Around this time last year the New York Times listed 100 "Notable Books of 2007." Chad was upset that there were no science books on the list, and so was I. I penned a rant about this sad state of affairs, but Carl Zimmer (an occasional contributor to the NYT) made a point that made me eat my words.
This subject has come up once again now that the 2008 list from the NYT is out, which Chad still feels is sorely lacking in science titles despite there being several science books on this year's list;
I firmly believe that this is a big part of why we're messed up as a society-- the most ostentatiously intellectual people in the country don't think of science as something to take seriously. Alcoholic memoirs are essential reading, but attempting to understand the basic principles on which the universe operates is just too complicated for the book-reading public. And they're the educated elite-- I don't even want to think about what Firstname the Working-Class Occupation is reading.
There's a bit of a straw-man argument here, as if the NYT staff has purposefully ignored "the basic principles on which the universe operates" in favor of "alcoholic memoirs." It seems to be more about a concept of "fairness" and the supreme importance of SCIENCE than whether the selected books were really good reads or not. (Strikingly absent from the discussion are criticisms of the selected books, and they are being judged by the summary snippets alone.)
Now I have criticized the New York Times for poor science coverage before, and I do wish they would review more science books. Yet I have to wonder if the lack of "notable" science books has more to do with a dearth of exceptional science writing than "the educated elite" ignoring it.
The problem with a list of "notable" books is that we are dealing with something that is entirely subjective; what is notable to me may not be to you. Is it the content of the book that makes it notable, or is it the writing? Hopefully it would be a combination of both, but even then, there's bound to be disagreement. The focus of the newspaper also makes a difference; since they review few science books, there's only a small pool of titles that can contend for a place on the list.
Specifically in terms of science books, though, more often than not I am unimpressed by books written for a general audience. The content might be interesting, and I devour the information eagerly, but I wouldn't say that many of them were particularly well-written. It is a rare science book that I want to pull off the shelf when I want to read just for the pleasure of it. Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, Robert Sapolsky, and Oliver Sacks have written exceptional science books that are a pleasure to read, but such talent is rare.
In fact, part of the motivation for my desire to write a book is because I have been disappointed by so many pop-sci volumes in the past! I am tired of scientists taking interesting subjects and making them boring.
I could be wrong, of course. When it comes to books, I am usually behind the curve, and I don't read new titles until I can buy them used at a lower price. Maybe there were some really exceptional titles published this year that, for whatever reason, I know nothing about. My impression, though, is that there have been plenty of good science books published in 2008, but few "must read" titles. If there were some great biographies this year but a lot of so-so science books, then so be it. Maybe next year, it being the Year of Evolution and all, there will be some books that knock our socks off, but we'll just have to wait and see.
- Log in to post comments
Another distressing reminder of the gap between the sciences and the humanities. I wonder how much of this has to do with specialization -- I think I've got a bit of credibility on the humanities side of things but my scientific education is sorely lacking. Science and art are the kinds of things that take a lot of time and energy to do well.
But I simply do not understand the kind of mindset that would regard the sciences and the humanities as antithetical. (The best poet I know has been known to crack ornithology textbooks.) There is a market for popular science and it does overlap with the market for fiction -- somebody bought all that Steven Jay Gould and Oliver Sacks. I'll bet a lot of those volumes wound up shelved next to alcoholic memoirs...
We need more people to bridge the gap between art and science. And your response to the situation is the proper one -- "If you don't like the culture, then make your own."
Thanks, Sean. I just tire of "science superiority" at times. If the argument was that the books on the NYT list weren't any good, but there were some exceptional science books, then I could see the reason for frustration. That doesn't seem to be the case, though. It's more like "How dare they ignore science and prefer biographies! A science book is more important than a memoir!"
Like I said in the post, how we select "notable" books is subjective, and no one is going to be made completely happy. I'm sure if, say, 10 books on the list were science books, some of us would complain that there weren't any ecology or physics or chemistry or evolution, etc. books among the selected lot.
In any case, I don't think a biography, memoir, or work of fiction is inherently less important than a science book. I might not be interested in them, but maybe they contain a really great example of the genre. I couldn't say. What I do know is that there are relatively few truly exceptional science writers, and maybe we should try to foster talented science writers rather than complain about how more mediocre books aren't getting the attention we feel they deserve because they deal with a favorite topic of ours.
I like the idea of an "alcoholic memoir" — a memoir which itself is addicted to alcohol. It gives me a mental image resembling something from a very twisted School House Rock video, like the ropey-voiced scroll who sings about how a bill becomes a law (and who, in retrospect, sounds more than a little like Tom Waits).
But, seriously folks:
The last time around, some people mentioned that books on medicine had made the 2007 list, specifically Groopman's How Doctors Think and Epstein's The Invisible Cure. I gotta say that I found the rationale for dismissing medical books from consideration rather specious. Certainly, that's not a judgement call I'd make without knowing more about the specific books in question than their blurbs. Even a chatty, anecdotal memoir of a physician can emphasize the importance of empirical evidence and rational thinking in evaluating cases (I'm thinking of the "Vital Signs" column which ran during the glory days of Discover magazine).
There was also a novel about the mathematicians Hardy and Ramanujan, suggesting that one way to get science noticed by the literati is to be, well, "literate" about it.
Well said, Blake. Part of the reason why I grit my teeth when I hear people talk about the need for a "Third Culture" is because science and the humanities are already intertwined. We're just foolish enough not to recognize it and whine about how one or the other isn't getting enough attention to make us happy.
I also have to wonder if the way in which authors go about writing about science make the difference between a mediocre book and something "notable." When science writers act as storytellers, pop-sci books can both inform and entertain. Maybe that's why I'm drawn to books involving field studies; experiences and information are related through a narrative of discovery. Too often, I think, science writers just want to impart information and don't pay attention to narrative. This might be fine in some cases, but I have seen a lot of books that could have been made much more engaging if the authors presented the same information in a slightly different way.
Like you said, though, good "science writing" isn't constricted to nonfiction books focused strictly on science, and that's definitely a good thing.
To an extent, I suppose, the extent to which the sciences and the "humanities" (a bad word, since science is a human enterprise, but what can you do?) are intertwined is the extent to which we recognize they are so. I'm reminded of an exchange between Ben Kingsley and Robert Redford in the movie Sneakers:
"When I was in prison, I learned that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality—"
"But the perception of reality."
What gets me is when science writers deliver a prefab narrative instead of the real thing. "Completely unanticipated discovery X overturns everything scientists thought they knew!" "A lone David stands defiant against the Goliath of scientific orthodoxy!" It's like biting into something you think is real meat and getting a McNugget instead.
I would expect that the real human passions involved in a discovery would make a better story than any substitute, but what would I know? I'm just an angry guy with a website.
Blake; Why is it that when I say something, you end up saying it better? I think I might have to start running all statements through a "Blake filter" to make sure I'm not upstaged...
Also relevant: http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2008-12/return-t…
I think part of the problem is that scientific writing (ie, for a journal) is very different from writing for the public. Scientists are trained to write for scientists and we get hired (and fired) for that ability, so taking time to learn to write for the public doesn't pay. I wouldn't know where to start writing for the public (I have to work hard to write in general) and it would be costly (in terms of my progress in my career) to take the time to do so.