CCBC-Net Archives
simple science
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Lisa Peters <lwpeters>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:11:27 -0500
People ask me this question a lot -- how do you make science understandable to young people? But what I'm actually doing is making it understandable to myself! I'm not a scientist, although I grew up with a curious scientist for a father. He instilled curiosity in me, but because I have very little scientific training, I have to work very hard to understand the science, then I have to work very hard to focus on just one aspect of what I've learned.
I'm sure much of the answer to this question revolves around interests, skills, and personality: I am interested in science; I have some skill in writing; and I tend to lean toward clean, simple solutions to problems. Over the years, people have observed things about me that I hadn't observed about myself. One of those observations was that I have a knack for zeroing in on what's important, and being able to cast aside lesser issues (this works fairly well in marriage, too!) Maybe this so?lled talent serves me well in writing about science for children. I can pick a focus, and not wring my hands over the interesting, but extraneous things. I also take some pride in finding a satisfying shape for a manuscript. A newspaper editor once told me that he admired my ability to organize material, to shape a story. For me, writing is, in part, a plain, ordinary quest for beauty. I search for the cleanest and simplest ways to say things, but I also search for the most beautiful way to say things, even about geology.
Writing Our Family Tree was especially difficult, though. I had to spend years and years learning enough about evolution to write about it for children. In one sense, the subject was wide open -- I could have picked almost any focus, any angle. Most children's book writers have the good sense not to write about evolution! Most of them need to make a living after all. But I eventually picked a family album structure because it was a familiar frame of reference for children, a structure that most children would recognize. I hoped the familiar structure would help make an unfamiliar subject less daunting.
I recently finished a set of volcano poems. In writing my first draft of them, I encountered a strange problem: I knew too much about this particular volcano. I had strayed beyond generalist. It was an odd feeling. The first draft of the poems was too complex, too sophisticated for a young audience. I had to work hard to revise, to bring back that childlike sense of wonder that I certainly had possessed the first time I'd visited the volcano. I'm not sure what the lesson is here -- maybe someone else can tell me!
Received on Tue 05 Jul 2005 02:11:27 PM CDT
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:11:27 -0500
People ask me this question a lot -- how do you make science understandable to young people? But what I'm actually doing is making it understandable to myself! I'm not a scientist, although I grew up with a curious scientist for a father. He instilled curiosity in me, but because I have very little scientific training, I have to work very hard to understand the science, then I have to work very hard to focus on just one aspect of what I've learned.
I'm sure much of the answer to this question revolves around interests, skills, and personality: I am interested in science; I have some skill in writing; and I tend to lean toward clean, simple solutions to problems. Over the years, people have observed things about me that I hadn't observed about myself. One of those observations was that I have a knack for zeroing in on what's important, and being able to cast aside lesser issues (this works fairly well in marriage, too!) Maybe this so?lled talent serves me well in writing about science for children. I can pick a focus, and not wring my hands over the interesting, but extraneous things. I also take some pride in finding a satisfying shape for a manuscript. A newspaper editor once told me that he admired my ability to organize material, to shape a story. For me, writing is, in part, a plain, ordinary quest for beauty. I search for the cleanest and simplest ways to say things, but I also search for the most beautiful way to say things, even about geology.
Writing Our Family Tree was especially difficult, though. I had to spend years and years learning enough about evolution to write about it for children. In one sense, the subject was wide open -- I could have picked almost any focus, any angle. Most children's book writers have the good sense not to write about evolution! Most of them need to make a living after all. But I eventually picked a family album structure because it was a familiar frame of reference for children, a structure that most children would recognize. I hoped the familiar structure would help make an unfamiliar subject less daunting.
I recently finished a set of volcano poems. In writing my first draft of them, I encountered a strange problem: I knew too much about this particular volcano. I had strayed beyond generalist. It was an odd feeling. The first draft of the poems was too complex, too sophisticated for a young audience. I had to work hard to revise, to bring back that childlike sense of wonder that I certainly had possessed the first time I'd visited the volcano. I'm not sure what the lesson is here -- maybe someone else can tell me!
Received on Tue 05 Jul 2005 02:11:27 PM CDT
