Education Failure To Define Technical Terms

Failure to explain/define professional, trade and technical terms: You know the meanings of the technical/professional terms and phrases you use when you write about the subject of your book. But, though dense with meaning to you, these words may not be as meaningful to lay readers. For example, in a golf book, terms beginners may not be familiar with like "slice," "hook," "follow through," etc. Or in a book on recovering from sex addiction, words and phrases like "inner child," "codependent," even "recovery" itself, may be new to those just beginning their quest for healing. When should you define a word or phrase, and when can you assume everyone will be familiar with them? A good rule is to define every technical, professional or academic word you use. If any turn out to be unnecessary, your editor can delete them from the final text. Hint: Error on the side of safety and define, define, define. Another serious reader turn-off is describing something in terms of what it "is not." When you put it that way, it seems silly. The very definition of "description" is a summarizing of what something "is." Yet, far too often, writers fall into exactly that trap. I once edited a manuscript on meditation whose author devoted the first chapter to explaining what meditation was not. Unfortunately, the author neglected to explain what meditation was. When this failing was pointed out, she immediately revised the chapter and devoted the majority of the space to detailing what meditation is. without relying solely on negative comparisons. Using negative comparisons: Here are some typical examples. From a biography: "The cafe to which he led her was hardly splendid. Inside, they ordered spaghetti and Chianti. He began to explain his theories of interplanetary osculation." Well, exactly what was that cafe like? "Hardly splendid" hardly conjures a specific image. Between "splendid" restaurants and the lowest dive, there is a wide range of possible dining establishments. Or, "Being 'in the Zone' does not mean working like a robot." Or, "Love addiction does not mean you just like to be in relationships." Alone, these tell us nothing about what these conditions are. They cry out for an explanation of what they are not just what they are not. Why do writers sometimes unwittingly describe things in terms of what they are not, instead of vice versa? Often, when you are an expert, you are aware of the many misconceptions people have about your subject. In a book on meditation you might want to counter the n belief that meditation is a form of self-hypnosis, or that it is a religious ritual, or that it is some kind of self-induced "high." Naturally, you want to disabuse the reader of these misconceptions. So you write that "meditation is not self-hypnosis," "meditation is not a religious ritual," "meditation is not a self-induced 'high." This gets you off on the wrong foot in two respects. It gets you focused on what something is not so that you may forget to write about what it is. The second is that this approach to disabusing readers of misconceptions is so indirect that they may not realize what you are trying to do, and retain their misconception. Of course, when coupled with a positive description of your subject, negative comparisons can be helpful. You might write, "Rather than meditation being like a hypnotic trance, it is like relaxing completely in a lawn chair on a summer day." Negative comparisons are unavoidable when it is necessary to counter myths and misunderstandings about your subject. But, be sure you tackle the subject explicitly. Write a heading like "10 Misconceptions about Karate." Then address the reader directly with something like, "You've probably been exposed to a number of misconceptions about Karate. These may include." Finally, write a paragraph explaining why each is a fallacy. essay contacts