I can spend an hour, a day, a few days in energy and motivation and a state of excitement. But it's never constant. It's a real shame when feeling good is tainted by the impeding downturn.
The point of this is that I haven't written for a while because I've done a lot of very exciting things, but whenever I have any time to sit down and write about them I'm sapped of all energy and joy. Luckily, this evening I'm sustaining myself with the thrill of anticipation - next week is 'reading week' - essentially a week off.
I'll start with journalism updates since they're always the most fun. Also, I haven't seen my supervisor since December and done very little thesis work, although I am giving a talk a the Arctic Workshop in a couple of weeks, which is scary but exciting...
I am extremely pleased with how my Iceland feature turned out in New Trail:
(If you clock on the image of the magazine cover on the left you can view the article in the mag, where it looks just beautiful).
I never got it back for edits and they actually changed very little of it, which I take as a huge compliment, although I always find writing about Iceland fairly easy !
For The Gateway it has become a bit of a running joke that this semester I have been writing almost exclusively dinosaur (or fossil) news. Here's a sampling:
University reveals fossilized fish skull at Paleontology Museum
However, by far my favourite article I wrote was this one:
Dinosaurs may have survived longer than previously thought
Not only was it the most revolutionary and important thing I covered, I feel it's my best work so far. Finally, I felt I had the chance to do with science journalism what I've really want to do. Part of the reason I think I managed to do it with this subject is because I have a relatively deeper understanding of this particular topic (that is, relative and absolute dating techniques). I managed to get in some things most science articles don't cover: simple error on a number ("yields a date of only 63.9 – 65.7 million years ago" rather than just stating the 700,000 year average that most articles have), uncertainty in an emerging method ("Heaman acknowledged that because it is so new, it will no doubt be met with some uncertainty") the need for further research, that one result is not conclusive ("Our first strategy will be to go back to this site and look at a couple of other dinosaur bones") and how the community will greet the result ("The result of at least one individual outliving the traditional extinction of the dinosaurs will fuel research, as other scientists seek to use the technique to support or oppose the new idea").
After I interviewed the guy he told me that he was next being interviewed by the local CBC news in his lab, and invited me to hang around. I accepted with gusto. It turned out to be extremely interesting, not only did I get to hear more about the technique, I met some interesting characters. The CBC interviewer and her cameraman were shown in by a guy who works as a science communicator for the university. This was one fascinating guy. He had worked making documentaries for Discovery and National Geographic for a number of years, and now wrote a lot of the University's sci and tech Express News, the first press releases. These thigns alone were captivating enough, but as we stood in the background watching the CBC woman hopelessly try to understand what Heaman was saying, we shared opinions about the nature of science journalism and how much of a shame it was this story and a million other worthy ones like it would just be 2-minute snippets packaged up and simplified for a 'popular' audience.
To top it all off, I got this email from Heaman after the story came out:
Hi Hayley, I had a chance to look at the article you prepared for Gateway last night and just wanted to commend you for a great job. This is the most accurate report on our study so far. Larry.
Perfect.
My writing class has been hit and miss. I got my grade back for the last essay I posted here and although it was still 'good', my teacher's comments made me shrink and cringe. She said I belittled the journalist too much, and it made the whole piece too... trite. And she's right. Why did I submit a piece portraying a journalist as dumb and irritating to journalism programs?
The next essay went similarly badly, as my teacher pointed out my whimsy-addiction. Whimsy, fairytale, these are my soft place to fall, my comfort zone. She said to me that she usually doesn't push people to come out of their comfort zone, and won't penalise them for not doing so, but thinks that my writing would be so much better if I managed to write a piece perfectly straight. I took this as a sort of compliment - she thinks I can do it and wants to see me do it. I got an extension on the next essay, to remove the whimsy, and we have already started the last essay, which I am very pleased with. I'll post the final draft in a couple of weeks.
I'm also taking a couple of new classes. I'm taking a class that's anything and everything to do with the Arctic, taught by the very charismatic John England. He is a wonderful fellow that loves Arctic explorers and pauses lectures for tangents on his heroes, philosophies of the Arctic or ideals of learning - that it should be about knowledge rather than facts.
This Tuesday I also started an 8-week evening class titled 'Writing about science'. Although I wasn't sure exactly what this meant, I paid up my $300 a few months ago anyway and waited. It turns out it is exactly what I wanted - basically a science journalism course - taught by Bob Holmes, who writes for New Scientist! Just had one class so far, but I think it's going to be fantastic.
Sections are getting shorter. Attention running low. There must be other things. I have some scribbled notes in my notebook. This is one of the problems with depression - I have these thoughts, then as I walk to university or drift to sleep I start expanding them, thinking about what to research to make them clearer, maybe how I can write them up into larger pieces.... but they all get lost in the dregs of the days.
Here are a few of the scribblings... wonder if they ever turn into anything:
- Why is (are) science (scientists) always seen as the antithesis of "warm and fuzzy" - e.g. homeopathy, where science can prove it's bunkum, but people think it's still good because it's 'holistic' and given by 'caring professionals'.
- Couldn't we just have night-time lights that 'glow', rather than traditional lights that need a constant energy input?
