 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
