A question about interviewing for narrative

svb asks a good craft question.

Like The Jones though, I'm tired tonight, and will just say that nothing goes into my stories, like his, that isn't fact-checked. It's not literary color. It's not arbitrary "scene-setting." It's reporting. I'll chip in more tomorrow.

 

Sirs, Madames,

Just an aside: Actually, if an interviewee has a detail that sounds a little too cute or too right for a story (sources and subject might feel to take a little creative license), I try to stay skeptical and get it backed-up ... the mags can fact-check but the writer is the bullshit detector, the first line of defence.

YD&OHS, etc

 

The content/detail of a narrative story has everything to do with reporting and observation.

The writing of a story -- i.e., the story-telling -- is all about pacing, transitions, tone and personal style.

As communicators, we tend to verbalize things well, and our reliance on what others tell us -- whether regarding actual facts, or quotes -- is both a reflection and an extension of that.

What we need to learn to do better is to look around, to see, and to sense, things about a situation or scene that we're trying to convey.

This is something you may not realize you didn't do so well until you go and really try to write that descriptive lead for which you're now reaching.

It just goes to show how much we really need to go in with our eyes and minds wide open, fully aware and alert. And we have to be careful not to be so casual and comfortable that we go into cruise control ourselves in our attempts to put subjects at ease.

I try to remind myself of this by thinking of it as my task to be a good witness, sort of like the ones in those studies/experiments that test how observant people really are.

If you were a test subject and were exposed to a sudden, or unexpected scenario -- involving, say, a criminal act, a suspect, or a speeding car -- and you were asked to provide descriptions and details that might be good and useful to police, would you be able to do it very well?

In the cases of most people, including many reporters, probably not. It's rare to find somebody who's a really good witness, especially in the first go-round, or, in our case, upon first approach.

But that's what we need to do, and be.

 

Smaller papers that practice this kind of journalism are faring better than large papers that don't. The newer local free dailies that have thrived -- as opposed to the Metro chain that is struggling -- have focused on hard news. Large newspapers that still cover lots of hard news -- New York Times, Washington Post -- have lost less circulation than large newspapers that don't. Their Web sites do better, too.

Newspapers have been going softer for going on four decades now. They've grasped at every possible solution along the way, recycling ideas that already failed, except one. They have not considered that they had it right in the first place and that the solution is a return to basics.

 

Jones. Jcmacg. You PROMISED.

 

What sirvaliantbrown said...

 

Ahem... That was some drunk sleep I had.

But it’s given me some time to think about this... and I’m going to break this down into sections, just to help me clarify my thoughts about what makes a good interview for narrative.

Please don’t think of this as gospel -- this is just how I work. Some of it might also sound dumb or obvious, but I think it’s a good exercise to think about the importance of every step. And only because the good Sir referenced the gravedigger scene in my soldier story will I use it to illustrate some of my foggier points. There are lots of scenes in lots of stories better than this one.


SUBJECT

This is where it begins. You probably have a little bit of the script, but you need to find the actors. Becuase I knew going into the story that I was going to try to write a back-to-front narrative, I knew the gravedigger was a critical subject. I had to have him, otherwise the piece wouldn’t work.

Be open-minded here. If you interview someone and you don’t get anything out of it, no harm done. It’s just a little lost time.

But also try to recognize up front the people who will have the important stuff to say. And then try to talk to all of them, about their experiences and about each other, as deeply as you can.

Also, ask them who they would talk to about the subject. I can’t tell you how many of my best story subjects weren’t even on my horizon when I started the work. They came into view only because someone else -- someone who was there, someone who knew better than me -- pointed them out.


PREPARATION

The better you know the subject you’re about to interview -- and the better you know how they played their part in the scene you’re hoping to reconstruct, say -- the better your interview is going to be.

A lot of good journalism isn’t about talent; it’s about gruntwork. This is about the gruntwork: Read day-of news accounts of an event; every single word you can find, and talk to secondary sources. (I already knew from them that it was hot that day; that the train driver didn’t blow his whistle; that the funeral arragements were made by Collins Funeral Home.) You almost want to know what happened before you can really know what happened.

I mean, don’t go in with your mind made up, but don’t go in it with a blank. You need a leaping off point.


