The Horrors of Reading a Textbook

"Why is it that some textbooks have to be so hard to read?"

This thought crossed my mind this week as I read three different types of textbooks: one for a class titled "Families in Poverty", one for this class, and one for an accounting class. I understand that the content in each textbook widely differs, and that, on principle, a textbook on accounting information systems would be a lot harder to read than one on families in poverty. However, there are ways to make information engaging and interesting, so why don't more textbook writers do it?

The textbook written for my poverty class contains information and definitions, but also has lots of personal stories and examples. After reading one chapter, I was interested, engaged, and felt like I learned something valuable.

The textbook for this technical writing class was also an easy read. The wording was very clear and direct. There were also multiple pictures and graphics which broke up the text and created visual interest. I was able to read all three chapters in one sitting and felt able to use what I read to write for an audience.

The textbook for the accounting class was awful. We were supposed to read three chapters. I got through one of them, then gave up in the second chapter. The textbook is mostly text with few graphics, and full of complicated wording and descriptions of information systems.

Since we have to spend so much money on these textbooks, can't the writers put some effort in making them actually useful to the students who will buy them? If they are poorly written, we won't read them. But if they are engaging, we will.

Now to tackle my next accounting textbook...

Writing for Your Audience

The textbook immediately establishes the concept of writing for your audience. Throughout my previous English classes, the intent has been to be wordy, to sound prestigious, and to write about as much as you know. The textbook takes a stance that there is writing completed for educational purposes and writing completed for practical purposes. When you write a memo at work meant for your boss, you don't want to be wordy. You want to be to the point. Your boss will not care about your vocabulary, only what you're trying to say. In this instance, knowing and writing for your audience can make or break your career.

In the chapter on reader-centered correspondence, the correspondence cliche list (p. 528 in the text) took me by surprise. I understand its recommendation to use plain language instead of wordy expressions that you don't use in ordinary conversation, but I have always thought those expression were customary in business language. I recently had to write an IRS letter, and those types of expressions were used throughout the letter. Maybe the IRS is different?

The chapter on proposal writing was interesting. I like the use of a proposal written by someone in a company suggesting a change versus a proposal written in response to a RFP. I think the harder scenario would be the case where you are coming up with the proposal yourself in response to an idea that you had. In this case you would have to be sensitive to your job while also trying to improve things around you. It would be a touchy situation.

With the textbook putting so much of an emphasis on knowing your audience before you write something, what about a case where you don't know your audience? Does this ever happen? Or are there always ways to determine your audience?