Scientific Perspective

I enjoyed the reading this weekend, though I forgot to blog about it. So here's me playing catch up. I learned a lot from Hancock in just the first two chapters. With only a few writing classes under my belt, I've spent very little time reading about he writing process. Hancock has some solid ideas and doesn't mince words about her opinion on how certain things should be done.

I had to chuckle when she said "teaching undergraduates can be so deadening to a writer: it steeps the mind in sophomoric prose" (6). Is it really that bad Doug? Do you feel dumber after reading our papers?  :)  I guess I see where she's coming from, but I think that it's more important to read what you want to write than NOT to read what you won't be writing. I think reading across all genres helps us develop our writing skills. You never know where you're going to find inspiration or a story. For that reason, I agree with Hancock, though not the way she intended when she said: "we learn at all times" (6). I think she ignores the fact that we also learn by others mistakes.

A lot of what Hancock said was inspiring. It was also surprising. I thought it was important to take away the fact that "some to much of today's research is mistaken or incomplete" (12). She spends a good deal of time telling us that scientists are humans, and that there are a variety of influences, good and bad, that will affect their research and their interactions with you as a chronicler of their work.

What tied it all together for me was the classroom discussion we had today. Hancock asks "what are the limitations of our current ways of thinking" (13)? Like Doug said, much of our writing will come down to which perspective we take. Scientists see our world a bit differently, I would say, than someone like me. My guess is that my way of seeing the world is probably a little closer to the average reader than some guy studying atom smashing. As science writers, I think it's our responsibility to see the world through the atom smasher's eyes and then put that world view into a form that the average reader can identify with. In that way, we are able to do some smashing of our own by dismantling the reader's preconceived notions of how things work in our world.

I think that's what makes a good science story. I think that people read science writing for a variety of reasons, but I think you can grab universal attention by surprising readers with the odd, the bizarre or the downright creepy. And so much the better if you do a good enough job that they'll want to tell their friends and look smart at a party.