SETTING

If this is possible, try to hold your interview in a place of importance to your story. With the gravedigger, I interviewed him at the cemetery. It’s evocative for the subject -- standing in the place that matters, they might remember something that hadn’t crossed their mind since they were there that day.

Being there is important for other reasons. You need to know what that place smells like, what it looks like when the light changes, whether there are birds or power lines there -- anything that will help you paint a more vivid picture. In addition, interviewing your subject in the place where they work, say, might give you more questions to act, or even just some oberved detail that you might never have thought to ask.

With the gravedigger, I watched him dig a grave. That’s how I knew he used a square-bladed shovel (I wouldn’t thought to ask that question). It also led to other little details that I could ask more questions about later on: Here, he was piling the dirt by the grave and covering it with a tarp. I asked him if that’s always what he did, and he remembered that he had trucked the dirt from Joey’s grave to a far corner of the cemetery. Which corner? Why?

(A writing aside: “I wanted it to look good,” he said. I didn’t need to use that quote, though, if I do a good enough job with my writing. It’s a more powerful point just showing this man hauling the dirt away instead of leaving it in a graveside pile -- the reader will figure out the rest. Give a narrative reader extra credit in advance.)

(A sports aside: If you can help it, never interview an athlete in a locker room. He is not your equal there. You are the enemy. In a restaurant or, better yet, in his house, you’re on more level terms -- always better for a chat.)


TIME

Always more time -- and always ask for the chance to come back and talk again. It’s almost inevitable that you will come up with further questions. Make sure it’s okay for you to return, again and again if necessary. Most people will be happy to oblige. Just tell them you want to make sure you get everything right, and they’ll be on your side. I’ve interviewed the same subject nine time for the same story. There’s no shame in that.

Plus, people tend to relax with time. You’ll get out what you put in. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve reached what I thought was the end of an interview only to find the best stuff coming out. Stay that extra five minutes.


TECHNIQUE

This has been touched on earlier in the thread, but I always open with an explanation of what I’m doing and why. That’s usually a subject’s first question anyway, at least in their minds. I tell them that this is an important story for me, that I want to do my best with it; that they are important to my story and I appreciate their time; and that if I ask any strange questions, to please trust me. I’ll tell them straight up, details sell a story. They put us there. Most people get that.

What you’ve also done here is share a little with the person you expect to share with you. You’ve made them more comfortable.

Now, I don’t usually have a prepared set of quesitons -- I’ve prepared, for sure, but most of that knowledge I’ve committed to memory, imaginary index cards that cover the subjects I’d like to discuss. I think the danger of writing out questions is, you might get too wedded to asking those questions in that order -- and that’s like saying you already know how the conversation if going to go in advance.

That’s what these should be -- conversations, not interviews. Give and take. Share some more of yourself. Encourage digging deeper wells. Ask questions that you’re genuinely curious about; ask questions based on the answers you’re receiving. Above all, LISTEN.

Try to help your subject forget he’s being interviewed. You’re just two guys talking.

This, I believe is where the gruntwork ends and the talent begins. There’s an art to this part. There are good interviwers and there are bad interviewers. But everyone can get better. With time and experience, you’ll know intuitively what questions are going to get you the details that you need. You’ll see your subject open a little door -- the gravedigger said he watched the funeral the next day -- and then you’ll find another avenue to pursue. (Where were you? What did that look like to you?)

And the more completely you’ve performed the previous steps, the better interviwer you’ll be: informed, prepared, relaxed (because you know you’ve done the work), interested, easy to talk to. You’ll do a better interview because now you’re invested: wanting to do your best shouldn’t be some line you spin. You should mean that.

Because good narrative, more than anything else, is about caring -- about the story, about the subject.

Now that it really comes to down it, I think really that might be all that matters.

I’d take the guy who cares the most every time out.


AND THE TRUTH

Never forget what you're after in the end.

 

Just wanted to say bravo to Jones' post.

 

PW beat me to it ... kudos, Jones.

 

Bump.

'Cuz Jonesy's post was that good, and it's nice to think about something besides layoffs around here.

 

Jones, thank you so much. All that sleep did you good. Much much much appreciated.

 

Much, much, much appreciated from many people.

Another incredible source for narrative is the book Telling True Stories, which was put out last year by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard.