3 ms·

>This is the worst possible advice to give about technical writing! What you should absolutely do if you want your readers to know what you're talking about is

>This is the worst possible advice to give about technical writing! What you should absolutely do if you want your readers to know what you're talking about is a) define your terminology before you use it and b) stick to the terminology you defined throughout the entire paper. Don't call a thing "red noppertock" the first time you mention it and then "crimson nopper with a tock" the next time. Call the same object, the same concept, the same method by the same name, always. Otherwise, you will only create confusion and make your reader tired and impatient. What you are saying and what McCarthy is saying can both be true. Using the same word repeatedly is boring, technical writing or not. If you find yourself using the same word repeatedly, don't - as you seem to be assuming McCarthy is suggesting - pluck an alternate word out of a thesaurus; rather, take a step back and rethink if there is a different way to express your idea without using the word at all, or by using it less frequently.

borroka 5y ago
"Using the same word repeatedly is boring, technical writing or not." -- A technical or scientific paper does not need to be entertaining. I mean, it can be, but it adds zero to the value of the discovery made or methods developed. I know it is intriguing to think in terms of "fun", "creativity", "entertainment", but the scientific or technical paper needs to be as clear as possible, which is more often than not in contrast with a desire to make a paper "engaging". Nobody cares if a surgical operation is "entertaining". I don't remember having thought, when reading a paper, that it was boring, or "not fun", but I remember many times to have thought, "man, I have no clue what's going on here", "so many unnecessary details".
- hammock 5y ago
  Nowhere did I say that clarity ought to be compromised. You seem to believe there's a tradeoff where I see none. If a paper is clear and also easy to read, entertaining or otherwise not boring, it stands to reason that it will be more readily comprehended, remembered and shared by the reader.
  - borroka 5y ago
    When you talk about "soft science" paper, maybe (because the content does not stand on its own), but no "hard science" paper has been remembered or noticed for the creative and original writing. I am not speaking from a a position of any authority, but I have worked as a scientist in academia for 15 years and neither nor any of my many colleagues has ever remembered or noticed a paper for its flair. I notice papers that are brilliant, wrong, novel, impressive, not any particularly creative writing. Boring? You typically need to read a paper 10+ times to understand it, after the first read nobody outside the non-professional (who read papers like they are "investigations") cares about any ornate or rich language.

borroka 5y ago

"Using the same word repeatedly is boring, technical writing or not." -- A technical or scientific paper does not need to be entertaining. I mean, it can be, but it adds zero to the value of the discovery made or methods developed. I know it is intriguing to think in terms of "fun", "creativity", "entertainment", but the scientific or technical paper needs to be as clear as possible, which is more often than not in contrast with a desire to make a paper "engaging". Nobody cares if a surgical operation is "entertaining". I don't remember having thought, when reading a paper, that it was boring, or "not fun", but I remember many times to have thought, "man, I have no clue what's going on here", "so many unnecessary details".

hammock 5y ago
Nowhere did I say that clarity ought to be compromised. You seem to believe there's a tradeoff where I see none. If a paper is clear and also easy to read, entertaining or otherwise not boring, it stands to reason that it will be more readily comprehended, remembered and shared by the reader.
- borroka 5y ago
  When you talk about "soft science" paper, maybe (because the content does not stand on its own), but no "hard science" paper has been remembered or noticed for the creative and original writing. I am not speaking from a a position of any authority, but I have worked as a scientist in academia for 15 years and neither nor any of my many colleagues has ever remembered or noticed a paper for its flair. I notice papers that are brilliant, wrong, novel, impressive, not any particularly creative writing. Boring? You typically need to read a paper 10+ times to understand it, after the first read nobody outside the non-professional (who read papers like they are "investigations") cares about any ornate or rich language.