Writing Has Rules!!??

I have always thought of writing to have rules associated with it.  Initially these rules were grammar and sentence structure as far back as grade school.  Although these rules I have known to exist, I never had a teacher actually point them out.  I have learned by making mistakes first.  All the disappointing red marks on the paper, usually pointing to simple structure.  These rules have also been considered and not practiced with intention.  The battle over not wanting to 'loose' my voice and the correctness of how it 'should' be written took some time to develop.  Still working on that.... revision...revision..revision!

Once I decided to 'go back to school' after 10 years of being free from the education institution, I knew immediately that I would have to embrace the writing style that the professors are looking for... not just to get those As but because they are teaching valuable information.  Alas, I became a writing major!  Which to me is exciting and scary.

I love-- absolutely love words, communication and the power of written and oral speech via creatively or presentationally.  Yet all those red marks and the 'not knowing' or not yet knowing how to structure the perfect sentence is intimidating.  I like to play with words using them to express emotions.  My personal writings are abstract usually describing an 'image' to the point of poetically making someone feel it as well.  Empathic writing, or at least that's what I'm shooting for.

Writing has rules?  Absolutely.  So does communication.  Isn't writing ultimately communication-- from an idea to a message?  Fiction or non-fiction.  There seems to always be a purpose, even if it is just expression (maybe that is connection).  So if there is a purpose, then there must be guidelines to get that 'purpose' out effectively.  Good communication includes sound arguments.  Good writing doesn't necessarily mean that it affected the reader positively, but that the reader understood the writers message.  This is why we have rules.  Otherwise the writing becomes unclear and not effective.

Personal opinion in writing.  This is an area to be debated.  Technically humans are subjective, period.  We are the scientists of our own opinions, and therefore it will ultimately always show up in writing.  There are different degrees of such 'personal opinion' writing.  The scientist observes and writes, including how he feels about his observation is a different level of personal opinion.  So yes, there are times when personal opinion should be filtered more than others.  This is only if the expected audience assumes so.  You can include whatever personal opinion in a research paper if the audience is expecting so, which would more likely be a 'saturday night live' form of news.  Rhetoric... It's all rhetoric!


I personally like to associate writing that is teaching me unbiasedly (as possible) for instance research papers, news, crime scene investigative reports to be left without untrained personal opinions.  I say 'untrained' because we know that a crime scene investigator uses his knowledge that he has learned to deduce information.  It seems obvious that there should be two different categories.  News and science should be unbiased, creative non fiction and fiction should be personal opinion.  Yet, scientists (especially in the psychological field) have to make observations.  Just how unbiased can these be.


So I guess it comes down to 'bad' writing and 'good' writing.  Writing has rules.  If the purpose is to get the message across as clear as possible, follow the rules.

Science Narrative

What is it that draws a reader in?  The idea of a 'human element' seems to be the consensus.  As opposed to the 'dry' writing that puts the reader to sleep, writing that is easily relate-able but also gets the information across is successful.  This is the type of reading that gets the reader to come back for more.

Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin from Origins Reconsidered and Oliver Sacks from Uncle Tungsten, produced great examples of what a science narrative is in these articles.  These stories seemed at first to be just that, a story.  They were inviting, thought provoking, and captivating.  They are written with a sensitized language that allows the reader to get lost in the story, rather than noticing it is a 'story', or in this case a log of information. 

Their words flow swiftly along the pages.  Many times, it seems as if (especially in science writing) the words are stiff-- forced.  This could be because the information is incredibly dense and difficult to understand.  The writer has to understand deeply the information they are trying to relate to the reader.  This can be difficult when trying to write in laymen terms, information regarding statistical data (chemistry, physics, biology, etc) expressed in a language only the scientists understand.  These writers seem to have figured out how to express an area of science that could easily be misunderstood or not understood at all.  They have provided the 'gist' of 'it', that even my 8 year old son would be interested in listening to.  And That is a Huge feat!  

The technicality in areas of science are definitely important, but not always necessary to providing the reader with a 'vision' of the subject.  Another blogger, Perrin Ireland, mentioned a valuable perspective pertaining to science writing.  He talks about how science teaches us to write in the third person, yet, who is doing the 'objecting' and 'subjecting'?  This is true.  The idea that we should leave the narrative out of science writing is stone cold and really stemming from a fear that those have regarding how 'true' and 'honest' the article will be.  Will it become 'invaluable' in terms of worthy information, or will it be demeaned. 

While these are necessary concerns, they shouldn't halt the expression of science through the first person.  There is a person doing the science, so why not write it as such (at times)?

