From: Corrinne Fisher <CFisher>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:06:12 -0400

I must take this opportunity to share how much I enjoyed (and learned from) your book, Beaks. The approach is clean the comparisons of different birds beaks and the reasons for their various shapes begs the reader to head outside and do some investigative work. Robin Brickman's sculpted paper illustrations are terrific as well. This is definitely a book I recommend and share.
  Corrie Fisher

        -----Original Message---- From: Sneed B. Collard III
[mailto:collard at bigsky.net]
        Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:40 PM
        To: Subscribers of ccbc-net
        Subject: [ccbc-net] Post from Sneed Collard
        
        
        
        Hello Everyone,
        
        With the help of several friends, I heard about and, despite a
        deteriorating brain, managed to locate this discussion. If I may, I'd like
        to chime in on the question of greatest challenges in science writing.
        
        For me, this does vary tremendously from book to book. For younger science
        picture books, for instance, finding the right voice is always a
        challenge*albeit a fun one. When I was writing my first
"whimsical science
        book," ANIMAL DADS, I wrote at least 8 or 9 versions of the main text before
        I hit upon a voice that flowed well, yet conveyed the feeling I was looking
        for. When I've written about more dramatic topics, such as tropical cloud
        forests or the deep-sea floor, finding a voice that captures the awe and
        inherent mystery of the topic can take a lot of experimentation. Sometimes,
        I never do find the right feel and shelve a project. Other times, the
        subject seems to speak to me and a beautiful, often unexpected, rhythm pours
        out. That happened with one of my newest picture books, A PLATYPUS,
        PROBABLY. In that case, my brief encounter with a wild platypus 17 years ago
        just inspired a mood that carried the entire book.
        
        With older science books, voice is still important, but there are additional
        challenges as well. I think for these older books it is especially important
        to do original research. For these books, library research is almost never
        adequate to do the topic justice. To bring science alive, it's vitally
        important to go directly to the source*usually, the scientists themselves.
        Of course, this is part of what makes these books so fun to write, too! In
        the past dozen years, I've been on research trips to Costa Rica, Australia,
        the deep-sea floor, and most recently, Iowa. Okay, now if you're laughing
        about the "Iowa" inclusion, let me just rush to Iowa's defense! I actually
        had a wonderful time there, spending time with some of the most dedicated
        scientists I've ever met. Also, for the first time, I got to immerse myself
        in the world of the tallgrass prairie, learning about the animals and
        plants, photographing them, and interviewing people who are passionately
        working to preserve this priceless ecosystem. And that's perhaps an
        important message that can be shared with young writers. Research doesn't
        always have to be to exotic locations. It can be right in your own backyard.
        But it's that direct research that brings a subject to life with perspective
        and information a straight library-researched book would never provide. My
        Iowa book, THE PRAIRIE BUILDERS, just came out and I don't think I've ever
        been more proud of a book*even though it was researched in humble Iowa.
        
        I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention a huge challenge in all science
        writing today: the shortage of trade publishers willing to publish science
        books. This has been a problem ever since I began my career in the early
        90s. In the 70s and 80s, there seemed to be a fair number of trade
        publishers who would publish top-notch science books for older readers. By
        the time my career began, the trend had dramatically reversed. Most of my
        career, in fact, has been forged on science picture books because those are
        the only books trade publishers have been willing to publish. For more
        in?pth books, I've had to turn to the library or institutional publishers.
        This is a big problem because library publishers are often more interested
        in publishing titles than books. What I mean by that is that, for a variety
        of reasons, the standards often are not as high for library publishers. For
        one thing, they pay their writers so poorly that a writer does not have the
        luxury of spending enough time researching and writing a book to bring it up
        to top grade. Also, production values are often lower among library
        publishers than they are in trade.
          Now there are exceptions. I've recently been working with Benchmark
        Publishing and they are doing an outstanding job on my books. I also have
        hopes that other library publishers will bring up their standards*and
        improve their treatment of writers! To my knowledge, however, about the only
        big trade publishers willing to tackle older science on a regular basis is
        Houghton Mifflin/Clarion. Houghton Mifflin's "Scientists in the Field"
        series is top-notch in every way, and I love many of Clarion's individual
        older titles as well. Other trade publishers are beginning to flirt with
        older science. The new publisher Darby Creek has put out some nice books
        recently and Charlesbridge is beginning to move into middle-grade science,
        too.
          So, despite a dismal past decade or so, I am hopeful that things are
        looking up in the children's science world.
Received on Fri 08 Jul 2005 01:06:12 PM CDT