it harder to follow because his examples are already confusing enough to begin with.
Andrew Black
1. 100 %
ReplyDelete2. Unnecessary qualification stood out to me because I have read a few different medical articles, and it seems they are always throwing in lengthy words to make it sound more intelligent. This in fact only makes it more choppy and harder to understand. It really serves no purpose.
3. I am going to work on using redundancy less in my writing. After reading this I realized that sometimes I fall into the trap of using two different adjectives that describe the same thing. This makes me look bad to my readers and is simply clumsy.
4. He does a great job of using examples from medical papers to show the concepts he is talking about, but if it were to be revised I would add more explanations of the individual concepts. It was hard for me to understand exactly what the problem was, for example, in the "Excessive Compression" section, there is no explanation at all.
Dan Nielson
100%
ReplyDeleteThe concept that stood out to me the most was how simplicity is avoided at all costs. I can't tell you how many papers and journal articles I have read and asked myself, "what does this even mean?" Now sometimes it may be because I don't have a large enough vocabulary to understand everything clearly; however, I would say most of the time I have a hard time grasping the meaning because the writers do not write in a simple manner.
I would like to improve on a couple things. I would like to improve the flow of ideas in my writing. I feel like I have a very hard time being able to sit down and just type without having to stop and think of the direction that I am heading. I would imagine some more ninja training will help with the flow. I would also like to improve my vocabulary. I feel that I do not choose the most appropriate word to use a lot of times simply because I don't know the word that would be best.
The article talks about how medical writing has a tendency to be difficult to read for various reasons; however, when first reading the title I had no idea what it meant. Once again, it was because of my limited vocabulary, but you think when critiquing a specific writing you would try your best, if not exaggerate, the points you are trying to make in your own writing. I would suggest using words or a more simple term for obfuscation.
1. 100%
ReplyDelete2. I completely agree with the author's views that scientific writing is often redundant and repetitive. Yes, I just exemplified it in my first sentence. For whatever reason we feel smarter using more words. In our minds, using a descriptive word followed by and and another very similar descriptive word creates a flow that to us sounds intelligent. Perhaps we think that by using more words we cover more ground, when really it just bogs the reader down. May we avoid this very common mistake, and never fall into this trap (haha).
3. My writing style can easily become wordy and without direction. Courses that require writing have trained me to fill pages with ideas that are less developed to take up space. I want to write with a clear direction, not to fill page quotas.
4. If the author truly wanted to mimik the style of scientific papers, he would need to include a graphic comparing the amount of redundancy, excessive abstraction, etc. in medical writing compared to another similar type of writing. It would visually express his opinion in a graphic, avoiding further redundancy.
50%
ReplyDeleteI love the methods section! Humorous, while maintaining the scientific journal format.
My writing could improve through several of his suggestions. However the one that I think I could work on the most is cutting out excessive abstraction.
One way his article could be revised is adding good examples, rather than simply showing the poor examples. Nothing too long, though--it's good short.
100%
ReplyDeleteThe concept that stood out to me was unnecessary qualification. It is interesting that so many technical writers feel the need to protect their statements with so many exceptions instead of just stating what they are really trying to say. I really liked how Mr. Crichton said that many writers spend so much time talking about what their article is NOT. This seems especially useless to me. I have read many scholarly articles and had the same thoughts about the writing.
One thing that I would really like to improve in my writing is the flow of my ideas. I want to come from one logical thought to another in my writing without leaving out my in-between-thoughts. I often have a good idea but I don't fully explain how I got that idea.
If I were to update this article I might add that writers might think about defining very technical words the first time they use them. Technical writers like to use very technical, job-specific words that very few people understand. If they want anyone to read their article, they need to be more clear and simple.