{"id":1243,"date":"2016-02-05T21:00:14","date_gmt":"2016-02-05T20:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/?p=1243"},"modified":"2016-01-27T12:43:26","modified_gmt":"2016-01-27T11:43:26","slug":"practical-authorship-what-not-to-do-when-writing-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/adc\/2016\/02\/05\/practical-authorship-what-not-to-do-when-writing-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Practical Authorship: What not to do when writing, 1."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Quill_pen\"The world is full of people who will tell what rules to follow when writing, and include some frankly made up rules about what not to do. \u00a0Many of these should be ignored and dismissed as the worst sort of control freakery<\/a>. \u00a0I’d argue that there is no such thing as incorrect writing – because if ee cummings<\/a> is wrong, I don’t want to be right. \u00a0There is, however, bad writing, which I would define as writing which obscures meaning, or more simply just makes your piece harder to read. \u00a0This post includes some things that I see lots, and that I think worsen writing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In terms of the use of particular words, there are superb online resources for this – I\u2019m particularly fond of the slyly humorous\u00a0The Guardian style guide.<\/a>\u00a0 I’m going to avoid discussing words here, except to discuss one thing.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When you write about humans and their conditions or diseases, it is important that the human comes first and the disease comes second. \u00a0As I point out to my team on the ward, when I am an irritating old man who has had a stroke, I will be just that – I will not be “The stroke in bed 6”. \u00a0By the same reasoning, I really hate it when people write about asthmatics, bronchiolitics, paraplegics, and so on. \u00a0If this seems at all difficult, just mentally insert the word “spastic” in place of your description and see if you still feel comfortable. \u00a0Even if it feels a little bit clumsy, you should always write “children with asthma” “infants with bronchiolitis” “people with paraplegia” and so on. \u00a0Ultimately our journal is about making life better for children, and this maintains the focus on the child, rather than the disease.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Enough about words, let’s get on to punctuation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Punctuation is breathing<\/strong>. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If you can\u2019t easily read what you\u2019ve written aloud, it needs different punctuation. \u00a0It is usually better to write shorter, clearer sentences. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some punctuation tells you that you need to re-write.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Brackets are a particular example of this. \u00a0A bracket is an afterthought. \u00a0I\u2019ve used them in these blog posts, because they suit my style. \u00a0But in a serious piece, there should be no need for brackets. \u00a0An afterthought can be edited into the main text. \u00a0If it really is a minor point, you might not even need to make it.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Exclamation marks are not needed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Exclamation marks have a role if you are reporting declaratory speech, or are writing in a birthday card. \u00a0If you write a joke, the joke stands alone. \u00a0The exclamation mark will just serve as an irritant – like canned studio laughter. \u00a0The people who get the joke will get the joke and don\u2019t need to be patronised. \u00a0The people who don\u2019t get the joke don\u2019t need to be reminded of the failure of their – or your – sense of humour.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That’s enough for now. \u00a0More in the next post. \u00a0But I’d be interested to hear if there are any posts we’ve written, and you’ve read, which you feel obscure meaning for you.<\/p>\n