What do you think?
Rate this book
Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story
Ask a scientist about Hollywood, and you’ll probably get eye rolls. But ask someone in Hollywood about science, and they’ll see dollar signs: moviemakers know that science can be the source of great stories, with all the drama and action that blockbusters require.
That’s a huge mistake, says Randy Olson: Hollywood has a lot to teach scientists about how to tell a story—and, ultimately, how to do science better. With Houston, We Have a Narrative, he lays out a stunningly simple method for turning the dull into the dramatic. Drawing on his unique background, which saw him leave his job as a working scientist to launch a career as a filmmaker, Olson first diagnoses the problem: When scientists tell us about their work, they pile one moment and one detail atop another moment and another detail—a stultifying procession of “and, and, and.” What we need instead is an understanding of the basic elements of story, the narrative structures that our brains are all but hardwired to look for—which Olson boils down to “And, But, Therefore,” or ABT. At a stroke, the ABT approach introduces momentum (“And”), conflict (“But”), and resolution (“Therefore”)—the fundamental building blocks of story. As Olson has shown by leading countless workshops worldwide, when scientists’ eyes are opened to ABT, the effect is staggering: suddenly, they’re not just talking about their work—they’re telling stories about it. And audiences are captivated.
Built on principles that are applicable to fields far beyond science, Houston, We Have a Narrative has the power to transform the way science is understood and appreciated, and ultimately how it’s done.
That’s a huge mistake, says Randy Olson: Hollywood has a lot to teach scientists about how to tell a story—and, ultimately, how to do science better. With Houston, We Have a Narrative, he lays out a stunningly simple method for turning the dull into the dramatic. Drawing on his unique background, which saw him leave his job as a working scientist to launch a career as a filmmaker, Olson first diagnoses the problem: When scientists tell us about their work, they pile one moment and one detail atop another moment and another detail—a stultifying procession of “and, and, and.” What we need instead is an understanding of the basic elements of story, the narrative structures that our brains are all but hardwired to look for—which Olson boils down to “And, But, Therefore,” or ABT. At a stroke, the ABT approach introduces momentum (“And”), conflict (“But”), and resolution (“Therefore”)—the fundamental building blocks of story. As Olson has shown by leading countless workshops worldwide, when scientists’ eyes are opened to ABT, the effect is staggering: suddenly, they’re not just talking about their work—they’re telling stories about it. And audiences are captivated.
Built on principles that are applicable to fields far beyond science, Houston, We Have a Narrative has the power to transform the way science is understood and appreciated, and ultimately how it’s done.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published September 15, 2015
121 people are currently reading
1277 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
October 23, 2020
This book is really helpful to understand the role of narrative in science, ironically the author loses himself in the writing.The fist part contains all the valuable information of the book and the ideas are clear, but then the rest is endless, too repetitive about ABT and he cites his own book "Don't be such a scientist" so many times that make me never want to read it.
He quoted Blaise Pascal with "I would have written a shorter letter but I didn't have the time" so I guess he wrote this real quick.
He quoted Blaise Pascal with "I would have written a shorter letter but I didn't have the time" so I guess he wrote this real quick.
April 24, 2017
What to say about or how to review a book that has content that is probably fairly worthwhile, but a tone that is sufficiently off-putting to make me want to disregard everything in the book just out of spite?
July 2, 2020
En bok om hur forskning behöver formuleras enligt samma struktur som en berättelse för att bli ihågkommen och förstådd.
Jag är inte såld på författarens stil, det var lite väl mycket försök till vitsigheter och väl mycket snack om Hollywood, men innehållet är definitivt användbart. Som forskare ser jag nyttan med storytelling och har tipsat mina kollegor om boken. Jag uppskattade hur författaren menar att man för att bygga upp sin "intuition för narrativ" bör konsumera mycket berättelser. Äntligen kommer min läsning av skönlitteratur till nytta på jobbet!
Jag är inte såld på författarens stil, det var lite väl mycket försök till vitsigheter och väl mycket snack om Hollywood, men innehållet är definitivt användbart. Som forskare ser jag nyttan med storytelling och har tipsat mina kollegor om boken. Jag uppskattade hur författaren menar att man för att bygga upp sin "intuition för narrativ" bör konsumera mycket berättelser. Äntligen kommer min läsning av skönlitteratur till nytta på jobbet!
