RE: Tech-Reading vs. Other Reading

[KMcLauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com]

Iggy [mailto:iggy_1996dp -at- yahoo -dot- com] sez:
[...] 
> > Is this normal? Does anyone else have this problem?
> 
> Most tech writers are information junkies by nature.
> We love to absorb and retain. Unfortunately, as
> junkies, we're in need of our quick fixes. It's much
> easier to get those fixes in snippets rather than in
> long discussions. 
> 
> I have to admit, I find it hard to read anything long
> in length and rich in text. I have a hard time
> focusing on Intercom articles, novels, and so forth.
> Newspapers, a lot of web sites, TV, radio, email,
> technical documents, meeting agendas, etc. all feed us
> what we need to know in snippets. We spend more time
> reading these things than a good book or well-formed
> article. It's a lifestyle. I don't think it's either
> good or bad on its own, but I think a lot of people
> are so used to the snippets that they are distancing
> themselves from the richer media.

I think the problem has two parts:

1) Interest and 
2) Quality of writing.

Every time I see an issue of Scientific American (even the 
new watered down form of the last few years) or Nature, 
or The Economist or Reason, I eagerly glom onto it and start 
reading. 

I've read and enjoyed articles from The Lancet and the New 
England Journal of Medicine. Some of them were on obscure 
topics that will never have an impact on my life. Others 
might have been about topics closer to home. I'd say that 
those examples contrasted an inherent reader interest (mine) 
in some cases against an infectious and well-presented interest
on the part of the author.

Some of the articles that I read, from start to finish, are 
columns of dense prose. But, they are on topics (sub-topics?) 
that interest me, and they are written in a clear, engaging 
style.

Time was, I could say the same about monographs and research 
papers... some of them.

Others are drudgery. If I don't have a compelling reason to 
slog my way through them, I satisfy myself with the "executive 
summary" or the abstract or...  :-)  the titles and headings.
Some people, without inserting a lot of cartoons and eye candy, 
can make their topics accessible and meaningful.

Anybody remember Asimov's non-fiction?
Anybody who's NOT a physics major read Feineman?
Even if, like me, you aren't into math, you can probably 
read and enjoy Paulos.

It's a balance. The more a writer can inject life, enthusiasm, 
sparkle into a subject, the less initial interest we (the readers) 
need, to get involved and stay involved. The greater our prior 
interest (or other motivation) the poorer and drier a presentation 
we'll accept without balking (or nodding off...).
 
At least in my case (and I'm not alone), it's not merely a 
matter of point-form, bite-sized, highlights-only presentation 
that allows/encourages me to read an article. Certainly, though, 
that kind of presentation can help when the material is not 
already interesting to me, or when the author does not write 
in interesting, engaging fashion.

Of course, YMMV.

Now, if we could just bottle and sell "interesting and engaging 
writing style"...     :-)

/kevin

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Announcing new options for IPCC 01, October 24-27 in Santa Fe,
New Mexico: attend the entire event or select a single day.  
For details and online registration, visit http://ieeepcs.org/2001

  Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
  5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
  Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.