Written Interviews

[jbor]

Thanks for this interview. I interviewed a couple of Japanese interviewists
in the hardware store today and they interviewed to me that, in their
interview, it actually isn't very helpful to interview such an imprecise
interview of the interview "interview", but, this interview notwithstanding,
they really interviewed _The Interview of Interview 49_.

But seriously, Pynchon's correspondence with Hajdu, like his correspondence
with Thomas F. Hirsch back in '67-8, does not qualify as an interview in the
sense that the term was being used, i.e. those interviews which writers
traditionally give about themselves, their opinions, their life, or their
work, for the purposes of publicity or critical analysis or celebrity
profile. On both these occasions Pynchon simply helped another writer out
with his research. 

The written vs spoken medium argument is a straw man; no-one has questioned
the fact that an interview can be oral or written. And, as Plimpton notes,
the *purpose* of the interview is "to get these people to talk about their
writing", which is something Pynchon hasn't done. It's quite accurate to say
that Pynchon hasn't done interviews with the media rather than try to imply
that he gives them freely. The _Slow Learner_ 'Introduction' (1984) is one
occasion where he talked about himself and his work, but it's obviously not
an "interview". And the idea that he has altered his stance and become some
sort of media whore since the publication of _M&D_ is, typically, a total
misrepresentation.

best

ps There has been no reliable confirmation of the status of the Playboy
"interview" (again, who was the interviewer?), let alone any indication that
Pynchon even knew, or knows, about it.

> Michael Shumacher's book Creative Conversations: The Writer's Complete Guide
> to Conducting Interviews (Writer's Digest, 1990) devotes some space to the
> written interview: "Some interviewees want more time to consider your
> questions and prepare their responses than an in-person or telephone
> interview will allow. These interviewees suggest that you submit a list of
> questions that they'll consider, answer, and return at their own leisure."
> 
> Hajdu's exchange with Pynchon qualifies as this type of interview. In terms
> of its depth, it isn't in the same category as a classic Paris Review
> interview, but in terms of the method, it is in the same category. Here's a
> passage from Schumacher's book:
> 
> <<George Plimpton, who has conducted and published a number of written
> interviews with authors in his Paris Review Interviews series, is satisfied
> with using this format in his publication.
> 
> "Some people don't feel that they're very good talking to machines or being
> interviewed by reporters," he explains. "It's interesting: very often, what
> you say seems very fraught with meaning and intelligence, but it isn't that
> way on the printed page. The idea (for Paris Review interviews) is to get
> these people to talk about their writing, and it doesn't make much
> difference to us whether the interview is typed out or spoken.">>(p. 148)