Many years ago I was hired to write a government report having to do with the evaluation of a agency's computer system. I am not a computer scientist. I am not any kind of scientist. I had to interview those involved in the project, and put the technical details of the project that they explained to me into plain English so that government officials even dumber and more ignorant than I could understand what had been done and draw sound conclusions therefrom. It was hard work, less for me than for the poor computer scientists, who had to answer my stupid questions over and over again and correct what I had written so it was correct as well as clear. It apparently ended up error-free and someone later told me that it had been praised by one official as the clearest such report he had ever read.
When translating my own engineering work into a novel, I found the toughest part was that the general reader was starting from a "negative knowledge base". Not only did they not know the intricate technical details (why should they?), but even much of what passed as "common knowledge" was factually wrong. It's a big hill to climb to eliminate misconceptions, lay down the correct general concepts, then get into the pertinent specifics, all while keeping the reader from falling asleep or tossing the paper out the window in frustration. But it is important to make science and technology accessible in a democracy, because public opinion actually guides decision-making in these areas.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find the world of computer science particularly daunting and lacking in pizazz, and I salute anyone who can write a report on the topic that's clear, engaging and accurate - especially if they can't work in some sex and/or explosions.
Very interesting post. I think it's why I like Scientific American: It's real science, but put in terms that a humanities person (moi) can understand. I mention S.A. in particular b/c I see people saying how it's gone downhill, blah blah. I've been reading it for twenty years and still find plenty in it to amuse and edify me. I especially like the "AntiGravity" column by Steve Mirsky.
ReplyDeleteThere's still good stuff to be found in it, but it's often tendentious, and its treatment of Bjorn Lomborg was both disgraceful and unscientific.
ReplyDelete