Subject:
|
Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 20:40:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
202 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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.
>
> OK... Wasn't billed that way though.
Granted. It's listed as an "interview," but it's only an interview in the
most basic sense.
> > 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.
>
> 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 previous work, and would have
> been better prepared for her manipulative gamesmanship, I suppose. But we're
> all busy, I guess.
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
the grilling. Minkowitz makes it sound as if she was frothing and seething
the entire time, and I can't believe Card was entirely blind to it. Still,
it's intellectual deceptiveness to state one's intent to perform an honest
interview and thereafter turn it into a character-diatribe.
> > She makes the 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.
>
> I would agree with this, it IS a pretty profound observation. Doesn't make
> up for the rest though.
Heh. Not for the "interview," I agree--but at least it's consistent with
her de facto critical exploration.
> > 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...)
>
> It would have been better if she had more clearly stated what book it was
> she actually perceived it as.
Interesting. She does kind of reveal that she perceived it as a layering
of abused child/martial state/cycle-of-victimization sort of thing, but she
doesn't really put her cards on the table, even to her readers.
> > ...if one can look past Minkowitz's own proselytizing in the meantime.
>
> It was worse the proselytizing, in my book, it was distortivism.
On that count, I'm filled with agreementism.
> If she really truly wanted to explain what was going on, perhaps an aural
> interview wasn't the way to go, but rather something written down with
> multiple exchanges (kind of what we are doing here). This may actually be the
> exception to the rule that direct communication is better than written...
My boy Philip Dick conducted several of that kind of interview during his
life, and they're entertaining to read for exactly the reasons you imply.
We get to see a more balanced and rational development of his ideas (and the
interviewer's) over the course of the correspondence.
> But... (and here I disagree with myself a bit) if the author lets their
> viewpoint color everything, it makes for bad writing. Such as L. Neil Smith,
> for example, who lets his libertarianism color his work so badly that it's
> (at least to me) total schlocky dreck.
I haven't read Smith, but I absolutely agree with your
self-disagreementism. Ideally, in my opinion, the author's views on politics
should not command her writing, but rather should work in service of the
writing.
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
|
|
|
|
