A FIELD GUIDE FOR SCIENCE WRITERS:
Compiling
advice from the very best science writers in a format that is easy to use as
reference is both convenient and effective.
When I need to understand the hoops a writer for a newspaper must jump
through, it’s as simple as reading that section. I actually read this book before the semester
began and it stimulated my desire to write.
But, it also instilled a sense of futility – a "holy shit I don’t think I
can ever be competent enough to pursue this profession." Guess I’ll know in a few months….
The first
bit of advice that was news to me was “presenting science as one great big
storybook adventure” and that the “narrative
arc … will compel your readers to stick around for the science.” Bye, Bye dry
science writing. Writing in this manner opens up a new world
of science education via science writing that surpass a boring rendition of
just the facts without any human interest facet.
Images for beginning and end of blog:
“OUT OF THE WILD”
by David Quammen
I had the privilege of attending
a seminar with David Quammen and Richard Leakey, the famed anthropologist. A student asked David how he chose his topics. David replied that he followed his
curiosity. Questions were his stepping
stones to developing ideas for his books.
In this case, curiosity did not kill the cat, instead it made David a
wealthy, famous cat!
In this article, David
immediately snagged my interest with a sneak peek into the couple’s lives,
complete with physical descriptions so my mind’s eye built a picture. This technique activates the mirror neurons so
that we empathize with the characters’ emotional journeys. Comparing the cave’s sour smell to a barroom
with spilled beer actually evoked such a reaction in me that I wrinkled up my
nose.
Although I was only four
paragraphs into the article, my heart tugged when I realized Astrid’s health was
compromised during her brief 10 minute excursion into the cave. And dammit, she dies. (I like happy endings.) I routinely become emotionally invested in
characters of books, but to have accomplished this so quickly in a short
article is evidence of David’s genius.
Because I cared about Astrid, I came to care about zoonoses. I was even willing to read through the
biology lesson. Well done!
We’ve talked about whether a
science writer has the freedom of adding commentary. David
says, “To put the matter in its starkest
form: human-caused ecological pressures
and disruptions are bringing animal pathogens ever more into contact with human
populations, while human technology and behavior are spreading those pathogens
ever more widely and quickly. In other
words, outbreaks of new zoonotic diseases, as well as the recurrence and spread
of old ones, reflect things that we’re doing, rather than just being things
that are happening to us.” I’m glad
he included this commentary to educate his readers.
Human activities dangerously catapult
zoonoses into our lives and we need to understand the correlation between our actions and the subsequent consequences. David’s commentary encourages us to become aware as a species. And he does this without stomping on the
proverbial soap box. Impressive!
I have a new appreciation for
the scientists working for the CDC, WHO, and NICD. I flinched and cringed as they made their way
through the caves and shafts. David’s gifted writing transported me to
Africa for 15 minutes. And I didn’t have
to pack a suitcase or languish in an airport.
Images: www.cctvamerica.com and www.amazon.com 
“SEVEN WONDERS” by Lewis Thomas
I appreciated this article for its organization and
simplicity. My brain let out an audible
sigh of relief as I easily glided from page to page.
The article was not an exercise steeped in words I had to look up or
concepts foreign to me. It was a simple
foray into one man’s perspective and opinion.
Very enjoyable brain break – interesting but not taxing.
Image: www.nasa.gov
“NARRATION AS A HUMAN COMMUNICATION PARADIGM: THE CASE OF PUBLIC MORAL ARGUMENT” by Walter Fisher
I need a translator, please. Image: www.my24hours.net
I love that Ms. Graves
introduces her topic with a comparison to Heisenberg’s dilemma. Because I am a
science major, I am familiar with the principle of uncertainty. Understanding this quantum concept allowed
me to make the jump to her “both/and” conceptualization of rhetoric. I did not immediately need a translator as I did
for the Fisher article and was actually able to read the entire article. However, I’m sure I only grasped a very small
percentage of the knowledge presented in this article due to the fact that I am
not an English Lit or Writing major.
Much of this went right over my head and through my body. i did and did not understand this article. If anyone knows of a “Rhetoric For Dummies”
source, please let me know. I’m drowning
in unfamiliar terminology and concepts here.
I fell down a mine shaft once. It was just a hole in the ground, nothing noticeable on the surface. I didn’t fall a long way, but far enough I couldn’t get out. I remember it happening in slow motion like a dream. The glow of the surface slowly closed as I tumbled backward into the darkness. I…
ReplyDeleteSo anyway, I totally understand your comment on the Graves article. I didn’t get it either. That’s the kind of stuff you pretty much have to be immersed in as a scholar to totally understand. I am in no position to explain it, but I think it is important we understand why it was assigned, but I don’t know that either so I’m going to move on to your comment about someone else.
You wrote the most about Quammen. I assume that was because you found you could relate to his article more due to your connectivity with him in person (God, I made that sound like you two were a thing or something...sorry). I too was impressed how he used a very approachable language to explore a fairly difficult topic- tiny shit that kills us-but my reaction was a bit different than yours.
Quamman uses the human element to suck us in, to make us feel empathetic to those who have died. But what he is really doing is whacking us in the face with rhetoric so we wake up and notice animal transmitted pathogens as a serious threat. I know you liked how he wove a story to make emphasis, but I felt kind of like how you must feel right now, wondering about why the hell I started this post with a story I didn’t finish.
My point is this; if you want to talk science, talk science. If you want to create a story full of emotion, have it start out like he started it then have Astrid mutate into a zombie starting some apocalyptic pandemic. Sorry, I know you liked Astrid, but empathy and science just don’t seem to mix with me.
It’s super cool that you got to attend a seminar with Quammen! I really enjoyed reading his piece because of how much emotion he made me feel (both good and bad) in such a short space. I hope we discuss this piece in class, because I would love to learn what aspects of his writing either worked or didn’t work for others. You were willing to read through the biology lesson, I was left with the motivation to research more on almost everything he talked about. Even though, as Vince mentioned, the point of the article was to raise awareness of zoonoses, I wanted to learn more about Astrid before Quammen moved on. I don’t know if he was working under a specific word count or deadline, but I felt that he could have spent a little more time on Astrid before continuing with zoonoses. This article raised a lot of questions for me as well as a desire to learn more about an area of science that I generally tend to avoid, which I consider to be a pretty successful accomplishment on Quammen’s part.
ReplyDelete