March 26, 2020
Very helpful! Word-Sentence-Paragraph (WSP) is useful for pitches, presentations, and everything in-between. This is a "how-to" book. You might want to read Resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences which uses The Hero with a Thousand Faces as the framework for presentations. These helped me implement the "paragraph" part of the WSP model.
May 10, 2016
Olson quickly identifies the current problem of scientific writing and presents a very simple simple, bold idea on how to change it. BUT he could not achieved a consensus with his peers, and other authors that studied the same problem. Much of his work, so far, is based on outliers. THEREFORE, I will keep Olson's under my radar, but look book is longer than it should be.
September 28, 2018
Randy Olson has a good point with the ABT structure for writing scientific (or any) texts. His message is conveyed with only few pages though, and the rest of the book is just trying to convince the reader of ABT's greatness. I was convinced early. Most of the book is a bit boring as I just wanted to take in the knowledge how to write more effective narratives.
September 1, 2019
Don't bother. While the story/narrative structures he introduces are valid, you could sum up the key points in about 2 pages. He just went on and on and the book felt endless. I ended up skimming most of this.
March 12, 2018
Randy Olson is a former marine biologist who gave up his tenured professorship to move to Hollywood and become a film-maker. With "Houston," he builds on his earlier book ("Don't Be Such a Scientist") and the experience he has gained from the story-telling world of movies. The book has a simple message for scientists - you need a narrative.
It's not that simple, of course, and Olson does a great job of introducing some simple methods scientists can use to communicate their science to other scientists and to the public. He emphasizes that the key to storytelling is to find the narrative core - the message people will take away. He employs what he calls a WSP Model, the shrinking down of the core message to one word, one sentence, and one paragraph. Two principle techniques are what he calls the Dobzhansky Template ("Nothing in _______ makes sense except in the light of ______.") and ABT.
ABT really is the central point of the book. The story should follow an AND, BUT, THEREFORE structure. Much of the book discusses what this is, how to develop it, and techniques for using it to communicate your story. It's simple, but powerful.
There is much more: the Heroes Journey, the Logline maker, the story templates. And let's not forget McKee's Triangle of three pure story forms - antiplot, miniplot, and archplot. The archplot is the key. Study it, learn it, use it.
As examples he explains how the communication of climate change is "Bo-ho-horing" and fits a classic "miniplot" storyline. The combination creates a communications mess that explains why the public still doesn't understand the urgency. That's a problem.
Olson's writing style is mostly fluid and with a wisp of humor threading through it. He leans a lot on his own experiences, both in the science world and the film making world. I would highly recommend all scientists to read the book and practice the techniques. Your colleagues and the public will understand you a lot better.
It's not that simple, of course, and Olson does a great job of introducing some simple methods scientists can use to communicate their science to other scientists and to the public. He emphasizes that the key to storytelling is to find the narrative core - the message people will take away. He employs what he calls a WSP Model, the shrinking down of the core message to one word, one sentence, and one paragraph. Two principle techniques are what he calls the Dobzhansky Template ("Nothing in _______ makes sense except in the light of ______.") and ABT.
ABT really is the central point of the book. The story should follow an AND, BUT, THEREFORE structure. Much of the book discusses what this is, how to develop it, and techniques for using it to communicate your story. It's simple, but powerful.
There is much more: the Heroes Journey, the Logline maker, the story templates. And let's not forget McKee's Triangle of three pure story forms - antiplot, miniplot, and archplot. The archplot is the key. Study it, learn it, use it.
As examples he explains how the communication of climate change is "Bo-ho-horing" and fits a classic "miniplot" storyline. The combination creates a communications mess that explains why the public still doesn't understand the urgency. That's a problem.
Olson's writing style is mostly fluid and with a wisp of humor threading through it. He leans a lot on his own experiences, both in the science world and the film making world. I would highly recommend all scientists to read the book and practice the techniques. Your colleagues and the public will understand you a lot better.
