I’ve noticed lately when I’m reading a review of a build, or a how-to, or whatever, that the writer, who is also invariably the builder, uses entirely too much 3rd person tense. Like:
“The windshield was dipped in Future and then secured in place with CA…”
“Pastels were used to fade the paint and give a dusty appearance…”
“Some flat and half-round stock was used to fabricate the seats…”
What is the deal with this? Can’t you simply say, " I used such-and-such for the cockpit glass…" or “I wanted to use the Aeroscale decals but ended up printing my own.” Am I the only one that finds the 3rd person tone used annoying and a little snobbish?
In a how-to, I feel like the fewer personal pronouns used the better. Obviously the person writing it did the work or the action described…hence, no need for “I did this” or “I did that”. Its like when I was in grade school or high school and the teachers would frown on using “I” or “me” when writing essays. The reader knows its “you”, therefore no reason to include it.
So…the writer in me has to point out that that’s not third person, it’s passive voice (which is also frowned upon…though I think it’s fine and even appropriate in certain circumstances).
Third person would be if I were to write “Doogs made the eyebolts by twisting Ultrawire around a piece of 0.3mm wire”. THAT would truly be annoying.
The thing that tends to gall me in reviews or how-tos is when a particularly involved technique, or involved part of the build, is just glossed over with “I weathered it” or “the fit was tricky, but manageable”. HOW!?!?! Tell us how!
Also have to admit I tend to abandon “reviews” that don’t actually talk about how the kit builds. And there tend to be a lot that are 70% history of the hardware, 10% history of the kit, 10% construction, 5% markings, and 5% conclusion.
These are actually technical articles, not personal letters, so I think writing in the third person tense is entirely appropriate. I’ve published many in my day, and that’s the way I wrote 'em.
Since this is a personal note, I’m using the first person tense, which is proper for this forum.
Eh, I don’t mind them per se. It’s cool to get a look at what’s in the box, the quality of the markings and molds, if anything looks like it’ll be a bear.
The problem is the lack of “part 2” pieces, where the kit actually gets built. Or links to those baked back in to the in-box reviews.
I know right! Its like, “well, here’s the new Me-109 kit…There’s some plastic. Gray plastic. It has wings. Oh, and decals”…No kidding, tell us what we don’t know.
I actually prefer it that way. I’m a graphic designer, and often end up proof-reading articles, ad copy etc. and end up filtering a lot of I-I-I or me-me-me situations. over a paragraph it’s not such a big deal, but if you are looking at a whole article with the writer referring to himself I find it tiring. It’s just one of those cases of personal preference.
When looking at a review, the price is always sought out first. This usually mean that the review will not be read, because that particular kit will not be bought for that price, by this guy!
First off, if anyone wants to write a report in a different style, try writing in the SECOND person. It can be done (there have even been movies and plays written in the second person) but it isn’t easy.
Second, I’d like FSM to adopt running a standardized spec sheet in a box, something like:
Company Scale Title Kit#
Sets used
Paints used
Materials used
Tools used
References
Notes
Available from
Rating
All topics subject to omission when not applicable. This backbone gives the reader something upon which they can count.
I’m glad Doogs pointed out that it’s passive voice, but I understand your frustrations. Passive voice slows down reading and usually makes it bland. Just as “I did this and I did that” feels repetitive, so does “This was done and those were done”.
It’s not that hard to change it, and to me it flows better. Yet, that might just be the English style lectures tapping me in the back of the head. [:D]
“The windshield was dipped in Future and then secured in place with CA…”
I dipped the windshield in Future and then secured it with CA.
“Pastels were used to fade the paint and give a dusty appearance…”
Pastels added a faded look to the paint as well as the dusty appearance.
“Some flat and half-round stock was used to fabricate the seats…”
Flat and half-round stock provided the base for the seats.
Please, take into account, that although in the English-speaking world the use of passive voice is discouraged, in countries like Germany or Poland, for that matter, passive voice is a standard used in technical writing, where the focus is on the subject and the author tries to kind of “get out of the spotlight”. This tendency is strong enough to cause problems when switching to English on another occasion. Also, imagine there was some teamwork involved - how about “Mike dipped it in future and then dave glued it with CA we got from George” [:D]
As a frequently-published, contributing author to Finescale Modeler and another European modeling magazine, I should straighten out the original poster about the process and method.
First, when I write an article, it’s ALWAYS edited and re-written to some degree by the editorial staff of the magazine. Mostly, it is condensed to fit. So what you ultimately read is a synthesis of two or more writers.
Secondly, I agree with the poster here who said that too many first-person references feels like–well, to me, the primary writer-- almost sounding self-congratulatory or something? The different pronouns also mix up the flow, and prevent a monotonous cadence to the article.
As an author AND as a reader, what is MOST annoying, is when the publisher doesn’t get a good printer and the photos come out radically different in chromatic tone than what your model actually looks like, or you can tell that the printer’s colors are way off, like as in the super-reddish color of an exhaust or rusted piece. Luckily, I’ve never had this problem with Finescale Modeler.
