Asimov on writing Science

You know, I can think of a number of essays in which Asimov
wrote about the mechanics of writing science fiction, either in how he
did it (``I dunno, I just get near enough a typewriter'') or things
people wanting to write should consider (``plot: it's often handy to
have one'').

I don't remember any similar discussions of the mechanics of
how he wrote his science-popularizations, though. There are quite a
few times he described things he picked up en passant, like to not use
the word ``magic'' as an adjective, but do have a snappy comeback ready
in case someone says you're just copying out of the dictionary. Did he
write about how it is he gathered background and assembled it into most
readable pieces (``I dunno, I just get near enough a typewriter'') that
I'm overlooking?

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <nebusj.1212093871.DeleteThis@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
nebusj-.DeleteThis@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

> You know, I can think of a number of essays in which Asimov
> wrote about the mechanics of writing science fiction, either in how he
> did it (``I dunno, I just get near enough a typewriter'') or things
> people wanting to write should consider (``plot: it's often handy to
> have one'').
>
> I don't remember any similar discussions of the mechanics of
> how he wrote his science-popularizations, though. There are quite a
> few times he described things he picked up en passant, like to not use
> the word ``magic'' as an adjective, but do have a snappy comeback ready
> in case someone says you're just copying out of the dictionary. Did he
> write about how it is he gathered background and assembled it into most
> readable pieces (``I dunno, I just get near enough a typewriter'') that
> I'm overlooking?

That's still a bit of a mystery. On the one hand he gave the impression
that he could sit at a typewriter at any time and write at length on any
topic that pleased him. On the other he sometimes confessed to goofs he
made and promised to double-check his facts the next time. So not
everything that reached the printed page came directly from his head,
but he didn't spend an inordinate amount of time in preparation, either.

Clearly, in order to remain topical, he had to regularly devour the
science news of the day, whether it came from the New York Times,
Scientific American, Science, or Nature. When something caught his
fancy, he would write about it, using his talent to make it more
interesting and digestible than it was in the from that he consumed it.
I have seen examples of where he assembled tearsheets from a number of
sources before writing on a subject. But I don't think he always relied
on that technique. Clearly he couldn't spend too large a percentage of
his time on research and still be as prolific as he was.

Sometimes he did remark on what became the motivation for whatever he
wrote. For the science books, often it was the suggestion or request of
an editor. There was a steady stream of requests from readers to write
about this subject or that. For his F&SF column, it was whatever struck
his fancy.

He occasionally remarked on his extensive reference library, but rarely
provided details about its constituents. I suspect that since in essence
he considered it his task to take what someone else had written and
rework it to be more interesting and better written, it was wise of him
not to cite his sources too often.

The general impression I have of his technique was indeed to "just get
near enough to a typewriter", with a few sources by his desk, and start
banging away on the keys, pausing occasionally to flip and skim through
some pages, and continue with the flurry of keystrokes. If a fact needed
to be checked, it was only a matter of a few steps to reach his
reference books and then be back in his seat.

Note that when he was on the road, he was more likely to write fiction
pieces, such as Black Widower stories, or short nonfiction, such as F&SF
essays. For the more detailed stuff, he preferred the comfort of his
office.

That said, it's hard for me to be able to point you to sources for this
kind of information. It tended to be sprinkled about here and there,
rather than concentrated in essays about Asimov on Nonfiction.

--
Ed Seiler