First let me say that I find it extremely interesting, and thought-provoking, that Carl Sagan's piece begins with a description of a world that the author feared would come into existence, and that very description is the world we seem to live in today: "I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time--when the United Stats is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness." Okay, so maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration of the state of the world at the current moment, but it does seem valid on at least a few points. I don't necessarily have a lot of cool thoughts or ideas surrounding this fear of Sagan's but rather find it interesting that the one thing he fears seems to be slowly becoming the reality of the state of the US.
The readings from last week and this week seem to address, most commonly, the idea that there is a certain beauty and nature to science and the way that it functions. Additionally, this chunk of readings addressed the way in which a writer can convey the beauty and nature of science in a way that hooks a layman reader and keeps them interested in the science being presented.
Beginning with Chapter 4 of A Field Guide for Science Writers I quickly found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the advice given on how to effectively write a piece of science writing. While I agree that keeping things in layman's terms is important, as is the flow and content of the piece, I don't necessarily agree that a reader needs every single thing spelled out for them in the simplest of terms. The author introduces an A to B, B to C, C to D path of logic for the reader to follow. This is important because it allows the reader to follow a linear stream of thoughts and ideas that are all interconnected, thus making the concept being conveyed more readily understood. Yet when the author of this chapter says, "The reader needs to be held by the hand, and walked through the idea, every step, step by step" (29) I cannot help but disagree with the author. Again, I recognize the value of giving the reader a step-by-step explanation and analysis to follow, yet I also recognize that readers are intelligent and can come to conclusions all on their own. I think that saying the writer must hold the readers hand and pull them through the text word by word is overkill, and underestimates the reasoning capabilities of the readers. I also think that over-explaining or over-simplifying for the reader has the potential of decimating the beauty and nature of the science that the writer is trying to talk about. I think that this concept is best put in The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, by Lewis Wolpert, "Science often explains the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar" (233).
First, let me say, HURRAH! Your last paragraph was excellent! You found things you didn't like and as I was reading, I was rooting for you!
ReplyDeleteYou made an excellent point about the Field Guide Chapter. I felt the same way. I was so frustrated by the notion that the readers needed us, as authors, to hold their hands. Something I was told over and over again in my creative writing, but for some reason, took forever to understand, was that I needed to TRUST my readers. We have to! I think that there is a fine-line we are walking in science writing, between grand, middle and simple language, but I think there is a balance to be found.
I wonder, then, how I will manage to trust my reader and still give them enough information. Especially with the Profile piece, I have found that I am in an interesting role as the author, because I was also a member of the research team. Hmm. I'll keep thinking about that. Thanks, Megan!