Carol Baxter is the author of six internationally acclaimed "popular histories" or biographies. She now teaches writing skills to genealogists through her Writing Fabulous Family History courses.     

    In her writing classes, Carol explains that there are four literary writing styles:

• Expository   —  also known as the "encyclopaedia" style of writing, which is the main style used by genealogists. 
• Descriptive  —  sometimes called "all that flowery stuff" (although it really isn't).
• Narrative      —  also known as "storytelling".
• Persuasive   —  used in advertising and in "how to" book blurbs (not discussed further here). 

    Here we explore expository writing. Follow the links below to the other literary styles. 

Expository writing 

Expository writing "expounds" or "explains" and is therefore fact-focused writing — hence the description the "encyclopaedia" style of writing.

    Most genealogists write their family histories in this literary style. Unfortunately, the manner in which they communicate their facts is usually dry and forgettable. However, with a bit more effort, they can craft more interesting and memorable "encyclopedia" style prose. 

    To assist in your writing endeavours, Carol provides the following:

• Biographical example: This link is to the start of the biography of First Fleeter William Nash. 

• Expository writing course link: This course teaches the skills of expository writing via surname-origin descriptions, as most genealogists include such descriptions in their family history publications.

• Surname-origin example: Carol has written an expository-style surname-origin description written in two different ways to help clarify the difference: 
  • Dry and forgettable.
  • Interesting and memorable. 

• Writing books link: Carol has written two books on family history writing. 

Biographical example

Follow the link below to access the start of the biography of First Fleeter, William Nash, which is written in the expository style. 

Expository writing course

Expository writing examples for the surname Drinkwater

Many family history publications include a surname-origin description early in their introduction. That being the case, which of following descriptions would interest our readers? Indeed, which would make them eager to keep reading?

    Note that these writing examples are both expository descriptions as they list a series of facts. However, the second example also includes differences in tone, voice and point-of-view, which help make it more interesting. These subjects are covered elsewhere in the Writing Fabulous Family Histories syllabus. 

Version 1: Dry and forgettable

The surname Drinkwater derives from a nickname, suggesting either that the original bearer drank water rather than ale or, conversely, was a drunkard. 

Version 2: Interesting and memorable

Can you imagine a world in which our wake-up cup of tea is a tankard of ale, our breakfast juice is a tankard of ale, our pre-work coffee is a tankard of ale, our desk-top water is a tankard of ale, our business-lunch wine is a tankard of ale …?

     Historians estimate that our medieval ancestors were drinking approximately a gallon of ale per day – or, to provide a figure that will resonate with most current imbibers, 4½ litres per day. Some say that their consumption level was even higher to counteract the dehydration effects of their mostly salt-preserved food.

     Of course, the alcohol content was lower at that time, reportedly less than 3% as compared with 3% to 8% for today’s ales and beers. However, today’s medical experts recommend no more than ten standard drinks per week* – and that’s the ceiling for a moderate drinker.

     Our medieval ancestors must have been persistently pickled, chronically cock-eyed, habitually hammered. Not just under the influence, but under the table.

     So how did our own ancestor acquire the nickname Drinkwater? Was he a teetotaller in the world of the perpetually pie-eyed?

     Perhaps he didn’t like the taste of ale. It was reportedly murky and sour. Or perhaps he was so poor, he couldn’t even afford this dirt-cheap beverage, leaving him to drink the potentially deadly but free-to-imbibe water.

     Or was the nickname Drinkwater ironic? Was he such a drunkard that he stood out in a world where excessive consumption was the norm, not the exception?

* 10 grams or 0.35 ounces of alcohol

Other links