A Galaxy of Errors

NASA has a wonderful web site that will send you a new photograph of something in the cosmos every day. I love it. Sadly, scientists are some of the worst writers in the wider universe. At the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere, I try to help them when I can. But I believe that people would enjoy and trust science much more if scientists would admit that they need that help and stop trying to write their own explanations. Here’s a recent example from NASA’s APOD project.

 

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/2002/ldn1622MinXie.jpg

 

Explanation: The silhouette of an intriguingdark nebulainhabits this cosmic scene. Lynds’ Dark Nebula (LDN) 1622 appears against a faint background of glowing hydrogen gas only visible in long telescopic exposures of the region. In contrast, the brighter reflection nebula vdB 62 is more easily seen, just above and right of center. LDN 1622 lies near the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy, close on the sky to Barnard’s Loop, a large cloud surrounding the rich complex of emission nebulae found in the Belt and Sword of Orion. With swept-back outlines, the obscuring dust of LDN 1622 is thought to lie at a similar distance, perhaps 1,500 light-years away. At that distance, this 1 degree wide field of view would span about 30 light-years. Young stars do lie hidden within the dark expanse and have been revealed in Spitzer Space telescope infrared images. Still, the foreboding visual appearance of LDN 1622 inspires its popular name, the Boogeyman Nebula.

 

Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff(MTU) &Jerry Bonnell(UMCP)

 

The word intriguing in the first sentence is ill-advised. It usually suggests spying or wrong-doing. The author means to say the object in the photograph is interesting. The sentence itself says nothing, except to point out that in the photograph we find something that is in the photograph and it’s called a “dark nebula.” This is a dead sentence.

 

The second sentence goes on to name the thing in the photograph: Lynds’ Dark Nebula 1622, which is no more helpful, because we don’t know what it is or the identity of Lynds, perhaps a person. In fact, Beverly Lynds is the source of the odd word, which happens to be her name. She cataloged nebulae, and her compiled work, published in the early 1960’s, forms a standard reference. Hence the number 1622, which is not a date but a reference to her catalog.

 

We do learn in that second sentence that the lighter background is hydrogen, presumably at some high temperature, since it is “glowing.” The author has the word only out of place. “only visible in long telescopic exposures of the region” should be “visible only in long telescopic exposures of the region.” But since all images on this web site are from telescopes, we have unneeded words. And since we can’t see what’s in the photograph without the photograph being of “the region” at which we’re looking, we have even more unnecessary words. Cut, cut, cut all your nonsense.

 

Better: “This dark nebula, known as 1622 from a catalog compiled by Beverly Lynds, appears against a background of glowing hydrogen gas that is visible only in photographic exposures of long duration.” 

 

The next sentence is baffling even to the trained eye: “In contrast, the brighter reflection nebulavdB 62is more easily seen, just above and right of center.” 

 

Better: “Nebula vdB 62 appears as a brighter spot above right of center.” The author has used an unnecessary comma.

 

The text gets worse from there, including this sentence that makes no sense at all. I won’t attempt to rewrite it, since we don’t know what many important terms mean.

 

“LDN 1622 lies near the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy, close on the sky to Barnard’s Loop, a large cloud surrounding the rich complex of emission nebulae found in the Belt and Sword of Orion.”

 

“near the plane of our Milky Way Galaxy”

“close on the sky to…” 

“Barnard’s Loop…” 

“complex of emissions nebulae…” 

Confusion mounts. Exhaustion sets in. Why bother with science when it’s so confusing? 

 

The final sentence:

 

“Young stars do lie hidden within the dark expanse and have been revealed in Spitzer Space telescope infrared images. Still, the foreboding visual appearance of LDN 1622 inspires its popular name, the Boogeyman Nebula.”

 

This is troublesome: “and have been revealed in Spitzer Space telescope infrared images.” It should be: “and have been revealed in infrared images from the Spitzer Space telescope.” 

 

There is no need to tell the reader what to feel. And we can eliminate redundancy.

 

“Still, the foreboding visual appearance of LDN 1622 inspires its popular name, the Boogeyman Nebula.”

 

Eliminating the crackpot word foreboding does nothing to weaken the message and does something to strengthen the sentence. 

 

Even better: “Still, the appearance of LDN 1622 inspires its popular name, the Boogeyman Nebula.”

Active is Better Than Passive

“It was in this kitchen where meringues were launched onto seas of créme anglaise, perfectly seared slabs of foie gras were drizzled with fig reductions, and salads of waterecress and endive were expertly tossed with olive oil and sea salt.”

 

from Wild Game by Adrienne Brodeur, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019

 

This sentence begins with trouble, because it has no subject. The structure “It was in… where…” is awkward if not nonsensical. “Meringues were launched…” makes matters worse by having self-flying meringues with no captain at the helm. And piling up the verbs “to be” afterward merely takes the reader farther astray on the misguided journey.

 

The author is writing about her mother and her kitchen, so her mother, Malabar by name, presents an obvious candidate to be master of this sentence and to provide its active element. The sentence could actually become beautiful with Malabar in charge. In fact, just a couple of sentences earlier, Brodeur writes, “Here, at the very last house on a winding road to the bay beach, the kitchen was command central and Malabar its five-star general.” So she had her metaphor in hand already when she stumbled.

 

We writers cannot always see all of our mistakes. That’s what our editors are for. Adrienne Brodeur is a good writer, and someone at Houghton Mifflin Harcourt should have been looking out for her.

Rewriting

Writing is not writing, it’s rewriting.

 

Check your work for nonsense. 

 

These quotes are taken from the medical files of patients in real hospitals.

 

“The baby was delivered, the cord clamped and cut, and handed to the pediatrician, who breathed and cried immediately.”

 

“The skin was moist and dry.”

 

“Patient was alert and unresponsive.”

 

“When she fainted, her eyes rolled around the room.”

 

“Bleeding started in the rectal area and continued all the way to Los Angeles.”

 

 Check your spelling.

 

“The lab test indicated abnormal lover function.”

 

“While in the emergency room, she was examined, x-rated and sent home.”

 

“I saw your patient today, who is still under our car for physical therapy.”

 

“Exam of genitalia reveals that he is circus sized.”

 

 Say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

“The patient lives at home with his mother, father, and pet turtle, who is presently enrolled in day care three times a week.”

 

“She is numb from her toes down.”

 

“Exam of genitalia was completely negative except for the right foot.”

 

“The patient was to have a bowel resection. However, he took a job as a stockbroker instead.”

 

“The patient suffers from occasional, constant, infrequent headaches.”

 

Read and re-read your work.