0
0 Style in medical writing OThere are three kinds of writers: those who never think at all; those who think only as they write; and those who have thought before they take the
which they propose to describe. If it is weak, or worn, or superfluous, they cast it aside, as a good craftsman rejects imperfect materi-
al. Their writing, then, has symmetry and and fitness for the work which it is SirIAnIdrew Ma ph ail (1 864-1938)strength, Andrew Macphail -Sir (1 8644l 938) intended to perform. On the other hand, loose and slatternly writing is a mark of a slovenly habit of In this issue's Editors Page (see page 2127) mind. Sheer laziness will produce the same Dr. Bruce Squires talks about Sir Andrew result, since easy reading is hard writing. MacphaiL our first editor. Macphail, who The trade of the pen must be learned, and was also a writer and a physician, had he who is not willing to practise it, at first for definite ideas about what constituted good the fire, has no right to take into his hand medical writing: "Compel each word to that obstinate and refractory tool. It is easy give a proper account of itself." This ed- to pour out a flux of words. It is difficult to itorial is not simply an excellent example range them in order, and make them obedient to the purpose for which they were of his views on the matter, it is a classic. created. When a man spreads over ten pages what is really exhausted by five, his offence is due to lack of perception, to I t has not escaped notice that all impor- incapacity or unwillingness to take pains, to tant scientific observations have been indifference to the time and feelings of recorded with a singular fitness of words. others, - in short, to sheer selfishness or OTe best scientists have been the best writers downright laziness. upon science. Huxley, Tyndale, and Osler are good writers of English, because the O style of each is inseparable from the man. T The trade of the pen must be His way of writing is part of himself, since a and he who is not pen is not a machine which proceeds autowilling ... has no right to y matically, once it is set in motion. It must be governed by a hand which, in turn, is pen in hand.
learned,
directed by a mind.
O
O I
11 II
There are three kinds of writers: those who never think at all; those who think only as they write; and those who have thought before they take the pen in hand. Careful observers belong in the last category, and that is the reason why they write so well. Poor writers employ phrases. Good writers employ words; and they compel each word to give a proper account of itself. They put it to the question. They scrutinize it with the same care as they exercise towards the fact ___________________________________ This editorial first appeared in the January 1911 (vol. 1, no. 1) issue ofCMAJ, pages 70 to 73.
JUNE 15, 1992
0
0
take into his hand that
obstinate and refractory tool. But, fortunately, most men, with the exception of editors, are not compelled to read. They can protect themselves by throwing down the book and refusing to open the paper. Practitioners of medicine are too intelligent by nature and too critical
0
0 I
by experience to mistake prolixity for learn-
ing, and the employment of loose phrases for knowledge. An orator may be diffuse: a writer, in a publication which makes a
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992;
146 (12)
U
2197
pretension to being scientific, must not. Presumably, most men desire to have their writings read. Then, they must pay the price. There is probably more bad writing in medical journals than in any other kind of periodicals. For this there is a variety of reasons. Medical men are without leisure, and there is so much in medicine about which something may be written, that they lose their way. Besides, it is a common delusion that the mere fact of attendance for four or five years upon lectures in a faculty of a university confers upon a man those qualities of aptitude, precision, and harmony, which are commonly called style. On the contrary, the pursuit of a single, dominating interest, as Mr. Asquith told the students of Aberdeen University, limits a man's breadth of outlook and the range of his intellectual curiosity; it dulls his zest and diminishes his eagerness to know and integrate into himself the best that has been thought and written for the enrichment of his mind. In short, it is a bar to the perception of what is good and what is evil in the art of writing.
