best science book EV-ER
I'm showing something quite personal here, the science section of my bookcase. Non fiction above, fiction below (children's books have thier own set of shelves). It's small - I try to keep the number of books I actually own down, I move too often. Every now and again I look through the books and ask myself "do i want to keep this?".
Reasons for owning a book are often practical and/ or personal (they were gifts, I've annotated a copy for study, I think it'll be useful in future...) but in some ways it is also indicative of my personal taste, of what I think makes a good science book.
The question of what makes a "good" science book was addressed at an RI/ Imperial college event last night. And the winner is *drum roll* Primo Levi's The Periodic Table.
Three speakers (Tim Radford, Armand Leroi, Sara Abdulla) discussed their criteria for what makes a "good" science book and suggested a few of their favourites. Then the audience (mainly from Imperial, I think) put forward a few of their own, and discussed the issue further before voting.
But the REALLY interesting bits were all the references to children...
None of the three speakers mentioned children's books. But Armand, although mentioning books for an adult aduience, talked about them ias ones he enjoyed as a child, and finished by saying that his favourite book (King Solomon's Ring, by Konrad Lorenz) "has a childlike wonder that is the essense of science... which a scientist should keep throughout his life". He later argued that books which are for adults but with the "simplicity" that makes them available to young people were some of the best. When it came to Sara's selection, she chose two plays with key children characters - Brecht's Life of Galileo and Stoppard's Arcadia. In fact she read quotes from the 9 year old girl in Arcadia throughout her presentation. Other's also mentioned books they liked as a "teenager".
So a good science book must be for grownups, but have a childlike quality? There is something in this, I'm sure. In fact I know, because I'm planning on doing a whole chapter on my thesis about the use of the child in images of scientists... But it was nice to see this idea at play someplace other than my own notes.
I couldn't think of a "best science book" for kids to suggest. But then I'm rubbish at saying I like anything "best". An audience member mentioned Flatland though, which is an interesting one.
Comments
Great to hear the results of this event. I haven't read the Levi book, but it sounds good. I'm on a fiction diet, and have been for about 5 years (more incentive to finish my research!) so will make a note of this title for next year :)
How interesting that children's books were left out... historically of course, books meant especially for children didn't really exist (in the West, at least) until the mid-16th century. Some books were published for both children and adults, but there wasn't a clearly demarcated 'children's market'. (The earliest real children's publishing markets are perhaps Newbery and other English publishers of the mid/late 1700s… ok enough history! My point is that the line between what is appropriate for children vs for adults has often been blurred or non-existent… is the 'childlike wonder' simply a reference to an innate human interest in experimentation or the unknown or something else, that we conflate with 'childhood' because we like to put labels on everythng? In any case, the metaphor is intriguing.
Posted by: Katherine | October 22, 2006 03:23 PM
I'm developing the metaphor of child and scientist through Rose's stuff on the "impossibility" of children's literature in reference to Peter Pan and Alan Garner. She actually argues that the child as knowledge metaphor is anti-science, but I think I can see people (like Leori) use the same thing when talking about science. I think it relates to rather complex ideas of what science and children are.
p.s on the history - Peter Hunt tends to say the first children's book was a science one (by Chaucer, so we could argue there was no such thing as science then, as well as problems of anachronism in considering the child)
Posted by: alice | October 22, 2006 04:10 PM
I have read references to various versions of Aesop's fables as the earliest children's publications. Full of short, 'amusing' and moralising stories, the fables seem like the opposite of what a science book might be -- though this will always depend on one's definition of science!
I am curious to know more about this Chaucer story. I guess Aesop would predate it, but possibly not the versions aimed at children.
Posted by: Katherine | October 22, 2006 05:40 PM