Marc Aronson, in a recent blog, addressed the concern in nonfiction of editorializing. A book he had edited had been reviewed as "editorializing too often." And I'll put my two cents in here --
I haven't yet read the book in question - Tanya Stone's Almost Astronauts -- but I am familiar with her other titles and believe that like most nonfiction writers she lets her passion for her subject shine through her text without bashing the reader over the head with her opinion. As nonfiction writers we do not share just a collection of dry facts but information flitered through our own perceptions. We are as biased as anyone else. But our bias is to present the facts through a hopeful lens. This world might not be perfect but with hope someday it will be better.
I mentioned in an earlier blog, Nonfiction writer Milton Meltzer quote and I will mention it again -- He once said, "Almost everything I write has to do with social change -- how it comes about, the forces that advance it and the forces that resist it, the moral issues that beset m en and women seeking to realize their humanity... I have not been neutral; I see nothing wrong in the historian who feels a commitment to humane concerns -- to the ending of war, of poverty, of racism."
Through our writing we show that there are struggles to overcome, whether it is learning how to play baseball or becoming the first female astronaut, and by telling the true stories of others who have struggled, we provide hope and motivation.
If this is what was meant by the reviewer's comment, then I too have been guilty of editorializing.