Getting It Right.
Writing Science Comfortably.
“I’m playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order.”
The comedian Eric Morecombe’s famous retort to the conductor Andre Previn, when his attempts at playing a concert piano fail dismally during the 1971 Morecombe and Wise Christmas special, have passed into TV legend.
Unfortunately, I often find myself wincing when reading the attempts of a writer without a scientific background to convey complex scientific ideas to their readers. I paraphrase Morecombe’s famous catch-phrase thus:
“I’m using all the right scientific vocabulary, but not necessarily in the right order.”
Now, first of all, I want to make it clear that this is not going to be a cheap shot at writers who get it wrong. I’m a science teacher – I spend my professional life helping others understand science, so it would be deeply hypocritical of me to laugh at another’s expense. Besides which, I’m sure there are plenty of police officers and other specialists who read my books and shake their heads.
From what I have observed, there are two ways in which the science in books can fall down.
Knowledge and Understanding. Leaving aside the complexities of modern forensics, a story that requires scientific concepts for the plot to work can suffer if the writer is unsure of the basics. This is equally true whether the story is grounded in reality, or whether it is an ‘extrapolation’ of existing science. A tale about future applications of genetics might be largely fantasy, but it will still fall apart if the author muddles up how DNA works with how proteins are formed. The pseudoscience rattled off in Star Trek always worked best when the writer had a basic grounding in physics, even if the warp drive or the transporter don’t really exist.
Comfortably writing the science. Whether it is in dialogue or prose, all too often a writer will “Use all the right scientific vocabulary, but not necessarily in the right order.” The result feels and sounds clunky. It’s a bit like writing a scene set in a foreign land using Google Translate and an out-of-date guidebook. The moment anyone with any knowledge at all of the place reads it, it will come across as fake.
The key to avoiding this trap is research and expert help. Both of these sound scary, and difficult, but they don’t have to be.
First of all, knowledge and understanding:
You don’t have to become an expert on a subject to make your characters sound realistic. The first thing to do is make sure you understand the basics.
For example, lets assume you are writing about DNA. It could be because your plot centres on a DNA match in a police procedural, or because your lead character is a genetically enhanced super-soldier two hundred years in the future. Understanding the basic principles of what DNA is (and isn’t) to the level expected of a secondary school pupil will usually give you a sufficient grounding before you delve a bit deeper for your book.
I am going to recommend one of the best resources on the web – BBC Bitesize. We use it all the time in school and I regularly recommend pupils peruse it.
Simply Google “BBC Bitesize” and the broad topic that you are writing about (eg genetics) and the top hits are likely to be what you are looking for.
For a bit more in-depth knowledge, there are lots of webpages that cater for writers wanting to know something about a topic – again, try using Google and appending “for writers” or “the basics” or “for beginners” to the search.
If you want a handy go-to guide, then there are lots of books. A series that I particularly like is the “XXXXXX: A Very Short Introduction“, where XXXXXX is the topic. These are pocket-sized books written by experts in the field and very digestible. I have several, including the Forensic Science edition by Jim Fraser.
YouTube is also a useful source of educational videos. Try putting “KS4” or “GCSE” or “Grade School” (the term used in the United States) into the search terms to limit the results to those pitched at school pupils. Again, I use these when teaching.
The next hurdle is making the science sound comfortable.
This is where you should try and enlist an ‘expert’. You can certainly try emailing a leader in the field – they will often reply; they typically love their subject and want it to be portrayed correctly. If they do reply, you could see if they would be willing to proof read some of your text to see if it sounds right to their ears. BUT DON’T SEND THEM THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT. They aren’t going to thank you if a 100,000 word tome lands in their inbox. Instead, be choosy. Send them short extracts – perhaps a conversation, or a couple of paragraphs of explanation. Be sure to tell them what to expect – if they don’t realise that your book is set fifty years from now, or is speculative, they are just going to tell you it’s fantasy and dismiss it out of hand.
If that all sounds a bit daunting, then do you know any science teachers? We are used to reading complex text and making it accessible to learners, as well as spotting common errors and misconceptions.
Finally, there is social media. There are plenty of forums on Facebook with experts happy to answer questions. But again, don’t expect them to proof-read your book. Send them the premise or selected passages.
Finally, don’t despair if you get something wrong. Most readers aren’t experts, and if the book is well-written then they almost certainly won’t spot it. Two books that I have read in the past twelve months involved DNA/Genetics. One dealt with the subject extremely well, the other had a couple of dodgy sentences where the author had used the wrong words. My enjoyment of the latter wasn’t ruined, and I still happily recommend it to others.
Do you find writing science daunting? Are there any good guides that you use?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.
