|
| Thread: Writing a Monograph | |
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted February 24, 2010 08:48 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 20:51, 24 Feb 2010.
|
Writing a Monograph
Hey guys,
So, here is a problem, and you are all welcome to give your input. The problem is the following. Assume one writes a monograph, a paper, a textbook, or some sort of survey, but he/she is the only author of the document.
Typically, editors prefer the usage of "we" in these documents instead of "I", which makes perfect sense; "I" is kind of aggressive and arrogant to say the least.
On the other hand, there are occasions where "we" really implies a "nonsense" in writing. A paradigmatic example is given by Paul Halmos:Quote:
"We thank our wife for her help with the typing" is always bad.
You can find the entire paper by Halmos here. Click on the "pdf" icon on top left (right before the title of the paper on top) to download the entire thing. The main idea in Halmos' paper (Section 12 in the paper you downloaded) is that "we" most of the times means "the author and the audience".
Right now I try to avoid hurdles like these by using "the author ..." instead of "I ...". However, one of the reviewers in a recent paper that I wrote, made the following one line comment:
- the paper is written alternating the singular, impersonal form ("The author ...") with the plural, personal one ("We ...");
So the question is, what do you do ? What do you find reasonable if you don't have prior experience? I believe I have already made up my mind, but this comment really bugs me. It seems that I am missing something, somewhere. Do you have a clue / suggestion? You are all welcome; please, if possible state if you have relevant experience.
If you think it plays a major role to your answer, I am interested in content related to computer science, mathematics, or sciences in general.
Thanks.
____________
The empty set
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted February 24, 2010 08:58 PM |
|
|
What's wrong with "I"? It doesn't sound arrogant at all... on the other hand, when you want to implicitly include the audience in, then you use the plural "we".
Examples of both (purely out of my mind!):
"By factoring the above we arrive at..."
"I don't think that an initial delay is significant in comparison to the massive execution penalty given by the alternative code".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 08:59 PM |
|
|
I always found myself using "we". It just comes more natural to me in that kind of things.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 09:00 PM |
|
|
In formal scientific publication, use of first person pronouns is generally frowned upon, although it is admittedly becoming a more and more common practice. (It was also quite common in the "old days", although scientific literature pre-1960 was often written in a more narrative fashion anyway, in part because that's how research was carried out.) As a general rule, manuscripts are written in the passive rather than active voice. Frankly, I think it makes scientific literature cumbersome to read, not to mention dry. But regardless, that's the usual convention. Handy, because no personal pronouns are required.
Even so, since about 99.9% of scientific papers these days involve more than one author (as opposed to, again, the "old days"), when first person is used, it's almost always "we" anyway. So it's generally not a problem. I've used "we" in a few of my publications and I think it's much preferable to the awkward third-person reference of "the author(s)".
I know none of that really answers your question; I just thought a summary of common modern practice would be useful. If you want my opinion, I don't see a problem with using the first person singular "I", if that's what you need to do. I would find that much preferable over an artificial usage of the first-person plural (we), because, frankly, you're not a king.  If you feel that "I" reads strangely, then you can always use the admittedly stilted passive voice. It's really just a matter of style.
(NB. I'm referring to sentences that describe actions. For instance, "I observed X". Much better than "We observed X" when you're the only author. If you think the "I" sounds too informal or, as you put it, arrogant, you can always use the passive "X was observed". In cases where you're just describing an opinion, such as "I think X", then I suggest just ditching the "I think" altogether and just stating X up front. Whether X is a fact or an opinion should be obvious to the reader in any case, and if it's the latter, it's pretty clear that the opinion is going to belong to you, since you're the one doing the writing.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 09:28 PM |
|
|
Just my initial quick response.
First, I only read a bit more than the first page of Halmos. He makes a very valid point about contradictory advice. And you will likely get the same thing here as well. I think ultimately the most important rule is readability, but readability is dependent on the reader and can vary.
I'm not really familiar with the type of writing you are talking about. All of my writing would better be described as technical writing within the engineering environment. (i.e. user manuals, technical manuals, "how-to" production guides, etc.
An oversimplification might be:
1) Place nail
2) Hit nail with hammer
3) Drive nail until the head is flush with the wood surface
In other words, point of view is not really an issue.
In general I find a changing point of view kind of awkward and hurts the flow. If you compare to an actor, you should never notice that the actor is acting. With writing I think the point of view should never get in the way of the flow of text. The point of view should be invisible to the reader. I think changing point of view can (but not always) interrupt the flow of words. On the other hand, redundancy can also interrupt the flow if it becomes so repetitive that it stands out.
But I'm a rebel. I regularly violate rules of grammar just because I don't like them.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 09:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But I'm a rebel. I regularly violate rules of grammar just because I don't like them.
To be honest I find most "papers" very cryptic because they're too formal. A more friendlier tone suits my mood better. Otherwise it sounds like a robot made it
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 10:05 PM |
|
|
In most cases, it isn't a problem. From what I've read, "we" is used to refer to the author together with the audience, and, when needed, "the author" can refer to the author.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 10:57 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 22:58, 24 Feb 2010.
|
By the way thanks for the answers. I will go through them again in a bit.
Probably I was not clear enough. I do *not* want to use the "I" in the text. As I said I don't like it. But "we" is simply too much some times (see the example of Halmos above; e.g. in the acknowledgments, or what Corribus says about being a "king"). So, I resort to "the author ... blah .. blah .. blah .." if I need something like that.
To give you an example. Somebody shows up and says: "there is this conjecture on the relation of X and Y" and you hear this for the first time as a member of the audience. Then at some point you do some progress in the conjecture, and you want to elaborate on that. However, you also want to give credit to the guy who brought to your attention this conjecture (because otherwise you might have not known). So how do you write that ?
If you write something like
Z brought to our attention in that (specific) event that X and Y are conjectured to satisfy ... and we will prove ...
this sort of implies that Z brought to the audience' attention in that event this conjecture. HOWEVER, this is not necessarily a valid statement, since there might be a person W in the audience who has heard from Z about this conjecture in a previous event. So, "our" has a problem there.
Replacing "our" with "my" above, is out of the question, since, as I said, "I" is out of the question. I find it rude at least. So, my resolution has been
Z brought to the author's attention blah blah blah ...
Anyway, probably it needs, as usual, some re-writing. May be
Z mentioned back then that X and Y are conjectured to be blah blah ...
Anyway,
thanks again.
____________
The empty set
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 11:09 PM |
|
|
"HOWEVER, this is not necessarily a valid statement, since there might be a person W in the audience who has heard from Z about this conjecture in a previous event"
Personally I wouldn't consider this a problem. I think it could get very awkward if you tried to account for all possibilities. Also, the implication that Z made this statement at the current event is weak to start with.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2010 11:13 PM |
|
|
The words we and our, when used to refer to a group collectively, does not necessarily imply that it refers to each individual within that group.
|
| |
|
|
