What made you decide to do this book - as well as Embedded - as oral histories versus printing interview excerpts or essays?
Hearing someone talk about his or life is utterly fascinating. It’s like sitting around a campfire. Other times, one almost feels like a shrink as the interviewee reveals things he or she might not necessarily divulge in their professional capacity as say, a war reporter. There can be a baring of the soul, a glimpse into their private world, a letting down of the guard. For example, former CBS Weekend News anchor John Roberts, who is now at CNN, said this to me after Embedded came out - he covered the early part of the ground war in Iraq, “I was surprised to read in the book the things I said.” What he means is that in our interview he talked about the personal impact of seeing a bombed vehicle filled with the charred remains of Iraqi soldiers; he described a very disturbing scene — details of which would never have made the evening news. He talked about his feelings — which is a rarity for people in the media.
Also, there is personal connection, albeit a short-lived one, when I am interviewing someone for an oral history. Editing interview excerpts or essays as an anthology would deprive me of this pleasurable and challenging pursuit of shaping someone's personal narrative. An oral history is, in essence, an interview without the questions there for the reader to see. But the questions do shape the narrative. Also, when I put together an oral history, it’s my intent to recede into the background.
Would I be correct in assuming Studs Terkel, one of the best practitioners of oral histories, was an influence? Absolutely, I am in great debt to Studs. I was introduced to him as a freshman at the University of Michigan in 1975. I read Working straight through Thanksgiving weekend. I had never read something of that breadth before. I wasn’t a journalist then. But his brand of reportage influenced me greatly. It just took awhile to germinate. Sorry for the digression. What I am trying to say is never underestimate the power of the word vis a vis a moving image, like those you see on television or now on the web. Just like a single photo, words can sear into the public consciousness. They become a fixed reference point. Journalism, they say, is the first draft of history. I consider oral history its second draft.
How has the reaction been to this book? Have there been any reprisals against any of the people featured in the book?
Article comments
1 - gonzo marx
some really Good Stuff here...
excellent Interview and timely material...
"it's got a great beat, Dick, and I can bug out to it"
/golfclap
well done!
Excelsior!
2 - Lumpy
Sounds like another example of a good book on an important topic where serious analysis is sacrificed on the altar of leftist bias. I should really say partisan bias because right wingers are often just as bad.
But it was a good interview and made me interested enough to at least leaf through the book next time i'm in borders.
Did he really interview krugman? what qualifications he has on any topic relating to patriotism is beyond me.
3 - gonzo marx
one would think that ANY American can have a vlaid view about Patriotism...
that whole Individual thing
i'll hold off on Judgement until i can actually read the book
but the Interview, and the subject matter is very pertinent in today;s circumstances
any disagreement on that?
and one cannot Objectively state with any degree of accuracy that therehave not been numerous documented cases of some partisans labellign ANY dissent with the "anti-american" or "america hater" kind of labels
and THAT is the Point
Excelsior?
4 - Scott Butki
Glad you guys liked the interview. We had to cut it some and the original is here.
5 - Scott Butki
Take 2 - the full interview is at my blog site.
6 - Scott Butki
I was thinking about this interview today because of one comment that was in the interview that I cut out because of space limitations.
I'll post it in full below.
I mention it because of the death of journalist Oriana Fallaci, who Temple Stark wrote a good profile of.
7 - Scott Butki
The excerpt:
"Would I be correct in assuming Studs Terkel, one of the best practitioners of oral histories, was an influence? Who are some of the other influences on your writings?
Absolutely, I am in great debt to Studs. I was introduced to him as a freshman at the University of Michigan in 1975. I read Working straight through Thanksgiving weekend. I had never read something of that breadth before. I wasnt a journalist then. But his brand of reportage influenced me greatly. It just took awhile to germinate. I later went to Berkeley for grad school in political science. While there, I read Oriana Fallacis Interviews with History, which made me realize how much skill and insight are required to really get to the soul of one's interview subject. Shes the best in the game at this. The gold standard. I recommend anyone interested in interviewing a public figure to read her interview with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger under Nixon. Listening to him talk, she wrote in her intro, is like a dull rain hitting the roof. She made Kissinger disclose how much he thought Nixon depended on him for his expertise on global issues; he compared himself to a Western gunslinger, the man in the white cowboy hat. The net effect of her interview--it first appeared in The New Republic--was twofold: Nixon was furious with Kissinger; and the interview became a major media event.