Eric Grey

« Back to blog

Viewed
times
Favorited 0 times
About Me

I mostly blog about Chinese Medicine over at http://deepesthealth.com, but I needed a brain overflow container, and this is it.

On a daily basis, I think about (mostly) the following: spirituality and religion, small business ownership, raising kids, veganism, gardening, discipleship in an age of capitalism, computers and the appropriate use of contemporary technology, where did we come from, where do we go when we die, what is the meaning of life and also sometimes basketball. But, I can't really guarantee you'll see any of that in any given period of time. It's OVERFLOW, ok?

Also: I run a natural medicine clinic, Watershed Community Wellness, with my partner Amanda Barp. I think you might be interested in what we do there. You can find us over at : http://watershedcommunitywellness.com - visit us!

Get Updates
 

Most health information is just totally boring

As I work on the Deepest Health redesign, but also my (our) clinic I am occasionally paralyzed.  This mostly has to do with one unavoidable fact.  The vast, vast, vast majority of information out there about health, wellness, Chinese medicine and the rest, regardless of intended audience, is unbelievably boring.  One of my least favorite posts is the, "This is what Chinese medicine thinks about the Spring season"  type of post.

Please.  Please.  Just stop.

I've written a couple of posts like that and I tried to make it less boring by making it more scholarly.  My thought was that the "boring" came from it being "shallow."  The shallowness comes from the fact that most people in Chinese medicine learn that little Neijing chart of correspondences, but learn them like they're learning the dials on their dashboard from their car's owner's manual.  Mechanistic, simplistic, boring.  Boring, boring, boring.  Unfortunately, I don't think that "more scholarly" is what MOST people want or need.

So, my job right now is figuring out how to write what I want/need to write and not fall into the boring trap.  But, I must also avoid the "being more scholarly will make this less boring" trap.  At the same time, I must be wary of the "desecrating the medicine by making Chinese medicine like totally web 2.0" trap.  So many traps, so few escape routes.  Good thing I'm in a couple of writing classes right now.  Phew.  I'm also surrounded by some pretty not-boring writers.  They all have different ways of approaching things, but it's all incredibly helpful.

Yeah, thinking as I'm writing, I'm struck by the thought that the main tension is this...

I want to have some depth and some scholarly rigor (cause, you know, I'm LIKE that), also be accessible (cause, you know, not everybody is a Chinese medicine DORK) and also be deeply engaging (cause, you know, that's what makes people want to actually DO something).  Check out THAT sentence.  

It's tough to balance those factors.  I'm not sure I'm often very successful.  But, I plan to keep trying.  Thoughts?

Posted

3 comments

May 14, 2010
Bonnie said...
I haven't thought of it as boring per se but that's what I've been thinking about a lot. On the one hand, it is less boring if you are writing for acupuncturists because you can use the language but go in depth. If you start thinking you are writing for potential patients you need to explain everything. I think that the more you talk (and write) to your patients about things they want to know (why do I feel this way?) and use language they understand. Are they really going to come back to you because you taught them about classical theory? Or are they going to come back to them because you taught them how to live better--which, going back to your example about spring and the blah blah blah, may mean talking about living in harmony with the seasons, but not using the fact that this is liver time.

Scholarly work shouldn't be for your patients (though you shouldn't necessarily sacrifice accuracy because of this). Scholarly work should be for those of us who share your understanding (or some it! ;)) for acupuncture. Who are you writing for when you write?

May 14, 2010
Eric Grey said...
Hey Bonnie,

Well, obviously audience is important. My point is that the VAST majority of the material I read (for patients or for scholars) is boring. I'm very clear who I'm writing for, and when, but the boringness is certainly a possibility regardless. Even on Deepest Health, the more scholarly posts are not written in a way that is compelling... not to say this is true of ALL my writing on DH, some of it is fine... but particularly when I'm addressing a concept I'm interested in, I tend to wonk out a little too much, and those posts get almost no commenting, no traffic... it's like talking into an empty room. On the other hand, there have been a few posts when I've been brave, let my voice come forth, really worked to make sure the information is compelling and relevant, and those posts always do well and provoke good conversation.

I simply think that the same old tired, "Hey, it's Spring, that's about the Liver! And it's about getting going! And hey! Sometimes people get angry in the Spring, isn't that weird? Wow!" is just... tired. :) I'm bored to death with it.

And the same is true of stuff for patients. YES of course, you have to explain everything - but that's no excuse for bad writing, rehashing the same old concepts, etc...

:D

I'm fired up.

It must be spring!

e

May 14, 2010
Bonnie said...
I had to write one of those articles once because we had a newsletter and other people thought it would be great. It was not the most stunning thing I have ever written... (yawn).

I think that the fu zi articles (I'm picking on them because I just re read them) were more text book like than art like--if that makes sense. It kept me more at a distance. It wasn't that I wasn't interested in the information--it was great information. It was all there in one place. But it was more like a lecture than sitting around with a group of friends having a drink and talking about theory. I had less to contribute as my level of understanding wasn't at the level of the text book writer so I took it in without offering a discussion. I think the ones that get you a lot of comments ask directly for commentary and they are also less researched and so less intimidating if you have another point of view. I mean in those I can say, but I learned and what do you think of... whereas with all that information it starts feeling like I am going to have to go back and look up sources before I can comment--even if you invite me.

Did that make any sense?

But I will leave you with one thing: In my photography classes one thing that the instructor really pushes is that to be a good photographer you need to bring something unique. What is your unique perspective on the world? How did you see this scene differently from everyone else? The better I can stay true to that question, the better my photos will be. So, in those articles that get lots of comments are you bringing your unique perspective of acupuncture and healing to the article? Are you doing that with the ones that aren't commented on? Could that be the difference?

Leave a comment...