Remembering Back
I remember in 2016 opening up my email and seeing that The Blow-up Man was an Award Finalist in the Fiction-Suspense category for Readers’ Favorite. I was elated, to say the least. This is because I don’t think I could’ve picked an occupation for 2 central characters that was more difficult to elucidate to the average reader than the Pharmaceutical Research Scientist. Basically, I have received 2 primary questions about the book, 1) do I have to understand the science to understand what is happening in the book, and 2) in describing the science, is it your writing style or lack thereof (OUCH!)?
The answer is ‘No’ to both these questions. It’s about characterization. Think of yourself going to a wedding reception and the seating chart has you sitting next to Dr. Todd Davis, a pharmaceutical research scientist. You are a fairly educated individual. Let’s call you Marion Smith.
You see him sitting there at the table and take your seat, introducing yourself. “Hello, my name is Marion Smith.”
He politely acknowledges you. “Dr. Todd Davis. How do you do?”
You politely inquire, “You are a physician?”
“No,” he replies. “I do pharmaceutical research.”
You probe further. “You work for a drug company?”
Todd Davis is now getting a little annoyed at your line of questioning. It’s immaterial to the situation at hand, a wedding reception. For him, it’s about social convention . . . obligation. “No, I am a scientist. I do pharmaceutical research at the university.”
You sense his irritation, but continue to try and keep the encounter amicable. “I have high cholesterol. I take a statin.”
“An HMG-Co-reductase inhibitor?” he asks.
You appear confused by the question. “No, Lipitor.”
At this point in the conversation, you look over to how long the line is at the open bar. You need a drink and expect the next two hours to just drag on. But don’t fret. Dr. Todd Davis has no plans to stay. He looks at his watch. His plan is to stay 30 minutes, no more no less. He will not be going home, but back to the lab. He lives, eats, and breaths his research. His thinking is primarily centered around his work, it’s hypothesis. His research is methodical, calculated, and definitive. Each word he uses, means exactly what science dictates that word to mean. An example, the word tether. Going to Thesaurus.com, I see 13 synonyms. In science, tether means the process associated with the delivery of transport vesicles or carriers laden with protein and lipid cargo to their correct membrane compartment. It means that and just that. He would never ever, ever say ‘tied to’. He would never gloss over his work, especially in a conversation with a colleague. Oh, can you imagine being a fly on the wall for that discussion? It would be about as exciting as watching paint dry and you would only pick up on a word or two to discern that they are actually speaking English.
I’ll leave you with this thought. In a piece written by Dianna Lesage entitled, Nobel Laureates Have a Message for Scientists: Stop Being Pretentious, a question is posed whether a scientist has a responsibility to explain the science they work on in a way that, when communicated to the general public, is understandable? Different answers to this question were explored. Let me quote a couple of lines, “We can’t force a person to take time out of their work to explain their work to people who don’t take the time to understand their work,” “Too often our scientists are surrounded by brilliant scholars and experts and they actually start to think all people think like them.” https://medium.com/gliosis/nobel-laur...
So, in closing, if you think it is an over-researched, trying- too- hard attempt to explain a work of science, try to think about character traits of this type of person and how he/she thinks, acts, and speaks, especially to a fellow colleague. Next, think what a manipulative, over-sexed, opportunistic, vengeful female could do to this type of person. YIKES!
P.S. Be on the look-out for the upload of my next book, Blind Vision. I’ve left the scientific realm (well, almost) and taken to physicians. So much easier for people to relate to and for me to write. Whew!
The answer is ‘No’ to both these questions. It’s about characterization. Think of yourself going to a wedding reception and the seating chart has you sitting next to Dr. Todd Davis, a pharmaceutical research scientist. You are a fairly educated individual. Let’s call you Marion Smith.
You see him sitting there at the table and take your seat, introducing yourself. “Hello, my name is Marion Smith.”
He politely acknowledges you. “Dr. Todd Davis. How do you do?”
You politely inquire, “You are a physician?”
“No,” he replies. “I do pharmaceutical research.”
You probe further. “You work for a drug company?”
Todd Davis is now getting a little annoyed at your line of questioning. It’s immaterial to the situation at hand, a wedding reception. For him, it’s about social convention . . . obligation. “No, I am a scientist. I do pharmaceutical research at the university.”
You sense his irritation, but continue to try and keep the encounter amicable. “I have high cholesterol. I take a statin.”
“An HMG-Co-reductase inhibitor?” he asks.
You appear confused by the question. “No, Lipitor.”
At this point in the conversation, you look over to how long the line is at the open bar. You need a drink and expect the next two hours to just drag on. But don’t fret. Dr. Todd Davis has no plans to stay. He looks at his watch. His plan is to stay 30 minutes, no more no less. He will not be going home, but back to the lab. He lives, eats, and breaths his research. His thinking is primarily centered around his work, it’s hypothesis. His research is methodical, calculated, and definitive. Each word he uses, means exactly what science dictates that word to mean. An example, the word tether. Going to Thesaurus.com, I see 13 synonyms. In science, tether means the process associated with the delivery of transport vesicles or carriers laden with protein and lipid cargo to their correct membrane compartment. It means that and just that. He would never ever, ever say ‘tied to’. He would never gloss over his work, especially in a conversation with a colleague. Oh, can you imagine being a fly on the wall for that discussion? It would be about as exciting as watching paint dry and you would only pick up on a word or two to discern that they are actually speaking English.
I’ll leave you with this thought. In a piece written by Dianna Lesage entitled, Nobel Laureates Have a Message for Scientists: Stop Being Pretentious, a question is posed whether a scientist has a responsibility to explain the science they work on in a way that, when communicated to the general public, is understandable? Different answers to this question were explored. Let me quote a couple of lines, “We can’t force a person to take time out of their work to explain their work to people who don’t take the time to understand their work,” “Too often our scientists are surrounded by brilliant scholars and experts and they actually start to think all people think like them.” https://medium.com/gliosis/nobel-laur...
So, in closing, if you think it is an over-researched, trying- too- hard attempt to explain a work of science, try to think about character traits of this type of person and how he/she thinks, acts, and speaks, especially to a fellow colleague. Next, think what a manipulative, over-sexed, opportunistic, vengeful female could do to this type of person. YIKES!
P.S. Be on the look-out for the upload of my next book, Blind Vision. I’ve left the scientific realm (well, almost) and taken to physicians. So much easier for people to relate to and for me to write. Whew!
No comments have been added yet.
