In past writing classes, I have broadened my definitions of "rhetoric" and "writing," so why not broaden my definition of "science," in this class? That way, this whole "science writing" thing seems much more doable. Thanks, Elise Hancock.
This summer I worked as a gardener, and when I started I knew basically nothing about gardening. Now, I know quite a bit, at least about high-altitude mountain desert gardening (that's how I describe Big Sky's climate), and I think that qualifies as a "science" topic — what do you think?
As far as specific story ideas within that category, I'll have to think about it more.
"The curious can write about many different topics because they suck up so much miscellaneous information." (Hancock 22)
Gardening is one of the 15 jobs I've had in the 8 years I've been legally old enough to work. Clearly, I have ADD, or maybe I'm just a curious person. Thanks again, Elise. Who knew that knowing a little about a lot of random things could come in handy in a profession other than elementary education? Maybe I don't have to teach after all (not to mention the prospect of teaching high school and trying to be a writer sounds horrifying after Hancock said what you read becomes how you write).
Other science-y things I know something about:
Food. Does this count? Baking it, frying it, grilling it, etc. Everybody loves food, and I probably love it a little too much. Yesterday I made pancakes and the recipe calls for a tablespoon of sugar, but we were out of granulated sugar so I used brown instead. The first pancake came out weird, but not because of the sugar — it was because I didn't pre-heat the pan enough. Fascinating, I know.
Outdoor gear and outdoor survival. This is where I wonder about the title of Roach's compilation, "The Best American Science and Nature Writing." Is nature writing science writing? I would argue it is, when approached from a scientific standpoint rather than a political or activist standpoint, but I'd like to know what everybody else thinks about it.
Am I on the right track here? Do any of the above ideas intrigue you? What do you want to know about them?
Your interests are always intriguing to me--because, ya know, food, outdoor gear, and growing stuff? All things I find cool.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on how much ease Hancock brought to the science writing scene inside my head. Helped me in ways it sounds like it helped you too.
I keep wondering where the edges of science are in other genres too, and I like the nature/science convergence/divergence you mention here. My thoughts on it so far is that you could write about nature (not you specifically, but anyone) in a way that wasn't science writing: describe the beauty, tell the story of fishing or of a tranquil day writing poetry under a tree. I think of that as one kind of nature writing--the thing that takes me into the moments I can't travel to right now, so I read and the words do the work.
But what if you took the same exact story, and when you described the fishing, for instance, you included facts about the fish--not encyclopedia facts, but more detailed. Or information about how we think we're enjoying this world free of modern disturbances, but using a high-tech fishing pole. Go into the science it took (testing, raw materials, facilities, etc) to make the pole. And then, is there science in the way people fish? Or is this just tradition and experience? (And wait, if we know a certain technique works best in certain context, how did we come to that knowledge, and is that really just family lore, or is it science? And why or why not?) My brain is far too worn out to know the answers to these, but I'd be all over reading it if you came up with something! :-)
At any rate, I'll be watching your blog to see what you come up with!
I really like the planting idea. I was thinking about doing something with landscaping. The "what the hell's in LOT125 and how the fuck does seaweed help shit grow in Montana" question came to mind.
ReplyDelete