It's been ages since I reported on the status of Bunnies Made of Cheese: The Book. For most of that time, that's because there was nothing to report-- I sent a draft off to my editor, and was awaiting comments.
When I finally did get comments, the August 1 deadline was beginning to loom, particularly since the comments were of the form "Aiiieeeee!!!! Much too difficult!!!!" and called for really significant rewriting. That's been a large part of the reason for the relative lack of posting around here-- my computer time has been devoted to frantically revising draft chapters.
I'm up through Chapter 6, now, and sent a big pile of revisions off for editorial comment this morning, so I thought I might as well post an update:
Introduction
First Draft: 1,301
Second Draft: 1,805
Chapter 1: Particle-Wave Duality
First Draft: 5,333
Second Draft: 7,527
Chapter 2: The Uncertainty Principle
First Draft: 4,501
Second Draft: 5,964
Chapter 3: The Copenhagen Interpretation
First Draft: 4,777
Second Draft: 7,077
Chapter 4: The Many-Worlds Interpretation
First Draft: 4,830
Second Draft: 6,230
Chapter 5: The Quantum Zeno Effect
First Draft: 3,339
Second Draft: 3,926
Chapter 6: Quantum Tunneling
First Draft: 4,410
Second Draft: 5,210
As you'll notice, revising this to include more low-level explanation has drastically increased the length. In fact, if you're quick with arithmetic, you'll note that the introduction and first six chapters now total 37,739 words, when the contract calls for 40,000 words, with five more chapters to go. This is probably going to be an issue at some point, but that point is not now.
And now, back to the revising, in hopes of finishing the next draft before FutureBaby arrives. But first, some context-free dog dialogue:
"So, it's like if I tried to measure the bunny wavefunction by marking its position when I went out to chase it, but sometimes I was chasing squirrels instead of bunnies?"
Physical Science
Comments
# 1 | Jonathan Vos Post | July 1, 2008 11:56 AM
By well-known principles of duality, what is "Aiiieeeee!!!! Much too difficult!!!!" to one observer (let's designate it "the editor") may be, to another observer (let's designate it "the kibbitzer" so as not to put words in Chad's mouth) "you're either too stupid, or to willing to underestimate the intelligence of the popular science book-reading audience."
However, by Heinlein's 5 Rules, if an editor is willing to pay for something if a rewrite is done, then this is a necessary and sufficient reason to rewrite.
Never underestimate the value of a good editor, even when the editor seems to say bad things.
# 2 | Clark | July 1, 2008 12:23 PM
Tell your editor that you have one vote out there for more words and not dumbed down text.
# 3 | Jennifer Ouellette | July 1, 2008 1:15 PM
Ah, it always takes more words to really explain, at the most basic level, what's going on in any given physics topic. As for whether or not Chad's draft as too difficult or not -- depends on the target audience. ScienceBlog readers would probably follow the first draft just fine (i.e., preaching to the converted), but if the aim is to reach not-so-scientific sorts, then the editor was probably correct in insisting on the revisions.
And for the record, this need not be "dumbing down", which tends to be the knee-jerk reaction of folks who've forgotten what it was like not to know much about science. It takes more words because you've got to break it down into the most fundamental blocks, then slowly build back up to the advanced concepts you're trying to discuss. Chad's a great teacher, and a good writer, and I have no doubt he'll be able to do this very well indeed....
# 4 | Chad Orzel | July 1, 2008 2:12 PM
A lot of the extra verbiage was to explain things that I had deliberately left out in the previous draft, in an attempt to keep the length down. I also added some historical anecdotes, and a bit more dog dialogue.
The scientific content hasn't really changed, save for a couple of dropped examples in Chapters 5 and 6 that were more trouble than they were worth.
# 5 | Johan Larson | July 1, 2008 9:31 PM
A vote for short and sweet, here. You're writing edutainment, not an academic paper or a textbook. As such it is perfectly acceptable to skip over fine distinctions and hand-wave complicated issues. The point here is to kindle interest, not to satisfy it.
You might want to include some pointers to more detailed sources, for those who want a deeper understanding.
# 6 | Janne | July 1, 2008 9:40 PM
Texts always need to get longer before they can get shorter again, for some reason. I guess, once you've nailed the content you'll be able to prune down all unnecessary, redundant, overly-longwinded as well as repepetitive verbiage and the text will return to a sane size again.
# 7 | CCPhysicist | July 2, 2008 9:17 AM
One virtue of some of my favorite mystery novels is that the chapters are bite size, easily consumed between swims at the beach or other short breaks during the day or evening. As a newspaper columnist in his other life, Carl Hiaasen seems to have mastered this technique.
From that point of view, a 7000 word chapter (particularly a 7000 word chapter 1) is a bit much unless there are well-defined break points (with headlines) where you can put the book down to chase some invisible bunnies with the dog before getting another beer.
The editor probably also desires a book that is small enough that people will pick it up and buy it.
# 8 | Jonathan Vos Post | July 2, 2008 4:20 PM
Re #6:
The number of "Texts [which] always need to get longer before they can get shorter again" will increase before it decreases.
That's the Parabolic Law of Textodynamics. A corollary frequently cited is: "The list of problems, that will get worse before they get better, will get longer before it gets shorter."
I agree with #3, Jennifer Ouellette, that Chad should keep expanding until all is clear, modulo #4 Chad Orzel "more trouble than they were worth."
It is always possible to submit a too-long manuscrpt, cut out what the editor demands be cut out IN THE FIRST EDITION and having a later or on-line edition with the excisions re-inserted. See, for instance, to take Fiction: Stephen King's "The Stand" and Robert Heinlein's "Podkayne of Mars."