The comedian Eric Morecombe’s famous retort to the conductor Andre Previn, when his attempts at playing a concert piano fail dismally during the 1971 Morecombe and Wise Christmas special, have passed into TV legend.
Unfortunately, I often find myself wincing when reading the attempts of a writer without a scientific background to convey complex scientific ideas to their readers. I paraphrase Morecombe’s famous catch-phrase thus:
“I’m using all the right scientific vocabulary, but not necessarily in the right order.”
Now, first of all, I want to make it clear that this is not going to be a cheap shot at writers who get it wrong. I’m a science teacher – I spend my professional life helping others understand science, so it would be deeply hypocritical of me to laugh at another’s expense. Besides which, I’m sure there are plenty of police officers and other specialists who read my books and shake their heads.
From what I have observed, there are two ways in which the science in books can fall down.
Knowledge and Understanding. Leaving aside the complexities of modern forensics, a story that requires scientific concepts for the plot to work can suffer if the writer is unsure of the basics. This is equally true whether the story is grounded in reality, or whether it is an ‘extrapolation’ of existing science. A tale about future applications of genetics might be largely fantasy, but it will still fall apart if the author muddles up how DNA works with how proteins are formed. The pseudoscience rattled off in Star Trek always worked best when the writer had a basic grounding in physics, even if the warp drive or the transporter don’t really exist.
Comfortably writing the science. Whether it is in dialogue or prose, all too often a writer will “Use all the right scientific vocabulary, but not necessarily in the right order.” The result feels and sounds clunky. It’s a bit like writing a scene set in a foreign land using Google Translate and an out-of-date guidebook. The moment anyone with any knowledge at all of the place reads it, it will come across as fake.
The key to avoiding this trap is research and expert help. Both of these sound scary, and difficult, but they don’t have to be.
First of all, knowledge and understanding:
You don’t have to become an expert on a subject to make your characters sound realistic. The first thing to do is make sure you understand the basics.
For example, lets assume you are writing about DNA. It could be because your plot centres on a DNA match in a police procedural, or because your lead character is a genetically enhanced super-soldier two hundred years in the future. Understanding the basic principles of what DNA is (and isn’t) to the level expected of a secondary school pupil will usually give you a sufficient grounding before you delve a bit deeper for your book.
I am going to recommend one of the best resources on the web – BBC Bitesize. We use it all the time in school and I regularly recommend pupils peruse it.
Simply Google “BBC Bitesize” and the broad topic that you are writing about (eg genetics) and the top hits are likely to be what you are looking for.
For a bit more in-depth knowledge, there are lots of webpages that cater for writers wanting to know something about a topic – again, try using Google and appending “for writers” or “the basics” or “for beginners” to the search.
If you want a handy go-to guide, then there are lots of books. A series that I particularly like is the “XXXXXX: A Very Short Introduction“, where XXXXXX is the topic. These are pocket-sized books written by experts in the field and very digestible. I have several, including the Forensic Science edition by Jim Fraser.
YouTube is also a useful source of educational videos. Try putting “KS4” or “GCSE” or “Grade School” (the term used in the United States) into the search terms to limit the results to those pitched at school pupils. Again, I use these when teaching.
The next hurdle is making the science sound comfortable.
This is where you should try and enlist an ‘expert’. You can certainly try emailing a leader in the field – they will often reply; they typically love their subject and want it to be portrayed correctly. If they do reply, you could see if they would be willing to proof read some of your text to see if it sounds right to their ears. BUT DON’T SEND THEM THE WHOLE MANUSCRIPT. They aren’t going to thank you if a 100,000 word tome lands in their inbox. Instead, be choosy. Send them short extracts – perhaps a conversation, or a couple of paragraphs of explanation. Be sure to tell them what to expect – if they don’t realise that your book is set fifty years from now, or is speculative, they are just going to tell you it’s fantasy and dismiss it out of hand.
If that all sounds a bit daunting, then do you know any science teachers? We are used to reading complex text and making it accessible to learners, as well as spotting common errors and misconceptions.
Finally, there is social media. There are plenty of forums on Facebook with experts happy to answer questions. But again, don’t expect them to proof-read your book. Send them the premise or selected passages.
Finally, don’t despair if you get something wrong. Most readers aren’t experts, and if the book is well-written then they almost certainly won’t spot it. Two books that I have read in the past twelve months involved DNA/Genetics. One dealt with the subject extremely well, the other had a couple of dodgy sentences where the author had used the wrong words. My enjoyment of the latter wasn’t ruined, and I still happily recommend it to others.
Do you find writing science daunting? Are there any good guides that you use?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
Until next time,
Paul.
