Getting with the profile business

The profiles in The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing that Sacks and Perutz wrote are so personal, I do not think I can produce a quality profile about somebody I have only met once and talked to for 30 minutes (which is the time he has generously allocated for our interview tomorrow).

Because, although I'm sure I won't struggle to write 1200 words, I don't think it will be the best 1200 words a person could write about the guy.

Then again, it doesn't have to be sentimental, or even too personal. Perhaps I can frame it as an outsider looking in, providing a flashbulb of one scientist's life and work as it exists at this point in time.

The role of quotes is particularly interesting in the profiles we were assigned for Oct. 4. In Perutz, there are no quotes, but the humane writing conveys a warm, kind lady. In Sacks, quotes are skillfully used to describe the properties of Tungsten and "Uncle Tungsten's" fascination with it — since the quotes are all framed as an uncle talking to his nephew, they simplify the subject for a non-scientist while adding in that "coolness" factor which Angie values.

Dittrich is in a class of his own. I'd call it a "compound profile feature." Is it about Dr. Annese? Dr. Scoville? Henry? Histology? It could be broken down into multiple pieces, but I suppose in essence it's about Henry's brain, and all these other people are deeply involved in that story. Quotes of every type abound in the piece, serving to provide background information, highlight personality traits, and convey information in a colloquial tone. In short, they make it read like a story, which kept my undivided attention from beginning to end.

Now it seems that the questions I ask in my interview are more important than ever. If I only get 30 minutes to talk to a person I'm writing a 1200 word profile about, I feel that I should ask questions which focus on an interesting story integral to Geoff Poole's life.

In my previous post I mentioned that Poole believes rivers found him, that studying them seemed like the natural thing to do (insert metaphorical "go with the flow" pun here). Rather than ask Mr. Poole to describe his current research and such, which will take quite a while to explain due to my science-related learning disability, I think this would make for an interesting central concept of the story. I know that Poole actively goes into the field to research, placing water-logging devices in rivers and stuff, which is pretty cool. I might ask:

How did rivers find you?

Do you feel you are "giving back" to rivers through your research?

Describe the difference in your daily schedule when you are in the field vs. in the lab.

Where do you feel most at home? Why?

How long do you see yourself studying rivers?

What should every person know about rivers?

Also, a question I took from Angie's blog (modified): How does your work distinguish you from your colleagues in your department?

And finally: If you didn't live in Montana or the PNW, where would you live?

With this interview focus, I hope to create a piece with a strong flow. Pun intended.