Science as Pantomime: Explorations in Contemporary Children's Non-Fiction Books Alice R Bell Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine University of London Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 1 Abstract This project explores a case study in children's science culture: Horrible Science, a UK based series aimed at 7-11 year olds. Children, I believe, are one of science communication's most interesting audiences. They are both potential members and potential outsiders of the scientific community, and Horrible Science produces a liminar identity to meet these two markets. I apply a metaphor of pantomime to help describe Horrible Science, partly because of the series' approach to using fiction and its style of audience participation. It is also panto-science because it is presented as a carnivalesque show, exciting and fun, laughing at authority. Horrible Science invites us to snigger at science's heroes and explore the hidden underside of both nature and of scientific work. However, I believe that this, at least in part, is largely a matter of excusing a type of earnest reverence, delight and excitement for science that had become unfashionable by the end of the 20th century. I investigate Horrible Science as an interesting phenomenon in its own right, but also because I hope to develop ideas about the popularisation of science. Since the early 1990s, theories on popular science have tended to describe popular science as sitting (obstructively) between scientists and the rest of the world. Its public audience are defined as receivers; the scientists, the providers. However, recent work from historians of 19th century science have critiqued this view, instead positioning popular science within a `marketplace', full of empowered consumers choosing not only what cultural products to partake of, but who to trust and how far. I accept this emphasis on the marketplace, but with a less utopian view of consumer power which retains some of the scepticism of the 1990s analytical approaches. I suggest that Horrible Science aims to appeal to its readers by implying they can use a 'horrible' version of scientific knowledge to take up a position between the great and the good of the scientific community and an assumed, unenlightened othered public. Drawing on Bourdieu's ideas on symbolic `capitals' of culture, I conclude with a reading of popular science as a product through which interaction between and across cultural fields allows a range of actors to, at once, share social power, declare their own cultural status, and fall prey to the hierarchies of science in society. 2 Acknowledgements Greatest goes to Nick Arnold, Tony De Saulles, Felicity Mellor and the AHRC. None of my mistakes are their fault, and I would like to apologise personally to them for any I may have made. This work is also indebted to: Angela Bell, Peter Broks, David Buckingham, Anthony Cummins, Sarah Davies, Katherine Gillieson, Alexis Lothian, Kirsty Lothian, Farah Mendlesohn, Marcus Roome, Nick Russell, Margaret Scanlon, Jon Turney and Stephen Webster. Additionally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of my papers, and the various scholars who have organised conferences I have attended (and those who attended mine). I also want to acknowledge the staff at the following libraries: the British Library, Imperial College/ Science Museum, the Institute of Education, the London School of Economics, Senate House and the Wellcome Trust. I should admit upfront to having funded much of my academic studies by producing forms of 'pantomime science' myself and, also at this point, thank the Science Museum's Explainer Unit and the Planet Science team. This does not, however, mean this thesis is an exercise in the business of advocating the wonders of panto- science (neither has my experience left me with a bitter desire to oppose them). Rather, I see this work as an opportunity for reflection, some of which is self- reflection, as I apply Horrible Science's sophistication (and apparent assumed sophistication n the part of its readers) as a challenge to develop more sophisticated understanding of knowledge in culture. 3 Contents List of Images 5 Introduction: Irreverent Knowledge Consumption 7 Chapter One: Studying Children's Science Culture 14 Chapter Two: The Case Study 44 Chapter Three: The Branded Book 71 Chapter Four: Making Science `Horrible' 97 Chapter Five: Styles of Narration 128 Chapter Six: Fiction and Realism 153 Chapter Seven: Audience Participation 182 Chapter Eight: The Uses of Humour . 209 Chapter Nine: Appeals to Wonder 238 Conclusion: Science as Pantomime 265 References 274 4 List of Images Fig. 2.1. Horrible Science covers 46 Fig. 2.2. Sample double-page spread 52 Fig 2.3. Introducing author and illustrator 53 Fig 3.1. Items from the Horrible Science range 72 Fig. 3.2. Everything's Horrible at Borders 74 Fig. 3.3. Cereal cross-promotion 74 Fig. 3.4. Used Planet Salesman 75 Fig. 4.1. New and Old Covers Blood, Bones & Body Bits 101 Fig. 4.2. Inside cover of Disgusting Digestion Activity Book 103 Fig. 4.3. Cover of Explosive Experiments 104 Fig. 4.4. Chaotic kids 105 Fig. 4.5. Cover of Evil Inventions 116 Fig. 4.6. Horrible Health Warning 120 Fig. 4.7. Introducing the Energy Monster 123 Fig. 5.1. Waving Goodbye 134 Fig. 5.2. Narrator in text 136 Fig. 5.3. Baron Frankenstein Explains 146 Fig. 5.4. Diary 147 Fig. 6.1. Aliens of Horrible Science 169 Fig. 6.2. Comic/ textbook fusion 171 Fig. 6.3. Fly's Eye View 172 Fig. 6.4. Inside the Human Mind 174 Fig. 6.5. Dreadfully Loud . 176 Fig. 6.6. Teacher Vs. Pupil 177 Fig. 7.1. Scoreboards 185 5 Fig. 7.2. Photograph of Jigsaw-ed Pages 187 Fig. 7.3. How I made friends with a cat 197 Fig. 7.4. An Evil Idea 198 Fig. 8.1. Front cover of Suffering Scientists . 211 Fig. 8.2. SLUMP disease 219 Fig. 8.3. Misunderstandings 224 Fig. 8.4. Kiddies Book of Snakes 225 Fig. 8.5. 'An ample scientist' 228 Fig. 8.6. Beware! DEAD SCARY 232 Fig. 8.7. Frankenstein Child 235 Fig. 9.1. Exploding brain 240 Fig. 9.2. Distinction within audiences 256 Fig. 9.3. Crawling Bugs 260 6 Introduction Irreverent Knowledge Consumption The broad context for this thesis is a recent trend towards irreverence within the popular communication of knowledge. My interest in this topic stems largely from a desire to develop scholarly ideas on 'popular science' (i.e. science media for non- scientific audiences) and, slightly more specifically, to extend our understanding of the types of relationships we assume children might have with science, although I also think the analysis can be applied to a broad range of issues surrounding knowledge in culture. The kinds of media products I have in mind are sometimes dubbed 'edutainment', bemoaned as evidence of the 'dumbing down' of culture or, worse still, a pernicious form of anti-rationalism. Equally though, their use of humour and apparent subversion of social boundaries might be celebrated as a more reflective approach to knowledge in society. This thesis hopes to argue that such a turn to irreverence is perhaps better understood as all these things rendered bourgeois: a nod towards science's critics within a largely traditional veneration of the scientific establishment (and all the while, simply selling books). I think such irreverence is best understood as a way of presenting a liminal position; one that does not align itself specifically with one group or another but is situated in-between, showing off its awareness of a range of views. Liminality is attractive commercially. It opens texts up to a range of audiences; it nods to a critique of one or another point of view, takes none seriously, and yet at the same samples the seriousness of all. This commercial context is crucial, and to more than just irreverent non-fiction. The science book business is, after all, a business. As such it is keenly aware of having to provide something for the customer (however illusionary this provision might be). This commercial context is crucial to my use of this research to develop our understanding of popular science. Traditionally, the social studies of science tend to think of popular science as something imposed upon its audience, as enacting an ideological labour for the benefit of the scientific community; its very existence emphasising the distinction between scientific 7 knowledge producers and lay public 'receivers'. However, I want to sketch some of the ways in which popular science offers something to its consumers, and offers itself in reference to a liminal position that both connects itself to and shows some suspicion towards scientific authority. This does not necessarily mean it is any less hegemonic. But it can be something those people generally dubbed 'the public' appear to ask for. I base my analysis on a case study from children's science culture: Horrible Science, a contemporary series of books, toys, magazines and games targeted at 7- 11 year olds. A sub-section of a successful and established children's non-fiction brand, Horrible Science's roots are in the UK, but it sells internationally and has been translated into several modern European languages. I apply the metaphor of 'pantomime' to describe the particular type of irreverence at work here, as well as the explicit way in which Horrible Science references the constructed nature of its mediated message. I take Horrible Science as an interesting case study in its own right, but it is also an opportunity to explore broader trends in cultures of popular science. Horrible Science's generally ambivalent position arises in part, I believe, from the series' rather broad educational remit (as well as the same aesthetics governing other irreverent non-fiction).