It is effective, by allowing the masses to become excited and intrigued in what the article has to say.  It allows the public to not feel 'stupid' which is highly important in every type of writing- (unless the writing is specifically meant to make people feel small).

Thank you Richard Leaky, Roger Lewin and Oliver Sacks for writing in a way that allowed me to get lost in science!

Is Science Beautiful?

What is science? Is it beautiful?  Is it destructive?  Is it necessary?  Is it helpful?

We may be able to agree on all of the above.  The mere fact that a scientist can decipher a sickness and find a cure, or at least sometimes, is extremely awe provoking and undeniably beautiful.

But what happens when science goes too far?  Are we suppose to understand and manipulate Nature?  A cure for a disease-- great! (Or is it?)  What happens when the application of nuclear bombing happens?  Humans through the use of science have created at their fingertips tools of destruction that would not otherwise exist.  I don't mean to bash science, in fact quite the contrary.  Science is extraordinary.  I simply mean to express that it shouldn't remain in the realm of beauty (as suggested by Chandrasekhar).  Awe provoking.  Inspiring.  Extraordinary.  Beautiful.  Dangerous.  Powerful.  Science is all of these and more.
What about the science discoveries that have created the most dependent, ignorant and lazy bunch of humans?  Are we not or are we getting close to that movie Idiocracy?!

Yes it's beautiful.  But it's making people ugly, well, besides all those plastic barbies roaming around.

As Sagan eloquently puts it, "We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements-- transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting-- profoundly depend on science and technology."

Ironically, inventions from smart people, like single cup coffee makers, motorized ice cream cones (Yep- you heard right; you know longer have to lick around your own cone....it will spin around for you!), and a butter stick (no need for a butter knife anymore...just stick that butter in a plastic tube for easy use!) to name just a few, have taken away the need for much thought when it comes to basic survival and skill.  It's quite a slippery slope.  What seems initially incredible creates the lazy and/or ignorant.

Another problem is the insurmountable trust that some have with science.  Sagan informs us that science has a 'room for error' that we all just mutually understand and respect.  This is true, but only for those of us who actually know it.  Many people walk around trusting completely in science.  Now this obviously isn't Science's fault.  Yet it is us who created science and it is us becoming more dependent on it.  There is room for trust, belief, hope and use for science.  I just mean to say that this 'bar for error' that Sagan talks about is extremely important and unfortunately not understood by all.

Lewis Wolpert simply states, "science often explains the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar."  This is another view that is quite appropriate.  It seems often that science is trying to explain the unfamiliar through discovering and inventing.  All too often though, it is trying to explain in unfamiliar terms, with a 'new' label applied to that which is already familiar.  It's the 'labels' that we find to be important.  The 'familiar' which is around us we get, we are around it, feel it, see it, but to explain it:  That's what science is doing.

So what is science?  An ever evolving map of that which is around us.  A map detailed with the entire picture.  The good....the bad... and the ugly.........and beautiful.

What is Writing?

Is writing not but communication? Words formed together that converse?  Writing can be a direct message or abstract.  When thought is evoked as words are read, communication has happened.  Writing can be judged and discriminated, but the fact that thinking becomes of it-- solidifies that writing is merely communication.  Depth or not.  I like the idea that writing is delayed communication.  A relational conversation that continues to take place long after the author has passed.

According to Grave's, Rhetoric and Reality in the Process of Scientific Inquiry, writing is epistemic.  Can this be considered false?  Epistemic: of or relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.  The debate is who deciphers what is knowledge and what is not.  This is the argument.  It seems obvious to me that all writing comes from some form of knowledge, be it creative or strictly scientific.  Language, itself, is created by man.  Understood symbols used to communicate with each other.  This in itself is knowledge in the rawest form.  So, technically, yes, writing is epistemic.

Fisher's article, Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm, although unnecessarily wordy offers an interesting idea that writing could be summed up as a narrative paradigm.  He quotes Heidegger, "We are a conversation....conversation and its unity support our existence".  I am not entirely sure what is meant by this comment.  I take from it not that unity is an all accepting single outlook but that it is a part of a whole.  The argument, the agreement, the acceptance, the understanding...all these parts of communication is the unity.  All these parts are the conversation.  Writing is this conversation.

