Things I Learned From Vet: Writing Rules Are Relative
Scientific writing and creative writing complement each other in some ways, and totally contradict each other in others. When I'm reading or writing, I completely switch my brain over depending on what I'm doing, and don't even think about it.
In vet school, I did a lot of technical writing. Sure, I was working on my first novel when I had the chance, but most of my time was spent working on assignments, case studies, and medical records. As an actual vet, I still read a lot of journal articles and textbooks. And there's some definite differences in scientific writing.
Things Not So Good For Creative Writing
1. Passive Voice
This one always really sticks out to me. Research is meant to be objective, and so it's generally described as such. It's standard and expected to use passive sentences so you can avoid saying "we" or "I": "The culture was incubated at room temperature" or "A neurological exam was performed." In creative writing, I'd absolutely shudder at such sentences, but in medical writing, it's weird not to write that way.
2. Sentences Don't Need Cadence
While you still want things to be readable, the cadence of technical writing is totally different. I almost hear a lecturer speaking in my head. Sometimes, sentences are longer than reasonable, or provide a comprehensive list (such as symptoms or commonly affected dog breeds). There can be interruptions, parenthetical statements, and side comments. Don't expect to be able to easily read paragraphs out loud to your colleagues.
3. Assuming Knowledge
Unless you're writing A Clockwork Orange, in creative writing we introduce and explain concepts to the reader. We mind our learning curve and try to make sure everyone's up to speed. In scientific writing, we assume everyone has a scientific education and understands what we are saying--we dive right in the deep end and don't come up for breath.
Things Pretty Useful In Creative Writing
1. Brevity
There's not a lot of fluff in scientific writing. Things are concise and to the point (usually). There may be a lot of big words and complicated clauses, but there's no waffling around.
2. Factual and Logical
Like I said above, science is supposed to be objective. There's nothing conversational or casual about technical writing--it's about the facts. These facts must also have some sensible flow or organization. Points must be made in an easy-to-reference manner (eg Intro, Methods, Results, Discussion format for papers, or organized on a more paragraph-by-paragraph level in textbooks), and not jump around or wander off into tangential speculation. It's about communicating clearly to other professionals.
3. Nothing Is Personal
If a scientific paper gets shot down in the peer review process, it's because there were objective flaws, not because everyone hates the author and thinks they're stupid. This isn't so much about the writing as simply keeping in mind that the writing is a separate entity to the author. Creative writing is much, much more intimate, but I think it's still worth noting that critics are talking about the story and not the author as a person... usually.
An Example
For reference, I thought I'd share some medical writing for you to use to compare with the points above. This is an excerpt from the Merck Veterinary Manual:
In vet school, I did a lot of technical writing. Sure, I was working on my first novel when I had the chance, but most of my time was spent working on assignments, case studies, and medical records. As an actual vet, I still read a lot of journal articles and textbooks. And there's some definite differences in scientific writing.
Things Not So Good For Creative Writing
1. Passive Voice
This one always really sticks out to me. Research is meant to be objective, and so it's generally described as such. It's standard and expected to use passive sentences so you can avoid saying "we" or "I": "The culture was incubated at room temperature" or "A neurological exam was performed." In creative writing, I'd absolutely shudder at such sentences, but in medical writing, it's weird not to write that way.
2. Sentences Don't Need Cadence
While you still want things to be readable, the cadence of technical writing is totally different. I almost hear a lecturer speaking in my head. Sometimes, sentences are longer than reasonable, or provide a comprehensive list (such as symptoms or commonly affected dog breeds). There can be interruptions, parenthetical statements, and side comments. Don't expect to be able to easily read paragraphs out loud to your colleagues.
3. Assuming Knowledge
Unless you're writing A Clockwork Orange, in creative writing we introduce and explain concepts to the reader. We mind our learning curve and try to make sure everyone's up to speed. In scientific writing, we assume everyone has a scientific education and understands what we are saying--we dive right in the deep end and don't come up for breath.
Things Pretty Useful In Creative Writing
1. Brevity
There's not a lot of fluff in scientific writing. Things are concise and to the point (usually). There may be a lot of big words and complicated clauses, but there's no waffling around.
2. Factual and Logical
Like I said above, science is supposed to be objective. There's nothing conversational or casual about technical writing--it's about the facts. These facts must also have some sensible flow or organization. Points must be made in an easy-to-reference manner (eg Intro, Methods, Results, Discussion format for papers, or organized on a more paragraph-by-paragraph level in textbooks), and not jump around or wander off into tangential speculation. It's about communicating clearly to other professionals.
3. Nothing Is Personal
If a scientific paper gets shot down in the peer review process, it's because there were objective flaws, not because everyone hates the author and thinks they're stupid. This isn't so much about the writing as simply keeping in mind that the writing is a separate entity to the author. Creative writing is much, much more intimate, but I think it's still worth noting that critics are talking about the story and not the author as a person... usually.
An Example
For reference, I thought I'd share some medical writing for you to use to compare with the points above. This is an excerpt from the Merck Veterinary Manual:
Immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA, see Immune-mediated Hemolytic Anemia (IMHA) and Thrombocytopenia) can be primary or secondary to neoplasia, infectious agents, drugs, or vaccinations. In IMHA, the immune system no longer recognizes RBCs as self and develops antibodies to circulating RBCs, leading to RBC destruction by macrophages and complement. In some cases, antibodies are directed against RBC precursors in the marrow, resulting in nonregenerative anemia. Animals with IMHA are usually icteric, sometimes febrile, and may have splenomegaly. Hematologic hallmarks of IMHA are regenerative anemia, hyperbilirubinemia, spherocytosis, autoagglutination, or a positive Coombs' test.That may not make much/any sense to you, for which I apologize. However, it demonstrates most of what I was saying. It's factual and to the point. The sentences aren't exactly graceful or easy to say in one breath, but they have a logical organization and explain the subject clearly--to someone who has enough of a background to know what all the terminology means. It's very different to creative writing, but at the same time, some of the lessons can be carried over.
Can I like this twice?
ReplyDeleteI always use the passive vs active mindset when switching between science writing and creative writing. It's true that passive helps make the writing feel less bias. Technical writing and creative writing are different sides to the same coin.
Enjoyed your post!
Philip
It's weird how differently you write between the two! Sometimes my writer-brain looks at technical writing and is like, eesh, the fiction world would cringe at that sentence.
Delete