May 11, 2020
This book serves as a useful guide to help scientists and non-scientists alike understand the reason behind why scientific presentations can be poorly understood, aside from field-specific jargon and content. Olsen supplements his insights with helpful examples to illustrate the author's points, helping the reader to learn how to translate his message into practice. Unfortunately, that's not all he adds. Olsen reflexively pats himself on the back and makes poor stylistic choices such as ("dude, duder, Duderino" and "for reals") that assume he's chummier with the reader than he actually is. While I can appreciate the insights he shares, I would have been more receptive to his message and would have given a four star review if he had maintained a more professional writing style that allowed for his credibility to speak for itself rather than Olsen explicitly stating on each page what makes him so great, even though he presents it in a slightly self-deprecating manner but which isn't convincing enough to conceal his true intentions. Ultimately his style choices distracted from his book's core content which is unfortunate because I think he could have reached broader audiences and seen his ideas actually implemented if he'd only trusted the reader to determine for themselves his credibility.
Read
October 12, 2023Helpful introduction to basic narrative / storytelling. It has formula templates that come handy and some examples. But I guess it oversimplifies the struggles of scientist to communicate scientific stuff to the 'uneducated public'.
November 10, 2022
This was a surprisingly good book. I’ll admit I have a professional interest in the subject: how can scientists better communicate their ideas and make them relevant to the public? I started out very skeptically; I never read “how to” or advice books. Olson’s direct, deceptively simple ideas started to make sense and by the end I realized that his arguments had fundamentally changed my views of something I thought I understood very well.
I won’t get into the specifics; it would be unfair to Olson and I’d probably simplify too much and that would be a disservice to everyone. If you are a scientist who wants to better explain what you do, why your work or research matters, Olson’s arguments will get you out of your comfort zone to make better, more concise arguments. If you are involved with a science-based organization and want to get your message out in a compelling way, this book will provide measurable markers to incorporate into your daily routine. Or if you are interested in scientific issues like climate change, diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s, medical research funding, or are confused or frustrated about why others don’t take them as seriously as you do, this book will provide you with refreshing and effective ways to make your case.
I certainly will be incorporating Olson’s recommendations into my future work. I want to thank my Goodreads friend Patrick for making me aware of this book. When I looked into it and saw that it was published by the University of Chicago Press, I figured I’d give it a try. Very happy I did.
I won’t get into the specifics; it would be unfair to Olson and I’d probably simplify too much and that would be a disservice to everyone. If you are a scientist who wants to better explain what you do, why your work or research matters, Olson’s arguments will get you out of your comfort zone to make better, more concise arguments. If you are involved with a science-based organization and want to get your message out in a compelling way, this book will provide measurable markers to incorporate into your daily routine. Or if you are interested in scientific issues like climate change, diseases like cancer or Alzheimer’s, medical research funding, or are confused or frustrated about why others don’t take them as seriously as you do, this book will provide you with refreshing and effective ways to make your case.
I certainly will be incorporating Olson’s recommendations into my future work. I want to thank my Goodreads friend Patrick for making me aware of this book. When I looked into it and saw that it was published by the University of Chicago Press, I figured I’d give it a try. Very happy I did.
March 28, 2021
I liked some parts of this book - explanation of some essential story structure things, application of story structure to scientific abstracts - but I thought the book was also pretty muddled and padded with a lot of material that was unnecessary/confusing. It did not exhibit the clarity that it was advising scientists to exhibit. Also, it didn’t do much to help with how to apply the principles outside of scientific abstracts. It also suffered at times from a smugness and certainty of a single answer that often shows up in books by white men about creative things. So it had useful parts, but also a lot I just pushed through looking for the useful parts. Therefore, 3 stars (2.5 stars really).
June 9, 2019
It's a shame the author comes across as such a conceited jerk because I feel like he has a good point to make overall. Unfortunately, he takes too long to get there and slips in clumsy 'back door brags' the whole way. Couldn't finish it.
January 22, 2021
Description of a real problem and some strategies to overcome it. I particularly liked the part on the analysis of scientific abstracts. Unfortunately, Randy Olson often got lost in useless side-stories, which is disappointing for a book about storytelling.