In terms of a narrative, there has been discussion about what makes one story better than another.  In rhetorical terms it seems to be based upon the audience and the text.  One text may fit better in one area than it may in another.  So what makes a narrative?  It obviously needs an author.  (Should that just be left unsaid)  A story, a description, a sequence, a chronology.  Is it a conversing, reflective, interpretive message?  Yes.  But is this writing in its entirety?  Does all writing narrate?  I am not sure if I can state an absolute opinion on this question.  My initial response, was to say that writing communicates.  But then too, doesn't the narrated story?  Yes.  Then, I thought well to write a list, a grocery list for example.  This isn't a story.  But the reader is 'narrated' and therefore responds.  So left then, a non-narrative is that which is not written by an author.  Well, what is written without a writer?

Science Writing is Being and Doing

As a budding writer I have many fears and excitements.  Originality is a fear that halts me in my tracks.  As I write, my thoughts will slip away: am I creating my 'own voice' within the piece?  The simplicity that to recognize that 'it is just a draft' or to practice respecting the process is key.  Hancock poses this eloquently and simply in her book, Ideas Into Words.  She suggests that an article has to be authentically intriguing.  This phrase nails it.  I have found myself staring at a brick wall, so focused on my 'being' as a writer that the 'doing' does not proceed.  To respect the process can allow the reader to just get to the point.  Getting to the point is worth more than obsessing 'how' the words are being perceived, in the first draft.  How many of us, have found ourselves stuck at this point?  Don't try to be original.  Don't become surrounded by material that negatively influences the personal voice.  All to many times, I have sat down at the computer over thinking every sentence, trying to perfect it as I write.  I do not know if it is laziness that overcomes.  The idea of having to draft becoming exhausting before I even dive into the process.  Maybe it is that it is easy to feel discouraged when the first draft comes out bad.  To accept that all first drafts (or at least the majority of them) will always be bad.  The idea has be told and heard over and over.  Accepting and running with it is key!  It really is just practice.  To let go.  Follow routine.  Write.  Revise.  Write.  Hancock lays this idea out bold and strong.  Drafts improve every time.  "It is more useful than self-esteem because it relies more on constructive action."  For me, I can easily resonate with all that Hancock presents in her book.  Writing is a practice.  Without the practice, without the doing there is no writing.  It is as simple as that.  What is it that can change how hard it is too?  Routinely scheduling times to write seems to be the most effective way I have found.
I am excited when I learn something new.  I want to share these ideas.  Although it is a little scary when considering the possibility of not being able to convey the research and ideas correctly to the audience and coming off as ignorant.  The guidelines presented in these first couple of chapters provides a recognizable and understandable method to hopefully avoid these fears.
To not stop before starting.  To respect the process.  To grant a beginners permit.  These are helpful.

A Somewhat Brief Introduction of Me.

I am a passionate, feisty, excited, emotional, intense, serious, compassionate lover of life.  I feel.  I express.  I am moved by learning new things and having new experiences.  If I could be a professional student, sign me up.

I graduated high school a year early, bored and ready for the next step.  Initially, my plan was to immediately attend college.  This was interrupted by a change of view in the fallacies behind the institution.  This lack of trust instead drove me toward an experience of 'freedom'.  At that time, my 17 year old mind thought that moving away to a new place and taking care of myself was freedom.  I drove into Santa Barbara, CA, leaving from the small town in Boyne City, MI where I mostly grew up.  I literally closed my eyes and pointed to a town on the atlas.  After only a couple of hours of being in this beautiful town that rested on the ocean with an incredible backdrop of mountains I found a job and a place to live.  With only a couple hundred dollars to my name, this was reassuring.

My perspective was drastically changed and I dove into painting and surfing.  Only a couple years later I found myself engaged, with a marketing company and pregnant with my son.  I got extremely exhausted with the business world and sold the company to move to the jungle on the east side of Maui.  I wanted to get back to the 'root's'.  I shed the 'keeping up with the Jones's' mentality prevalent in southern California.

I spent three years near Hana, HI starting up a sustainable farm (that was the goal).  This was intense work and had a long way to be complete.  The opportunity to live off the land reframed my thoughts on what really matters in life.  The bare essentials of love, food, merriness, and intentional living.  I spent a remarkable season after this in the middle of nowhere Maine.  I became a whitewater guide and lived among a beautiful river community.  This then led me, as the season died off, to Big Sky, MT.

These ten years of webbing into different communities, I found a similarity, yet drastic difference between each place.  I finally realized that my passion and drive in life is to continue experiencing human behavior by living in different places and becoming apart of the community socially and environmentally (learning what the area has to offer).  Which has now led me to college. After ten years, I know that writing and photography are my tools, my artistic outlet, my hobbies and my determined way to make a living.  To be a documentarian.  So here I am, double majoring in photography and writing studies, in my junior year at Montana State University.