there is so much in your review and observations on science writing more generally that had me smiling or nodding, or got me pondering, but for starters there was this:
‘as a science writer I am used to letting go of beautiful sentences when I can identify that they serve my thinking, or my aesthetic preferences, more than they serve the reader’ — omg this has always been for me so hard, letting go of all my beautiful sentences! To be fair, I have not done much science writing for audiences beyond the academy since my younger years (and it would have then been the human sciences, where your writing starts with certain advantages over the natural sciences that are at the same time real challenges - essentially, every human on the face of the earth, past or present, is a lay sociologist/anthropologist!), and that writing was for a book rather than a research journal (and you note the expressive liberties that a book affords). But even when writing research papers I am prone to spending huge amounts of time on writing and perfecting (?) sentences that are, well, beautiful. I like to believe that my desire here is to make even my professional writing truly alive, something that will absolutely grab or even inspire the reader. But I fear it is often enough simply my aesthetic preferences, which are so hard to resist expressing. So thank you for reminding me of this painful fact, this hard reality!
And then there is this somewhat related observation on science drifting, particularly in magazines, which you perfectly capture: ‘One repeating motif that stuck out to me in this way was how often Jabr’s introductions of scientists included describing their physical features, there clothes, and often a science-related anecdote from their childhood’. You go on to note that these details are intended by writers to ‘humanise the scientist and give the reader something to hold on to while a more abstract or technical idea heads their way’ but yet find they are rarely employed successfully. I think you could also make the same point about descriptions of places, details of their sounds, smells, colors, and more.
But I have to say that I absolutely love it when these things — people and places — are brought to life insofar as you can imagine being right there with that person in that place. That is, when they are used successfully. I am pondering this because I have been re-reading Summer Brennan’s The Oyster War (having been inspired to do so by several recent things she has writing on this platform), and her method of starting a chapter with a person (often enough not scientists but characters somehow involved in the war), using not just the techniques you note but there, as well throughout the chapters, providing detailed descriptions of places on the coast north of San Francisco, the locations where the oyster war was fought, where these characters in the story live and work. But your review has made me quite curious, if you have read Brennan’s book, about what you think of her story telling techniques, or of other writers who in your view have used such techniques successfully.
Finally, thanks so much for the recipe and methods in your morning smoothie. When you said you enjoyed this pretty much every morning for 10 years now, I was very keen to learn what it was that won your heart so totally. Now I will get a chance to try it out!
Thanks so much for engaging with this Jack! I hear you on academic writing - I've written journal papers before and those are honestly even harder than journalism that I do now since there really is a very rigid, coded academic style that gets pushed on you (at least in physics). There's a chapter about this in my upcoming book and when I was writing it I was surprised that I could go back 20-30 years and find physicists complaining about the lack of beautiful writing in their journals. So really, I guess, whichever way you go too far it becomes a problem! I am also, for sure, still trying to find the middle when it comes to my day job and how I am edited. And I've not read the Oyster War but will certainly now add it to my list!
i definitely relate to the fear that i’m going to silo myself if i read too much in my own field! one book that really changed my perspective was recommended by a geographer friend, called Timefulness by Marcia Bjornerud - i was working with stable isotopes and strontium in teeth and land at that point and i loved how it expanded my sense of time!
Made your breakfast smoothie, and omfg it is SO good, can see why it has been your thing for 10 years
Now I’m going to read that story you reposted on the origin of the lab mouse
I’m so happy to hear that you liked it!
there is so much in your review and observations on science writing more generally that had me smiling or nodding, or got me pondering, but for starters there was this:
‘as a science writer I am used to letting go of beautiful sentences when I can identify that they serve my thinking, or my aesthetic preferences, more than they serve the reader’ — omg this has always been for me so hard, letting go of all my beautiful sentences! To be fair, I have not done much science writing for audiences beyond the academy since my younger years (and it would have then been the human sciences, where your writing starts with certain advantages over the natural sciences that are at the same time real challenges - essentially, every human on the face of the earth, past or present, is a lay sociologist/anthropologist!), and that writing was for a book rather than a research journal (and you note the expressive liberties that a book affords). But even when writing research papers I am prone to spending huge amounts of time on writing and perfecting (?) sentences that are, well, beautiful. I like to believe that my desire here is to make even my professional writing truly alive, something that will absolutely grab or even inspire the reader. But I fear it is often enough simply my aesthetic preferences, which are so hard to resist expressing. So thank you for reminding me of this painful fact, this hard reality!
And then there is this somewhat related observation on science drifting, particularly in magazines, which you perfectly capture: ‘One repeating motif that stuck out to me in this way was how often Jabr’s introductions of scientists included describing their physical features, there clothes, and often a science-related anecdote from their childhood’. You go on to note that these details are intended by writers to ‘humanise the scientist and give the reader something to hold on to while a more abstract or technical idea heads their way’ but yet find they are rarely employed successfully. I think you could also make the same point about descriptions of places, details of their sounds, smells, colors, and more.
But I have to say that I absolutely love it when these things — people and places — are brought to life insofar as you can imagine being right there with that person in that place. That is, when they are used successfully. I am pondering this because I have been re-reading Summer Brennan’s The Oyster War (having been inspired to do so by several recent things she has writing on this platform), and her method of starting a chapter with a person (often enough not scientists but characters somehow involved in the war), using not just the techniques you note but there, as well throughout the chapters, providing detailed descriptions of places on the coast north of San Francisco, the locations where the oyster war was fought, where these characters in the story live and work. But your review has made me quite curious, if you have read Brennan’s book, about what you think of her story telling techniques, or of other writers who in your view have used such techniques successfully.
Finally, thanks so much for the recipe and methods in your morning smoothie. When you said you enjoyed this pretty much every morning for 10 years now, I was very keen to learn what it was that won your heart so totally. Now I will get a chance to try it out!
Thanks so much for engaging with this Jack! I hear you on academic writing - I've written journal papers before and those are honestly even harder than journalism that I do now since there really is a very rigid, coded academic style that gets pushed on you (at least in physics). There's a chapter about this in my upcoming book and when I was writing it I was surprised that I could go back 20-30 years and find physicists complaining about the lack of beautiful writing in their journals. So really, I guess, whichever way you go too far it becomes a problem! I am also, for sure, still trying to find the middle when it comes to my day job and how I am edited. And I've not read the Oyster War but will certainly now add it to my list!
somewhat related observation on science writing*
i definitely relate to the fear that i’m going to silo myself if i read too much in my own field! one book that really changed my perspective was recommended by a geographer friend, called Timefulness by Marcia Bjornerud - i was working with stable isotopes and strontium in teeth and land at that point and i loved how it expanded my sense of time!
oops geologist, my sleep deprivation is showing 😂