Subject:
|
Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:24:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card/index.html
>
> Wow, 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.
> 1 - which is very damning, since Salon is pretty bad, overall
> 2 - Focus on [Minkowitz's] technique, not the interviewee, if you would.
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 critique.
Minkowitz spells out her intent to interview Card as a way of engaging in
biographical literary criticism, and along the way wades through political
and psychoanalytical criticism, as well. She makes the excellent excellent
excellent point that the author is not the work, nor does the author's
political/social/sexual/religious philosophy have anything to do with the
quality of a work. Her statement on page two that "I don't want to know if
the book he wrote is so different than the beautiful one I read" is
fantastic, since it crystalizes the truth that an author's intent is
separate from his finished work. (I'd go on, but I can hear everyone snoring
already...)
Again, I don't know how Salon usually operates, and Minkowitz hasn't
penned anything like a conventional interview, but if you're not looking for
a conventional interview then there's no problem. It struck me less as an
interview and more as an article about a reader's expectation of an author
based on his works versus the reader's experience of an author based on
face-to-face conversation. In that capacity it works very well, if one can
look past Minkowitz's own proselytizing in the meantime.
> Card isn't perfect (someone who thinks communitarianism is a good idea has to
> be somewhat suspect, and I'm not sure I agree with him about gays being
> biologically defective (if that's what he said, I can't be sure)...)
You're right--it's unclear if that's what he means, but he clearly (and
preposterously) identifies homosexuality as a mental aberration. He
bristles at the charge of "homophobe," but from this article, at least, he
seems like a textbook case. That in itself doesn't make him a good or bad
writer, of course, anymore than his religion makes him a good or bad one.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