The employment of (argon) is a mark of a slovenly and slow-working mind.
been lost sight of, and there is a consistent effort to translate plain terms into a kind of jargon. It is, no doubt, a convenience in the laboratory or in the outpatients' department that a jargon should be employed; to refer to the tubercle bacillus as the "t.b.c."; to describe a diseased joint as "a Charcot"; inability to retain the eyeballs in convergence as "Moebius present"; and the absence of a certain reflex as "a Babinski." The employment of these terms in writing is a mark of a slovenly and slow-working mind. What is worse, many writers appear to think that a good style may be achieved by the use of flamboyant language. The following will serve as an illustration: "Life is a biologic function. Living matter has a definite chemic composition, wasting by oxidation and reintegrating by the assimilation of new matter. The specific feature of living matter is its chemic mutability, and which, mutatis mutandis is a history of food changes plus the mechanisms by which its potential energy is converted into vital force." Or, again, "the disequilibration associated with the cessation of ovulation and menstruation is a menace to mental integrity." Also, there are many phrases which, although quite proper in themselves, have become worn and threadbare by constant
U
M
x x
use, and theirofcontinual desall sense freshness.employment Such expressions troys as "aetiological factor," "pathological findings," "diagnostic significance," "clinical
U O g
O ^
Much of the technical business of medicine is handiwork. A man may be a most expert operator in surgery, and yet be no more qualified to set forth his methods in plain terms which all may understand than a craftsman can explain by written symbols how he tinkers a kitchen clock. But a man who is intelligent enough to be a surgeon is also intelligent enough to learn how to write down what he wants to say in simple, accurate terms. Accordingly, in medical journalism, the great standards of English speech have
picture," "symptom-complex," were once good; but they have long since fallen from
their high estate. A careful comparison of the older issues of medical journals with the newer ones, forces one to the melancholy conclusion that, in respect of style, the old were better than the new. The fault is largely with the younger writers. There are a few amongst them who have that capacity for good writing which is commonly found in the contributors of many years ago, and is still found on the editorial pages of the Journal edited by Dr. John Ferguson, himself a veteran.e
8 xkHRfk Sk Rk Sk Kk X
1g1kSk=k
2198
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (12)
m
II
I
L
YJ
X~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LE 1 5 JUIN 1992
0 Style in medical writing OThere are three kinds of writers: those who never think at all; those who think only as they write; and those who have thought before they take the
which they propose to describe. If it is weak, or worn, or superfluous, they cast it aside, as a good craftsman rejects imperfect materi-
al. Their writing, then, has symmetry and and fitness for the work which it is SirIAnIdrew Ma ph ail (1 864-1938)strength, Andrew Macphail -Sir (1 8644l 938) intended to perform. On the other hand, loose and slatternly writing is a mark of a slovenly habit of In this issue's Editors Page (see page 2127) mind. Sheer laziness will produce the same Dr. Bruce Squires talks about Sir Andrew result, since easy reading is hard writing. MacphaiL our first editor. Macphail, who The trade of the pen must be learned, and was also a writer and a physician, had he who is not willing to practise it, at first for definite ideas about what constituted good the fire, has no right to take into his hand medical writing: "Compel each word to that obstinate and refractory tool. It is easy give a proper account of itself." This ed- to pour out a flux of words. It is difficult to itorial is not simply an excellent example range them in order, and make them obedient to the purpose for which they were of his views on the matter, it is a classic. created. When a man spreads over ten pages what is really exhausted by five, his offence is due to lack of perception, to I t has not escaped notice that all impor- incapacity or unwillingness to take pains, to tant scientific observations have been indifference to the time and feelings of recorded with a singular fitness of words. others, - in short, to sheer selfishness or OTe best scientists have been the best writers downright laziness. upon science. Huxley, Tyndale, and Osler are good writers of English, because the O style of each is inseparable from the man. T The trade of the pen must be His way of writing is part of himself, since a and he who is not pen is not a machine which proceeds autowilling ... has no right to y matically, once it is set in motion. It must be governed by a hand which, in turn, is pen in hand.
learned,
directed by a mind.