January 24, 2017
if you can get pass Randy's name dropping and the random fluff a out Abe Lincoln, there's some good advice there for scientists
April 6, 2025
As a marine biologist this was a really interesting read to hear about Randy Olson’s journey from my field to Hollywood. This book is very informative on the powers of narrative in science and gives valuable tips and templates to follow to build an intuition for narrative. I was assigned to read this book for my climate change course in graduate school and it has been super useful in getting me to think of scientific writing in a different way. This book has helped me think of writing my proposal for my project and even application to grants in a way that delivers the science accurately but allows the reader to follow a technical story of the project rather than the dreaded “and… and… and”. Thank you Olson for a new outlook in my career!
December 30, 2023
The introduction is the author telling us about telling folks why narrative is such a good thing. Maybe show don't tell? Sorry, this just comes off as insufferable.
I've heard there are better books on the subject, and this really isn't a surprise.
I've heard there are better books on the subject, and this really isn't a surprise.
January 9, 2019
I saw an interview with Randy Olson and I got interested in this book when Olson talked about the power of narrative and the power of three essential words: And, but, therefore. This book is geared to scientists and I have to admit, some of it seemed dry reading, in spire of Olson's energetic and engaging interview that I'd seen. He structured his chapters with the And, But and Therefore template, drilling in the power for story in each chapter. For a writer, who has read many books on writing fiction, I skipped the heroe's journey. This is in nearly every writing book and I don't feel the need to revist it. But what I really liked were Olson's examples of story failure in science. For example: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The movie was never very popular and the essence of it was and, and, and and it not done as a compelling as story. Here was a missed opportunity for science to amplify the dire warning for global warming. Despite the boring bits and the focus on science in this book, I got a lot out of it, so yes, I'd recommend Houston We Have A Narrative to other writers.
September 5, 2016
I received this book for free at a workshop. I had been putting off reading it because while I knew it was going to be informative and important for me to read, I also knew that I was going to have to force myself through it, to read a chapter a night for example, as I do with many non-fiction writing books. I was so very wrong to wait. This book was interesting, engaging, and spoke to many issues that I personally have with writing. I will be recommending this book to many of my fellow science writers. However, like other reviewers, I think the author made his point in the first two-thirds of the book and in the final third, he kind of stopped taking his own advice and for that, I took a star off.
February 25, 2022
I truly hate this book. It's reductive, redundant and painfully deferential toward Hollywood. I resented the Self-Help vibe of the book, and I found Olson's tone smug and smarmy. I was irritated to read again and again that Olson thinks he's come up with something new when it's a basic writing principle.
While a few points are worthwhile, this is less of a useful lesson on how to write than a soapbox rant about having all the answers. I agree that science communication can and should use narrative, but -- no, dude--it's *not* all the same story.
There are better books on the topic.
While a few points are worthwhile, this is less of a useful lesson on how to write than a soapbox rant about having all the answers. I agree that science communication can and should use narrative, but -- no, dude--it's *not* all the same story.
There are better books on the topic.
September 21, 2017
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication and Randy Olson know it very well, but he does not follow this rule repeating itself too much. Therefore it would be a good idea to make a second more succinct edition, with an extra chapter on how to address all the issues raised by the controversy in a narrative way too.
November 23, 2018
Good scientific story telling summary
Infinite Hollywood story examples, most from films I have not seen. I would have enjoyed an even more detailed summary at the end that lacked the anecdotal experiences. Overall, a good scientific writing reference. Kindle version was great for viewing references.
Infinite Hollywood story examples, most from films I have not seen. I would have enjoyed an even more detailed summary at the end that lacked the anecdotal experiences. Overall, a good scientific writing reference. Kindle version was great for viewing references.
January 27, 2021
The message of this book is a good one, but boy does it stretch on! I'll take the point to heart but I did stop actively reading and started skimming at some point. Plus, the writing style didn't really do it for me. I'm all for making writing fun and interesting to keep readers on a dry topic, but "dude" is a word that turns me off, and he deploys it with abandon.
June 2, 2017
Really liked this and recommend it to all scientists who need to communicate to anyone.
August 2, 2018
Highly enjoyable and actionable read!
