[Scott Bakker]

I picked that title to be deliberately provocative. The question I have has to do with author interviews, and the issue of how 'open' an author should be with their readers and fans. I've done several interviews myself, and I've struggled with this question in several forms. It really is a strange thing being a 'public persona,' and the temptations to posture, to smooth out the wrinkles in your life and you personality, to entertain, to market and to inform are very real.

What made me think of this was Gary's recent wotmania interview at http://www.wotmania.com/fantasymessageboardshowmessage.asp?MessageID=12054 1 , and the striking - some might say, startling - openness he demonstrates in the course of his answers.

So I thought I would start with an open-ended question: Gary, are you sure you're not revealing too much?

[Gary Wassner]

Interesting question, Scott. For me the answer is simple: NO, I am not, unless I am saying things that others don't want to hear. For me, it was the only way I could answer the questions at all. How else could I explain my passion for fantasy? How else could I give anyone a real sense of the tone and tenor of my books if not to dig deep and try my best to explain why I do and say what I do and say? I write for that reason - to try and work out the issues that trouble me. My life is about working out those issues!

Some of us are external and some are internal. Some judge themselves and their success by what they do and some by what they are. I could never separate those two areas. And I could never conceal what I was thinking.

Frankly, at this point in my life, I am not really that concerned if someone doesn't like me or thinks I might be odd. I have always been somewhat odd anyway, though I appear so normal that many envy me for qualities that I actually don't even possess!

Finally, it did not occur to me to answer the questions any differently than I did. It was never my intent to say anything unusual. I just answered the questions.

[Scott Bakker]

If you had to guess, then what would you think might induce an author to keep his or her readers at arms length? Take Salinger, for instance. Or even Pynchon.

[Gary Wassner]

First of all, I think the internet has changed what 'arm's length' means. How much can you really keep private today?

The question is, how much do you really want to reveal voluntarily? And to what end?

[Scott Bakker]

Those little '?' marks indicate questions, not answers... :rolleyes: When used in response to questions they typically indicate evasiveness as opposed to openness.

:D

Seriously though.

[Gary Wassner]

Okay, then. The internet has changed what arm's length means, hasn't it?

Ask someone like Kevin Spacey. If you were particularly religious and you were afraid that you might alienate your readership, perhaps, or afraid maybe that you would alienate your family or community by writing things that might question their beliefs. If you were paranoid. Many authors think it's important to keep the person separate from the author. I just don't think I could.

[Larry]

I finally have a bit of free time to trawl the web and I come across this! Two authors who I respect and have interviewed, talking about openness levels in interviews! Who would have thunk it? ;)

Seriously though, I thought I'd just throw in my 2¢. I'm currently taking a class in Interviewing Skills for my Social Work major (yes, I am a re-entry student) and one of the things I've learned is that the main role of the interviewer is to be a facilitator helping the interviewee communicate as much internally as externally.

Or to be less jargony: The interview is there to help the interviewee say what he/she feels must be communicated (whether or not they are conscious of this is another matter). I've been told that a good interview reveals quite a bit about the interviewee without making them feel that they've revealed too much or that their statements/feelings/beliefs have been distorted by how the interviewer has asked the question.

So now I guess it's time for this interviewer to ask one more question of his two most recent interviewees: Do you believe that the questions I asked the two of you in your interviews allowed you to communicate what you wanted to say about your books, your opinions regarding fantasy, and how you are as a person?

[Gary Wassner]

I felt that your questions were just right for me. You didn't ask me to be candid. That was my choice. But your questions were broad enough that I did not feel as if I was pouring my heart out to someone who did not want to hear what I had to say, yet concise enough to clarify the boundaries. Knowing you somewhat, I did not think you really and truly wanted to hear where I was born and what I ate for breakfast. I wanted very much to be honest and to communicate to your readers something of interest, something that might really provide some insight into my books, which was what this was all about to begin with. When an interviewer tries too hard to push the buttons, the result is often not what they really want. You just asked the right questions that allowed me to be as clear or as vague as I preferred. You didn't seed the questions with hints or prompts that would have forced me to answer in any specific way. Since vaguenes is just not my style in anything I do, I answered as thoroughly as I could.

Now you tell me: When you asked the first question, what kind of answer did you really expect? Did I read you correctly or not?

[Radthorne]

One note I will add here is to contrast the type of interview Gary did with a radio interview, such as the one I recently had. With Gary's, the nature of the Internet allows the interviewee much more freedom of expression (which Gary has taken ample advantage of!) In print media, there are generally more limitations on space, and interview questions (and answers) frequently must be trimmed to fit. With radio, although nothing was edited, I was limited to 9 minutes. As those who listened to it can attest (it's on my website, if you care to hear it), that's not a lot of time for in-depth responses, nor do the hosts really want that. I didn't know what questions were going to be asked, so I had to think fast and come up with something that I could wrap up in a couple of sentences. Perforce I had to leave a lot of my personal motivations, background on the books, etc., aside and concentrate on a) not sounding like a dummy and b) hoepfully conveying enough interesting details about the books to pique people's interest.

Anyway, just thought I'd toss this in, to demonstrate that "not all interviews are created equal". I'd say the choice of media definitely has a lot to do with how "open" one can be, to address the original question.

[Gary Wassner]

I don't know how good I would be in a radio or live interview. I have been on panels and spoken often in public, but I much prefer having the time to consider the questions and comfortably answer them. In my business I am frequently interviewed on the telephone, and I have no problem answering, but when I read my comments in print the next day in the newspaper I am often disapponted that I could not edit what I said. I am used to clarifying whether something is on or off the record, and I can ask to have anything read back before I commit to it, but I often forget to do that as well.

For me, questions and answers in writing my preferance. I can really think about the questions and answer them fully and honestly.