Interview with Sarah Weinman

I think my litmus test bears a suspicious resemblance to most others who are avid readers or work in the publishing industry in some form or another -- if the story or book doesn't grab me fairly quickly, I'm not going to keep going with it. Stories I'm especially intolerant about now; the first couple of lines have to be spot-on, demonstrate the writer's voice at its best right away, or else I'm not reading any more. Novels I give more of a chance, usually about 50 pages (though those that pass usually do far earlier than that.)

Having said that, I'm not choosy about what the aforementioned "good book or story" has to be about or what its main themes and plot structures are. I just want good writing and a clear voice. They come in many forms, but when it's there, I want to stick with it for as long as I possibly can.

When I was in school, far, far too many people joked that I was going to use everything I learned as material for a book. I may yet -- I do have an idea for a short series based on my experiences at the NYC Medical Examiner's Office during a summer internship a few years ago -- but it's not the book I'm working on at the moment.

But the choice to pursue the degree was no whim; it had its roots in my science background (molecular biology, specifically) and my junkie fixation on true crime. And I learned a great deal in the two-plus years I spent at John Jay, absorbing as much information possible about all aspects of forensics, not just the biology side. Never mind that I had to change the way I thought and processed ideas and information almost completely, because forensics is an extremely detail-oriented, analytical field.

The problem was, though I'm only finally accepting it now, is that I'm just not interested in being a lab rat, and perhaps more importantly, it's not interested in me. I tend to think more broadly, while labwork requires a tremendous attention to detail and dexterity that I either don't have or am less proficient at than other people. And since most forensic scientists spend their time in laboratories, be it in a police-based, making no money or a private enterprise making a little bit more income, it does shut me out of a lot of potential jobs. The longer I'm out of the lab (I last did any day-to-day research in September 2003), the more difficult it is for me to try to re-enter that world.

I am, however, still very much interested in what initially attracted me to the discipline, which is the intellectual component. I'm obsessed with cases, and believe very strongly that evidence-based investigation is the way to go. I love putting the pieces together in my head, and interpreting the results. But unless I figure out a way how to skip over the grunt work and fast track directly into more supervisory positions, I'm rather stuck.

And I'm still interested in science, and am reluctant to fully give up on it even as I spend more and more time writing. I like the juxtaposition of science and literature because it keeps different aspects of my brain occupied. And as someone who needs to do a zillion different things at once else I get bored, this is another way to keep busy -- and sane.

Anyway, how forensic science has impacted me as a reader? This may surprise people, but I have a pretty high tolerance for mistakes. I care more about whether characters engage me, or if the pace is consistent, or there's conflict and a good story. That said, if said author sets his or her book in New York City, I can change my tune very, very easily. Which is why CSI: New York gets on my nerves so damned much.

If there was a way to make blogging a real job, I'm so there.

But like I said, I need to do a lot of different things, but those things can change. At the moment, my focus more and more is on writing, be it fiction, freelancing, or whatever. I have no idea what the future holds in terms of how I'll support myself, but I have several writing projects I want to pursue before my life is over. And just to add to your list, I would like to teach again someday. And get over my issues and resume singing in public.

The book I'm writing now has a very skeletal outline, which I only created because I couldn't keep everything in my head anymore. I can see where in the future I'll need to do proper outlines as the ideas I keep having tend to spin out of control, but something in me rebels against the idea. We'll see. And for now, I'm choosing to rewrite once I have a completed first draft -- I've never finished a full-length novel before, so I need to do so to prove to myself I can do it. Then I can worry about whether it's good or crap (or likely, a mix of both) later on.

For short stories, it's different -- the ones that have worked the best (at least for me) have been written in one big gulp, usually over an entire evening. Two or three hours and the story is finished, save for minimal revisions later on. I don't think it's a really healthy way to write but if that's the way my mind works.

I don't have a writing group, but do have a couple of folks who are good at giving me feedback when I ask them, and I take their judgments accordingly. Otherwise, I'm on my own and at the moment, I prefer it that way.

The more writing advice I read, the more I realize that advice is usually geared towards a few select people and that what works for one person really doesn't work for another. But I'll say this: passive voice is evil, and comma splices are only slightly less evil. And while substance trumps style, voice is everything.