 | | How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(URL) I think that is about the most self serving piece (and worst interview) I've ever seen in Salon...(1) IMHO this interviewer epitomizes much of what's wrong with american journalism in one nice neat package. Agree/disagree?(2) 1 - which is very (...) (23 years ago, 18-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Agree wholeheartedly! She tells how she attempts to get the answers she wants, and complains when she doesn't. Although it's interesting that she actually recognises this & documents it. The interview would probably look a lot better if all (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
It's more of a debate than an interview. Two people who can't define their terms cover ground rapidly while discovering how much they dislike each other. I found the remarks by Card to be in character for him, a character I've paid attention to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
Pretty sorry stuff as far the interviewer goes. She needs to get her head out of... As far as the author, Mr. Card, I have no clue who he is but judging from the explanations of some of his stories, the guy is either a complete nutcase or total (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) As far as a quality interview, I guess that I think it's par for the course. As far as a piece of writing, I found it _really_ good! I thought her running internal dialog was fascinating. What per se did you think was wrong with it? I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
Oh yeah, and those of you who don't know Card, read him! Especially the Ender books that are mentioned in this interview piece. They're really fantastic books. Chris (23 years ago, 19-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) I haven't previously read much of Salon, so I can't speak to complaints about its overall style, but I agree that--as a straightforward interview--this one is lacking. However, it *is* an interesting exploration of several forms of textual (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) _Ender's Game_ isn't intended as (nor does it come off as) comedy. You'd have to actually read the book(1) to see why the premise of child warriors, in context, isn't nutty at all. The author does a pretty good job of setting the stage for why (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) OK... Wasn't billed that way though. (...) But did she let the *subject* in on this intent? I don't think so, it looks like to me that it was billed (to Card) as just a normal interview. Card, in a perfect world, would have read some of her (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Sounds kind of freaky. I've never been much of a novel reader so I'll probably never get to it. But I imagine the author's choice to use little tykes as protagonists serves his commentary on modern societal values (or lack of)? (...) "South (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Granted. It's listed as an "interview," but it's only an interview in the most basic sense. (...) That's a good point, too. Caveat Interviewee, I guess, though I expect Card is sharp enough to have picked up on her agenda during the course of (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Mark the above sentence as "exhibit A" (...) It's not "freaky". Really. Trust me. I won't go into why, except to say you would have to read it, and accept the premises. (...) That's unfortunate. I suspect that these novels would not translate (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Right. Plus I think that by coming to the conclusion that THIS is what the book is about, she exposes her inability to think outside the boundaries of what she herself is interested in. As I said in my reply to Dan, in my view, the book is (...) (23 years ago, 20-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) snip (...) Isn't it very easy to mislead adults too? Aren't adults the one who mislead children? What if an older child mislead a younger one? Who is *really* to blame? I'd personally say propaganda, issued either by the news (CNN comes to (...) (23 years ago, 21-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Card is writing the screen play for Enders Game as a current project. IIRC, he has scrapped the project a couple of times because of movie-company constraints and is keeping insanely tight control. I suspect A) it will never be made or B) it (...) (23 years ago, 21-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Larry wrote: (...) Something very like this interview took place in "Spin" magazine many, many years ago (circa the mid 80s) -- it was an interview with Pat Benatar conducted by Lydia Lunch. Throughout the text/interview, Lunch makes (...) (23 years ago, 21-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
|
(...) Although I prefer B), I am OK with A) as long as we don't get "C) it will be a travesty of the original work the way most SF movies are". (...) I'd go with "nothing" except both involve apparent humans. I tried saying that twice, actually, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
