Some of this story-telling makes me uncomfortable, too.
Reconstruction of events is amusing, but to my mind it doesn't
supplant the need for a good narrative report. Really talented
writers -- Ivor Noel Hume always comes to mind -- can spin a yarn,
separate and distinct from the archaeological data.

Story telling is all well and good, but that's not where we have the
readability problem.

Our problem, as a profession, is the quality of the prose and layout
in technical reports. I have not yet found the regulation that
requires reports to be routine, dull, didactic, and opaque. Life in
this business is a constant adventure, and I want to share the thrill.

The problem partly lies with hidebound agency types who are hostile
to anything new. The Air Force demanded that I remove "pointing
finger" dingbats I had used to highlight the headings in the list of
four National Register criteria. When the offending fists were
replaced by plain dots, or "bullets," the report became acceptable.
Why were dingbats offensive? Because they were different, of course.

In my never-ending campaign to irritate stuffy reviewers, I have
persisted in heading  report chapters with titles like "What we did
and why we did it," rather than "Introduction." This title actually
aroused a reviewer from a state office to demand that I use
"standard" chapter headings.

Could someone please tell me why it is sinful to make reports readable?
--
*****[log in to unmask]******
*                      *
* Word of warning:     *
* Never believe any    *
* statement by any     *
* outfit with the word *
* "weather" in its     *
* name                 *
*                      *
************************