Oh goodness, where do I start. I really am trying with this whole science thing. Polanyi was far too technical for my attention span. Yes, it was very informative and he had ample data to back his argument, but the density of the article killed me. Maybe its the creativity that oozes from me, but the lack of creativity, or humor or even color really wore me out. Quite frankly, I don't even think I could regurgitate what I just read two days from now.
        Moollem was much better. I did appreciate the warmth and color he brought to his piece. It read more like a story than like an informative science piece. I found it quite similar to Koepell's Taking a Fall. This was a more pleasant piece; far more charming, and I really do think I learned quite a bit about albatross.
       Hancock was an easier read, as well (I think anything is better than Polanyi, at this point...). I really liked the bit about being interested in the piece you are writing so others will be, too. It makes sense. I have always shied away from any sort of technical writing solely because I didn't believe that there was something non-fiction that I could write that could possibly sound interesting... (that sounds more depressing than it should...ha...I write in a colorful, imaginative, fantasy world, which isn't allotted in most technical writing). But through writers such as Hancock, Koepell and Moollem, I'm becoming more aware that a little bit of color in technical writing isn't as taboo as I thought.