January 23, 2019
A book which ironically lacked a coherent narrative
November 4, 2020
Content good. Too much of his own personal angst and political opinions. Otherwise good for how to write narrative.
September 28, 2022
Bayangkan situasi seperti ini:
Ilmuwan mengeluh "Ini publik kok susah amat memahami pentingnya sains. Akibatnya kebodohan massal."
Publik mengeluh "Ilmuwan ini kok susah amat ngejelasin kerjaannya. Garing, bosenin, ya males lah dengerin kalian."
Di satu sisi ilmuwan ingin publik tercerahkan, di sisi lain sebenarnya publik pun ingin mengerti, namun sayang ada miskomunikasi di antara mereka. Ilmuwannya 'terlalu akademik', berkomunikasi dengan istilah-istilah rumit yang sulit dimengerti, malah kadang dengan sikap angkuh merasa paling pintar, tidak merasa perlu mendengarkan saran orang lain.
Mana bisa berharap publik yang awam "Kalian dengarkan saja supaya mengerti."
Apa bahayanya jika ilmuwan tidak mengomunikasikan ilmunya secara efektif? Salah satunya, media jadi membesar-besarkan hal yang tidak tepat, dan publik akan salah tangkap.
Buku ini ditulis Randy Olson, seorang ilmuwan, doktor biologi kelautan yang sempat mendapat posisi dosen tetap (tenure) di universitas, namun meninggalkannya untuk...sekolah film di Hollywood. Aneh ya?
Namun dari pengalamannya ini ia mendapatkan pencerahan mengenai masalah di dunia akademik: ilmuwan, kalian perlu mengemas caramu menyajikan ilmu agar orang lain mau mendengarkan dan mengerti pentingnya! Tidak ada yang mau mendengarkan kalau disajikan secara berbelit-belit dan membosankan. Jangankan publik, sesama akademisi pun tidak.
Di sini Hollywood bisa menjadi guru.
Apakah ilmuwan lalu harus jadi entertainer? Tidak begitu. Tetapi, menurut Olson, kalau ingin komunikasi sainsnya efektif, aturlah penyampaiannya dalam suatu struktur yang simpel tapi jelas.
Ia memberi nama metodanya ABT: And, But, Therefore. Ini bukan suatu metoda baru, kurang lebih seperti Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis -nya Hegel, atau struktur standar suatu cerita Beginning-Middle-End. Namun dengan penyederhanaan dalam template ABT, kita akan lebih mudah mengenali strukturnya.
Olson mengajarkan metoda ABT ini dalam workshop bagi para profesional dan mahasiswa di berbagai institusi dan universitas. Tidak hanya melatih penyampaian presentasi dalam seminar, juga memperbaiki struktur menulis paper ilmiah untuk jurnal atau proposal dana riset.
Ada beberapa contoh kasus yang diceritakan di buku ini, misalnya ketika ia bekerjasama dengan 2 ilmuwan senior bidang kelautan. Tadinya mereka menolak mengemas ulang presentasi mereka, karena "Biasanya juga gini, kami udah sering". Tapi ketika akhirnya mereka setuju dan bekerjasama menerapkan metoda Olson (termasuk mengganti judul seminar "Responding to Sea Level Rise" yang garing dan membosankan menjadi "Sea Level Rise: New, Certain, and Everywhere" yang lebih jelas dan terasa urgensinya) presentasinya sangat sukses.
Di bab lain Olson juga menganalisa beberapa abstrak dari paper ilmiah. Ada yang terlihat strukturnya jelas, ada yang strukturnya AAA (And And And), dengan kata lain monoton dan membosankan. Sementara ada juga yang strukturnya DHY (Despite However Yet), alias tidak fokus.
Ia memberi contoh tulisan ilmiah yang bagus, jelas, dengan struktur yang kuat: paper Watson&Crick dan buku Double Helix James Watson. Terlepas dari berbagai problem etika dan kontroversi Watson, dia pandai mengomunikasikan ilmunya.
