Subject:
|
Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:28:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
234 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave! wrote:
> > 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.
Larry wrote:
> 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.
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
paranthetical comments that while occasionally making interesting points,
served more generally to ridicule the subject of the interview. I have to
think that if Benatar had known how the thing was going to end up looking in
print, she would not have agreed to be interviewed (and certainly not by
Lunch). I think the same thing must be true in the case of the Card/Ms. M
interview -- I kept wanting to read his rebuttal. While the Benatar/Lunch
interview didn't really deal with anything morally interesting (just the
usual rock interview fluff), the Card/Ms. M interview seems like it could
have been much more interesting if the two participants didn't keep
"reading" past each other -- and sadly, Ms. M has a lot of the blame because
in her cowardice she doesn't let Card in on her game. I would have
preferred to read Card's responses to her endless series of presumptions...
The weird part is that I find Lunch endlessly entertaining, intelligent, and
interesting. And too, I have a very large amount of previous and subsequent
knowledge about Lunch's work that makes her more forgivable to me (in the
same way I can forgive Picasso his later work because I have knowledge of
his "blue period" -- Lunch used to fancy herself as a rock gadfly). I have
no idea what to make of Ms. M and I have no knowledge about her that makes
me want to be likewise magnanimous in her case as I am with Lydia Lunch.
If one is going to ridicule someone it seems only fair that the target of
one's ridicule should have the opportunity of a defense and/or retaliation.
The one-sided nature of these attacks is just so cowardly I can't really see
it as a useful form of interview unless it is used in an essay about the
nature of interviews.
In this regard, I think Dave!'s comments are far too generous to Ms. M --
while her own motivations are made clear to the reader, it is not a piece
about the nature of interviews, but STILL the thing itself. I can see lot's
of ways to punch the piece up and thereby make it much more intellectually
rigorous -- but as it stands, it's just not there yet. As it stands, Ms. M
has only the kernel of something more interesting on her hands...and she
just comes off as a jerk and a coward. She also fails in her primary task:
which I presume was to get more at the heart of Card's work through the
process of an interview. If this were fiction, Ms. M would be the
"unreliable narrator" -- so I am not at all sure what to make of Card as
seen through Ms. M's eyes...
-- Hop-Frog (I have no comment at this time)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
