Christopher Hepworth
asked
Susan Ashline:
The story of Lucas Leonard sounds like an incredibly tough story to write. Did it impact you emotionally and did your journalistic background help you to keep an open mind and a sense of balance?
Susan Ashline
I spent twelve-hour days watching “sermons” that felt like a front row seat to domestic abuse, with a “pastor” tongue-lashing and belittling parishioners. It was emotionally draining, and tough to think about someone living through it. During one of those viewing stretches, I called one of Luke’s family members and apologized for all she had been through. It was also heartbreaking to watch video of Luke in those sermons, knowing the ending of this story.
I believe it was more my writing process than my journalism background that helped me keep an open mind. When I started writing the story, I had no preconceived ideas of what had occurred (news reports barely scratched the surface). I wrote chronologically, immersing myself in each segment of the story as I wrote it. I did not open the investigation files until I got to the investigation part of the story. I did not read through the trial transcripts until I got to that part in the story. So my eyes were opened as I moved toward the finish line, and the story essentially wrote itself.
As for balance, once there are convictions, there is no longer an obligation to show both sides of the story, as there is no longer a presumption of innocence; no need to use words like “alleged.” Under the law, the convicted are guilty as charged. Unless it is a book that questions a possible wrongful conviction, it is fair to accept and present the prosecution’s theories, and the evidence I poured through overwhelmingly supported it.
I believe it was more my writing process than my journalism background that helped me keep an open mind. When I started writing the story, I had no preconceived ideas of what had occurred (news reports barely scratched the surface). I wrote chronologically, immersing myself in each segment of the story as I wrote it. I did not open the investigation files until I got to the investigation part of the story. I did not read through the trial transcripts until I got to that part in the story. So my eyes were opened as I moved toward the finish line, and the story essentially wrote itself.
As for balance, once there are convictions, there is no longer an obligation to show both sides of the story, as there is no longer a presumption of innocence; no need to use words like “alleged.” Under the law, the convicted are guilty as charged. Unless it is a book that questions a possible wrongful conviction, it is fair to accept and present the prosecution’s theories, and the evidence I poured through overwhelmingly supported it.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more