Di akhir buku Olson menyarankan para ilmuwan melatih kemampuan narasinya, karena semakin dilatih maka skill ini akan semakin otomatis dan intuitif. Kalau mungkin ajarkan teknik komunikasi sains di kampus sejak tingkat undergraduate, supaya ke depannya ilmuwan punya skill yang cukup untuk mengomunikasikan ilmu mereka secara lebih efektif kepada publik.
If you care about your work, you'd care about how it's communicated.
Catatan pribadi:
Karena saya punya beberapa buku tentang teknik kepenulisan (termasuk "They Say, I Say" yang juga direkomendasikan Olson), saya cukup familiar dengan hal-hal yang dibahas di sini. Tapi buku ini menarik karena ditulis oleh orang yang berpengalaman baik di dunia akademik maupun di dunia storytelling, dikhususkan bagi para ilmuwan dan dunia akademik, dan metodanya sangat sederhana.
Mungkin tepat kata Leonardo da Vinci yang dikutip di buku ini, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
-dydy-
Ilmuwan mengeluh "Ini publik kok susah amat memahami pentingnya sains. Akibatnya kebodohan massal."
Publik mengeluh "Ilmuwan ini kok susah amat ngejelasin kerjaannya. Garing, bosenin, ya males lah dengerin kalian."
Di satu sisi ilmuwan ingin publik tercerahkan, di sisi lain sebenarnya publik pun ingin mengerti, namun sayang ada miskomunikasi di antara mereka. Ilmuwannya 'terlalu akademik', berkomunikasi dengan istilah-istilah rumit yang sulit dimengerti, malah kadang dengan sikap angkuh merasa paling pintar, tidak merasa perlu mendengarkan saran orang lain.
Mana bisa berharap publik yang awam "Kalian dengarkan saja supaya mengerti."
Apa bahayanya jika ilmuwan tidak mengomunikasikan ilmunya secara efektif? Salah satunya, media jadi membesar-besarkan hal yang tidak tepat, dan publik akan salah tangkap.
Buku ini ditulis Randy Olson, seorang ilmuwan, doktor biologi kelautan yang sempat mendapat posisi dosen tetap (tenure) di universitas, namun meninggalkannya untuk...sekolah film di Hollywood. Aneh ya?
Namun dari pengalamannya ini ia mendapatkan pencerahan mengenai masalah di dunia akademik: ilmuwan, kalian perlu mengemas caramu menyajikan ilmu agar orang lain mau mendengarkan dan mengerti pentingnya! Tidak ada yang mau mendengarkan kalau disajikan secara berbelit-belit dan membosankan. Jangankan publik, sesama akademisi pun tidak.
Di sini Hollywood bisa menjadi guru.
Apakah ilmuwan lalu harus jadi entertainer? Tidak begitu. Tetapi, menurut Olson, kalau ingin komunikasi sainsnya efektif, aturlah penyampaiannya dalam suatu struktur yang simpel tapi jelas.
Ia memberi nama metodanya ABT: And, But, Therefore. Ini bukan suatu metoda baru, kurang lebih seperti Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis -nya Hegel, atau struktur standar suatu cerita Beginning-Middle-End. Namun dengan penyederhanaan dalam template ABT, kita akan lebih mudah mengenali strukturnya.
Olson mengajarkan metoda ABT ini dalam workshop bagi para profesional dan mahasiswa di berbagai institusi dan universitas. Tidak hanya melatih penyampaian presentasi dalam seminar, juga memperbaiki struktur menulis paper ilmiah untuk jurnal atau proposal dana riset.
Ada beberapa contoh kasus yang diceritakan di buku ini, misalnya ketika ia bekerjasama dengan 2 ilmuwan senior bidang kelautan. Tadinya mereka menolak mengemas ulang presentasi mereka, karena "Biasanya juga gini, kami udah sering". Tapi ketika akhirnya mereka setuju dan bekerjasama menerapkan metoda Olson (termasuk mengganti judul seminar "Responding to Sea Level Rise" yang garing dan membosankan menjadi "Sea Level Rise: New, Certain, and Everywhere" yang lebih jelas dan terasa urgensinya) presentasinya sangat sukses.