O
O I
11 II
There are three kinds of writers: those who never think at all; those who think only as they write; and those who have thought before they take the pen in hand. Careful observers belong in the last category, and that is the reason why they write so well. Poor writers employ phrases. Good writers employ words; and they compel each word to give a proper account of itself. They put it to the question. They scrutinize it with the same care as they exercise towards the fact ___________________________________ This editorial first appeared in the January 1911 (vol. 1, no. 1) issue ofCMAJ, pages 70 to 73.
JUNE 15, 1992
0
0
take into his hand that
obstinate and refractory tool. But, fortunately, most men, with the exception of editors, are not compelled to read. They can protect themselves by throwing down the book and refusing to open the paper. Practitioners of medicine are too intelligent by nature and too critical
0
0 I
by experience to mistake prolixity for learn-
ing, and the employment of loose phrases for knowledge. An orator may be diffuse: a writer, in a publication which makes a
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992;
146 (12)
U
2197
pretension to being scientific, must not. Presumably, most men desire to have their writings read. Then, they must pay the price. There is probably more bad writing in medical journals than in any other kind of periodicals. For this there is a variety of reasons. Medical men are without leisure, and there is so much in medicine about which something may be written, that they lose their way. Besides, it is a common delusion that the mere fact of attendance for four or five years upon lectures in a faculty of a university confers upon a man those qualities of aptitude, precision, and harmony, which are commonly called style. On the contrary, the pursuit of a single, dominating interest, as Mr. Asquith told the students of Aberdeen University, limits a man's breadth of outlook and the range of his intellectual curiosity; it dulls his zest and diminishes his eagerness to know and integrate into himself the best that has been thought and written for the enrichment of his mind. In short, it is a bar to the perception of what is good and what is evil in the art of writing.
The employment of (argon) is a mark of a slovenly and slow-working mind.
been lost sight of, and there is a consistent effort to translate plain terms into a kind of jargon. It is, no doubt, a convenience in the laboratory or in the outpatients' department that a jargon should be employed; to refer to the tubercle bacillus as the "t.b.c."; to describe a diseased joint as "a Charcot"; inability to retain the eyeballs in convergence as "Moebius present"; and the absence of a certain reflex as "a Babinski." The employment of these terms in writing is a mark of a slovenly and slow-working mind. What is worse, many writers appear to think that a good style may be achieved by the use of flamboyant language. The following will serve as an illustration: "Life is a biologic function. Living matter has a definite chemic composition, wasting by oxidation and reintegrating by the assimilation of new matter. The specific feature of living matter is its chemic mutability, and which, mutatis mutandis is a history of food changes plus the mechanisms by which its potential energy is converted into vital force." Or, again, "the disequilibration associated with the cessation of ovulation and menstruation is a menace to mental integrity." Also, there are many phrases which, although quite proper in themselves, have become worn and threadbare by constant
U
M
x x
use, and theirofcontinual desall sense freshness.employment Such expressions troys as "aetiological factor," "pathological findings," "diagnostic significance," "clinical
U O g
O ^
Much of the technical business of medicine is handiwork. A man may be a most expert operator in surgery, and yet be no more qualified to set forth his methods in plain terms which all may understand than a craftsman can explain by written symbols how he tinkers a kitchen clock. But a man who is intelligent enough to be a surgeon is also intelligent enough to learn how to write down what he wants to say in simple, accurate terms. Accordingly, in medical journalism, the great standards of English speech have
picture," "symptom-complex," were once good; but they have long since fallen from
their high estate. A careful comparison of the older issues of medical journals with the newer ones, forces one to the melancholy conclusion that, in respect of style, the old were better than the new. The fault is largely with the younger writers. There are a few amongst them who have that capacity for good writing which is commonly found in the contributors of many years ago, and is still found on the editorial pages of the Journal edited by Dr. John Ferguson, himself a veteran.e
8 xkHRfk Sk Rk Sk Kk X
1g1kSk=k
2198
CAN MED ASSOC J 1992; 146 (12)
m
II
I
L
YJ
X~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
LE 1 5 JUIN 1992
