CCBC-Net Archives
science or natural history or eARTh
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia Cheli-Colando <maia>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:18:18 -0700
It might be useful to consider "science writing" within three categories:
(1) Books that are scientific -- relating the latest information, data based
(2) Books that describe natural history -- these have data but are focused less on the changing edges of science and more on nature over time
(3) Books that interpret nature -- eARTh if you will (a great term I learned from a friend), often poetic in text
As a writer, I see logical parameters for each category. I'm less inclined to write in the first group, but very comfortable with my role as /writer/ in the second and third; my work falls most often in (3).
But with nonfiction in general and science in particular, the usual relationship between writer and illustrator must be different: for, how exactly do you fact check illustrations? Take Lisa's /Our Family Tree/ as an example. Writing accurate text shouldn't have been too difficult; the material is fairly straightforward. (The rendition of the material, however, is gorgeous; this was one of my favorite purchases of last year.) Instead, it was within the /illustrations/ that the greatest opportunity for error lay. Without a scientific editor, how can you assure a visually accurate work? This problem isn't as likely to arise within Seymour Simon's books; the photographs are what they are. But it seems more problematic for illustrations that are creative, unless the author is also the illustrator...?
Also, I'm curious to know if others see a similar trend to one I have perceived: that books in the second and third categories are more often written for younger children (both genders) and that books in the first category are targeted more to independent male readers... and if so, I wonder if part of the often discussed gender difference over fiction and nonfiction has to do with style? Meaning specifically that older girls might read more nonfiction if it included other referents (cultural, personal) and an evident personal voice? Opinions?
Maia
Received on Tue 12 Jul 2005 12:18:18 AM CDT
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:18:18 -0700
It might be useful to consider "science writing" within three categories:
(1) Books that are scientific -- relating the latest information, data based
(2) Books that describe natural history -- these have data but are focused less on the changing edges of science and more on nature over time
(3) Books that interpret nature -- eARTh if you will (a great term I learned from a friend), often poetic in text
As a writer, I see logical parameters for each category. I'm less inclined to write in the first group, but very comfortable with my role as /writer/ in the second and third; my work falls most often in (3).
But with nonfiction in general and science in particular, the usual relationship between writer and illustrator must be different: for, how exactly do you fact check illustrations? Take Lisa's /Our Family Tree/ as an example. Writing accurate text shouldn't have been too difficult; the material is fairly straightforward. (The rendition of the material, however, is gorgeous; this was one of my favorite purchases of last year.) Instead, it was within the /illustrations/ that the greatest opportunity for error lay. Without a scientific editor, how can you assure a visually accurate work? This problem isn't as likely to arise within Seymour Simon's books; the photographs are what they are. But it seems more problematic for illustrations that are creative, unless the author is also the illustrator...?
Also, I'm curious to know if others see a similar trend to one I have perceived: that books in the second and third categories are more often written for younger children (both genders) and that books in the first category are targeted more to independent male readers... and if so, I wonder if part of the often discussed gender difference over fiction and nonfiction has to do with style? Meaning specifically that older girls might read more nonfiction if it included other referents (cultural, personal) and an evident personal voice? Opinions?
Maia
Received on Tue 12 Jul 2005 12:18:18 AM CDT