Di bab lain Olson juga menganalisa beberapa abstrak dari paper ilmiah. Ada yang terlihat strukturnya jelas, ada yang strukturnya AAA (And And And), dengan kata lain monoton dan membosankan. Sementara ada juga yang strukturnya DHY (Despite However Yet), alias tidak fokus.
Ia memberi contoh tulisan ilmiah yang bagus, jelas, dengan struktur yang kuat: paper Watson&Crick dan buku Double Helix James Watson. Terlepas dari berbagai problem etika dan kontroversi Watson, dia pandai mengomunikasikan ilmunya.
Di akhir buku Olson menyarankan para ilmuwan melatih kemampuan narasinya, karena semakin dilatih maka skill ini akan semakin otomatis dan intuitif. Kalau mungkin ajarkan teknik komunikasi sains di kampus sejak tingkat undergraduate, supaya ke depannya ilmuwan punya skill yang cukup untuk mengomunikasikan ilmu mereka secara lebih efektif kepada publik.
If you care about your work, you'd care about how it's communicated.
Catatan pribadi:
Karena saya punya beberapa buku tentang teknik kepenulisan (termasuk "They Say, I Say" yang juga direkomendasikan Olson), saya cukup familiar dengan hal-hal yang dibahas di sini. Tapi buku ini menarik karena ditulis oleh orang yang berpengalaman baik di dunia akademik maupun di dunia storytelling, dikhususkan bagi para ilmuwan dan dunia akademik, dan metodanya sangat sederhana.
Mungkin tepat kata Leonardo da Vinci yang dikutip di buku ini, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
-dydy-
July 22, 2023
"Blah blah blah. I'm so smart and you scientists are so dumb and stubborn. Blah blah blah." This is not a good way to convince the intended audience (i.e. scientists) of anything. According to his personal opinion, he is brilliant; so what? Where is there any rigorous evidence that there is greater understanding of science because of his approach?
All this is a shame because we do need better science communication.
Is there a good book on this topic by a good scientist-writer?
There are many better books in general on how to present information.
Clear and Simple As the Truth: Writing Classic Prose
How to Give a Pretty Good Presentation: A Speaking Survival Guide for the Rest of Us
The Hero's 2 Journeys
All this is a shame because we do need better science communication.
Is there a good book on this topic by a good scientist-writer?
There are many better books in general on how to present information.
Clear and Simple As the Truth: Writing Classic Prose
How to Give a Pretty Good Presentation: A Speaking Survival Guide for the Rest of Us
The Hero's 2 Journeys
July 13, 2022
(insert any important topic here) needs a story - and Olson creates a strong argument for how dense or complicated information can be reformatted to land with more people, with greater impact. The ABT template is about to change my writing game and I think everyone should take some time to learn how to use it. We desperately need people with good information and good ideas to be better at telling stories.
Though this whole book has solid gems that help restructure narratives, one thing that stood out to me was learning about McKee's triangle. It made me realize that while I tend to personally fall more for the antiplot /miniplot structure in storytelling, archplots are what really reach the hearts and minds of people. I hate rules. I hate structure. I love it when people break norms and create something new. But I have to accept that rules and structures are there for a reason: because they work. I'll be writing more with the reader in mind now, instead of just writing what I would find interesting/important, or breaking the rules just for the sake of it. (If you've read the book, you'll see what I did there - I'm already putting ABT to work!)
If you're trying to create something compelling that convinces people to do or learn something, you should absolutely read this book. Though this book specifically focuses on how scientists can create a story, the lessons can apply to any industry.
Though this whole book has solid gems that help restructure narratives, one thing that stood out to me was learning about McKee's triangle. It made me realize that while I tend to personally fall more for the antiplot /miniplot structure in storytelling, archplots are what really reach the hearts and minds of people. I hate rules. I hate structure. I love it when people break norms and create something new. But I have to accept that rules and structures are there for a reason: because they work. I'll be writing more with the reader in mind now, instead of just writing what I would find interesting/important, or breaking the rules just for the sake of it. (If you've read the book, you'll see what I did there - I'm already putting ABT to work!)
If you're trying to create something compelling that convinces people to do or learn something, you should absolutely read this book. Though this book specifically focuses on how scientists can create a story, the lessons can apply to any industry.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews