CCBC-Net Archives
simple science
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Lisa Peters <lwpeters>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:10:21 -0500
Megan asks what's most difficult about writing science for children, and I'd have to agree with previous writers' comments. It's not the research. For me, nonfiction is a way of life: I consider everything I do and see and hear as research for my work. The work/research increases in intensity when I've finally settled on a topic or an angle, but otherwise, it's just part of my life.
What's hard is the synthesizing and shaping of a manuscript. A Minneapolis book reviewer, Mary Burket, once said that good, original nonfiction is always about something larger than itself. That requires synthesis. If a nonfiction writer is able to write about something larger than the subject at hand, then she's created a work of art. That's the hard part, creating a work of art.
Megan also asked about the line between fiction and nonfiction -- does it blur sometimes? I think it can. When I sold my first manuscript to Henry Holt in the late 80s, my editor asked if I thought the story was fiction or nonfiction. I told her I had no idea. Now I consider The Sun, the Wind and the Rain a nonfiction book with a fictional character. The fictional character is there to help young readers grasp the concept: change, even for something as big as mountains, is constant. But the thrust of the story was always informational and the character was always there in service of that larger goal.
Point of view is an issue that hasn't come up yet in these discussions. I always find that decision to be a critical part of the pacing-around?fore-I-write stage. Our Family Tree is written in first person plural. It's all of us speaking. For readers who accept the idea of biological evolution, this is an intimate, warm voice
-- comforting. And of course, that's what I intended. For those who don't, the voice probably heightens the antagonism.
As for accuracy...it can be elusive. When I was sending the manuscript for Our Family Tree around to paleontologists and an anthropologist, I got three different answers to one question. This can happen a lot. At that point, you have to make an executive decision. If you've done enough research beforehand, you have more confidence in choosing an answer. But often the best way to deal with it is to rewrite. In a spare text, there usually isn't room to explain the conflicts among the experts. By the way, I never rely on publishers to fact-check. I always have experts check my manuscripts.
Lisa Peters www.lisawestbergpeters.com
Received on Fri 08 Jul 2005 10:10:21 AM CDT
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:10:21 -0500
Megan asks what's most difficult about writing science for children, and I'd have to agree with previous writers' comments. It's not the research. For me, nonfiction is a way of life: I consider everything I do and see and hear as research for my work. The work/research increases in intensity when I've finally settled on a topic or an angle, but otherwise, it's just part of my life.
What's hard is the synthesizing and shaping of a manuscript. A Minneapolis book reviewer, Mary Burket, once said that good, original nonfiction is always about something larger than itself. That requires synthesis. If a nonfiction writer is able to write about something larger than the subject at hand, then she's created a work of art. That's the hard part, creating a work of art.
Megan also asked about the line between fiction and nonfiction -- does it blur sometimes? I think it can. When I sold my first manuscript to Henry Holt in the late 80s, my editor asked if I thought the story was fiction or nonfiction. I told her I had no idea. Now I consider The Sun, the Wind and the Rain a nonfiction book with a fictional character. The fictional character is there to help young readers grasp the concept: change, even for something as big as mountains, is constant. But the thrust of the story was always informational and the character was always there in service of that larger goal.
Point of view is an issue that hasn't come up yet in these discussions. I always find that decision to be a critical part of the pacing-around?fore-I-write stage. Our Family Tree is written in first person plural. It's all of us speaking. For readers who accept the idea of biological evolution, this is an intimate, warm voice
-- comforting. And of course, that's what I intended. For those who don't, the voice probably heightens the antagonism.
As for accuracy...it can be elusive. When I was sending the manuscript for Our Family Tree around to paleontologists and an anthropologist, I got three different answers to one question. This can happen a lot. At that point, you have to make an executive decision. If you've done enough research beforehand, you have more confidence in choosing an answer. But often the best way to deal with it is to rewrite. In a spare text, there usually isn't room to explain the conflicts among the experts. By the way, I never rely on publishers to fact-check. I always have experts check my manuscripts.
Lisa Peters www.lisawestbergpeters.com
Received on Fri 08 Jul 2005 10:10:21 AM CDT
