Science Narrative

What is it that draws a reader in?  The idea of a 'human element' seems to be the consensus.  As opposed to the 'dry' writing that puts the reader to sleep, writing that is easily relate-able but also gets the information across is successful.  This is the type of reading that gets the reader to come back for more.

Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin from Origins Reconsidered and Oliver Sacks from Uncle Tungsten, produced great examples of what a science narrative is in these articles.  These stories seemed at first to be just that, a story.  They were inviting, thought provoking, and captivating.  They are written with a sensitized language that allows the reader to get lost in the story, rather than noticing it is a 'story', or in this case a log of information. 

Their words flow swiftly along the pages.  Many times, it seems as if (especially in science writing) the words are stiff-- forced.  This could be because the information is incredibly dense and difficult to understand.  The writer has to understand deeply the information they are trying to relate to the reader.  This can be difficult when trying to write in laymen terms, information regarding statistical data (chemistry, physics, biology, etc) expressed in a language only the scientists understand.  These writers seem to have figured out how to express an area of science that could easily be misunderstood or not understood at all.  They have provided the 'gist' of 'it', that even my 8 year old son would be interested in listening to.  And That is a Huge feat!  

The technicality in areas of science are definitely important, but not always necessary to providing the reader with a 'vision' of the subject.  Another blogger, Perrin Ireland, mentioned a valuable perspective pertaining to science writing.  He talks about how science teaches us to write in the third person, yet, who is doing the 'objecting' and 'subjecting'?  This is true.  The idea that we should leave the narrative out of science writing is stone cold and really stemming from a fear that those have regarding how 'true' and 'honest' the article will be.  Will it become 'invaluable' in terms of worthy information, or will it be demeaned. 

While these are necessary concerns, they shouldn't halt the expression of science through the first person.  There is a person doing the science, so why not write it as such (at times)?

It is effective, by allowing the masses to become excited and intrigued in what the article has to say.  It allows the public to not feel 'stupid' which is highly important in every type of writing- (unless the writing is specifically meant to make people feel small).

Thank you Richard Leaky, Roger Lewin and Oliver Sacks for writing in a way that allowed me to get lost in science!