I want to talk a little about what makes an excellent science book. I could probably say even more on the subject, but I'd like to at least put some ideas out there.
A key point of reference is Melissa Stewart's December 2015 blog post about Diversity in Thinking. In it, Melissa looks at data from some key awards and delves into what kinds of nonfiction books are more likely to win awards. In short, books that focus on life stories (biography, autobiography, and memoir) and history win far more awards than do books on science topics.
I would like to propose that one reason is that excellence in a science book might look a bit different than excellence in other types of books. Today I thought I'd share a list of key elements* I look for when I'm acquiring and editing books on science topics.
Again, I'm compelled to mention Melissa Stewart--she has written a lot on her blog (and elsewhere) about the variety of nonfiction text types. I enjoy working on books with different kinds of structures, and I always want to see a structure that works well with the topic of the book. A look at how a scientist made a new discovery, such as in the book Sea Otter Heroes, may be best served by a chronological narrative so that readers can follow along as the story unfolds. Meanwhile, a book that explores what types of teeth mammals have, such as in the book Tooth by Tooth, could be most engaging when presented with a Q&A format.
Scientific ideas can be complex. Young readers (and even adult readers) need to clearly understand the scientific concepts related to the topic at hand. When a concept--whether introducing what atoms are or explaining how an ecosystem works--is explained well, a reader may hardly notice it. The reader simply takes in the information and continues. But this is anything but simple; it takes tremendous skill to present a complex topic clearly! Science writing may be a bit pared down when compared to the writing in novels, which may involve more description. But I would argue that this style perfectly serves the subject matter and is in no way inherently "lesser" writing.
As I read submissions, I often ask myself "why does this matter?" Readers (or writers) well versed in science may know why a topic is significant or how it relates to other concepts or discoveries to help us build a body of knowledge about how the world works, but I also want to be sure readers who aren't well versed in science know why a topic matters. I remember talking with Sandra Markle while she was working on the book The Case of the Vanishing Little Brown Bats about why the deaths of bats from white-nose syndrome is significant and what it would mean for our world if there were fewer bats.
What should a reader get out of a book on a scientific topic? Of course I want the reader to come away with an understanding of the topic. But I also hope the reader will absorb a sense of how science works or how scientists think. In the book The Search for Olinguito, readers learn facts about what an olinguito is and where it lives, but they can also get a sense of the importance of publishing one's findings. (There's a fascinating moment when the scientist working on establishing that the olinguito is a distinct species submits a paper for publication . . . and it's rejected.)
All information is not equal. Are the author's sources newspaper and magazine articles or do they also include scientific papers and interviews with relevant scientists? In working on Rebecca L. Johnson's When Lunch Fights Back, I was delighted that Rebecca was able to connect with scientists studying each animal profiled in the book and give readers a sense of what scientists are currently trying to learn about the animals--as well as what they already know.
I'd welcome comments, feedback, and questions. How do you approach science books? What do you look for? What do you think makes a book excellent?
*I would call this list the 5 S's were it not for the fact that one of them starts with C. Whoops!