Get people talking. Learn to ask questions that will elicit answers about what is most interesting or vivid in their lives.
Nothing so animates writing as someone telling what he thinks or what he does—in his own words.
His own words will always be better than your words, even if you are the most elegant stylist in the land. They carry the inflection of his speaking voice and the idiosyncrasies of how he puts a sentence together. They contain the regionalisms of his conversation and the lingo of his trade. They convey his enthusi-asms. This is a person talking to the reader directly, not through the filter of a writer. As soon as a writer steps in, everyone else s experience becomes secondhand.
Writing About People: The Interview 101
Therefore learn how to conduct an interview. Whatever form of nonfiction you write, it will come alive in proportion to the number of "quotes" you can weave into it as you go along. Often you'll find yourself embarking on an article so apparently life-less—the history of an institution, or some local issue such as storm sewers—that you will quail at the prospect of keeping your readers, or even yourself, awake.
Take heart. You'll find the solution if you look for the human element. Somewhere in every drab institution are men and women who have a fierce attachment to what they are doing and are rich repositories of lore. Somewhere behind every storm sewer is a politician whose future hangs on getting it installed and a widow who has always lived on the block and is outraged that some damn-fool legislator thinks it will wash away. Find these people to tell your story and it won't be drab.
I've proved this to myself often. Many years ago I was invited to write a small book for the New York Public Library to cele-brate the 50th anniversary of its main building on Fifth Avenue.
On the surface it seemed to be just the story of a marble build-ing and millions of musty volumes. But behind the facade I found that the library had 19 research divisions, each with a curator supervising a hoard of treasures and oddities, from Washington's handwritten Farewell Address to 750,000 movie stills. I decided to interview all those curators to learn what was in their collections, what they were adding to keep up with new areas of knowledge, and how their rooms were being used.
I found that the Science & Technology division had a collec-tion of patents second only to that of the United States Patent Office and was therefore almost a second home to the city's patent lawyers. But it also had a daily stream of men and women who thought they were on the verge of discovering perpetual motion. "Everybody's got something to invent," the curator explained, "but they won't tell us what they're looking for—
maybe because they think we'll patent it ourselves." The whole
102 ON WRITING WELL
building turned out to be just such a mixture of scholars and searchers and crackpots, and my story, though ostensibly the chronicle of an institution, was really a story about people.
I used the same approach in a long article about Sotheby's, the London auction firm. Sotheby's was also divided into various domains, such as silver and porcelain and art, each with an expert in charge, and, like the Library, it subsisted on the whims of a capricious public. The experts were like department heads in a small college, and all of them had anecdotes that were unique both in substance and in the manner of telling:
"We just sit here like Micawber waiting for things to come in," said R. S. Timewell, head of the furniture department.
"Recently an old lady near Cambridge wrote that she wanted to raise two thousand pounds and asked if I would go through her house and see if her furniture would fetch that much. I did, and there was absolutely nothing of value. As I was about to leave I said, 'Have I seen everything?' She said I had, except for a maid's room that she hadn't bothered to show me.
The room had a very fine 18th-century chest that the old lady was using to store blankets in. Tour worries are over,' I told her, 'if you sell that chest.' She said, 'But that's quite impossi-ble—where will I store my blankets?'"
My worries were over, too. By listening to the quizzical scholars who ran the business and to the men and women who flocked there every morning bearing unloved objects found in British attics ("I'm afraid it isn't Queen Anne, madam—much nearer Queen Victoria, unfortunately"), I got as much human detail as a writer could want.
Again, when I was asked in 1966 to write a history of the Book-of-the-Month Club to mark its 40th birthday, I thought I might encounter nothing but inert matter. But I found a pep-pery human element on both sides of the fence, for the books
Writing About People: The Interview 103
had always been selected by a panel of strong-minded judges and sent to equally stubborn subscribers, who never hesitated to wrap up a book they didn't like and send it right back. I was given more than a thousand pages of transcribed interviews with the five original judges (Heywood Broun, Henry Seidel Canby, Dorothy Canfield, Christopher Morley and William Allen White), to which I added my own interviews with the club's founder, Harry Scherman, and with the judges who were then active. The result was four decades' worth of personal memories on how Americas reading tastes had changed, and even the books took on a life of their own and became characters in my story:
"Probably it's difficult for anyone who remembers the prodigious success of Gone With the Wind," Dorothy Can-field said, "to think how it would have seemed to people who encountered it simply as a very, very long and detailed book about the Civil War and its aftermath. We had never heard of the author and didn't have anybody else's opinion on it. It was chosen with a little difficulty, because some of the characteri-zation was not very authentic or convincing. But as a narrative it had the quality which the French call attention: it made you want to turn over the page to see what happens next. I remember that someone commented, 'Well, people may not like it very much, but nobody can deny that it gives a lot of reading for your money.' Its tremendous success was, I must say, about as surprising to us as to anybody else."
Those three examples are typical of the kind of information that is locked inside people's heads, which a good nonfiction writer must unlock. The best way to practice is to go out and interview people. The interview itself is one of the most popular nonfiction forms, so you should master it early.
How should you start? First, decide what person you want to interview. If you are a college student, don't interview your
104 ON WRITING WELL
roommate. With all due respect for what terrific roommates you've got, they probably don't have much to say that the rest of us want to hear. To learn the craft of nonfiction you must push yourself out into the real world—your town or your city or your county—and pretend that you're writing for a real publication.
If it helps, decide which publication you are hypothetically writ-ing for. Choose as your subject someone whose job is so impor-tant, or so interesting, or so unusual that the average reader would want to read about that person.
That doesn't mean he or she has to be president of the bank.
It can be the owner of the local pizza parlor or supermarket or hairdressing academy. It can be the fisherman who puts out to sea every morning, or the Little League manager, or the nurse.
It can be the butcher, the baker or—better yet, if you can find him—the candlestick maker. Look for the women in your com-munity who are unraveling the old myths about what the two sexes were foreordained to do. Choose, in short, someone who touches some corner of the reader's life.
Interviewing is one of those skills you can only get better at.
You will never again feel so ill at ease as when you try it for the first time, and probably you'll never feel entirely comfortable prodding another person for answers he or she may be too shy or too inarticulate to reveal. But much of the skill is mechanical.
The rest is instinct—knowing how to make the other person relax, when to push, when to listen, when to stop. This can all be learned with experience.
The basic tools for an interview are paper and some well-sharpened pencils. Is that insultingly obvious advice? You'd be surprised how many writers venture forth to stalk their quarry with no pencil, or with one that breaks, or with a pen that doesn't work, and with nothing to write on. "Be prepared" is as apt a motto for the nonfiction writer on his rounds as it is for the Boy Scout.
But keep your notebook out of sight until you need it.
Writing About People: The Interview 105
There's nothing less likely to relax a person than the arrival of a stranger with a stenographer s pad. Both of you need time to get to know each other. Take a while just to chat, gauging what sort of person you're dealing with, getting him or her to trust you.
Never go into an interview without doing whatever home-work you can. If you are interviewing a town official, know his or her voting record. If it's an actress, know what plays or movies she has been in. You will be resented if you inquire about facts you could have learned in advance.
Make a list of likely questions—it will save you the vast embarrassment of going dry in mid-interview. Perhaps you won't need the list; better questions will occur to you, or the people being interviewed will veer off at an angle you couldn't have foreseen. Here you can only go by intuition. If they stray hope-lessly off the subject, drag them back. If you like the new direc-tion, follow along and forget the questions you intended to ask.
Many beginning interviewers are inhibited by the fear that they are imposing on other people and have no right to invade their privacy. This fear is almost wholly unfounded. The so-called man in the street is delighted that somebody wants to interview him. Most men and women lead lives, if not of quiet desperation, at least of desperate quietness, and they jump at a chance to talk about their work to an outsider who seems eager to listen.
This doesn't necessarily mean it will go well. Often you will be talking to people who have never been interviewed before, and they will warm to the process awkwardly, self-consciously, perhaps not giving you anything you can use. Come back another day; it will go better. You will both even begin to enjoy it—proof that you aren't forcing your victims to do something they really don't want to do.
Speaking of tools, is it all right (you ask) to use a tape recorder? Why not just take one along, start it going, and forget all that business of pencil and paper?
106 ON WRITING WELL
Obviously the tape recorder is a superb machine for captur-ing what people have to say—especially people who, for reasons of their culture or temperament, would never get around to writing it down. In such areas as social history and anthropology it's invaluable. I admire the books of Studs Terkel, such as Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression, which he
"wrote" by recording interviews with ordinary people and patch-ing the results into coherent shape. I also like the question-and-answer interviews, obtained by tape recorder, that are published in certain magazines. They have the sound of spontaneity, the refreshing absence of a writer hovering over the product and burnishing it to a high gloss.
Strictly, however, this isn't writing. It's a process of asking questions and then pruning and splicing and editing the tran-scribed answers, and it takes a tremendous amount of time and labor. Educated people who you think have been talking into your tape recorder with linear precision turn out to have been stumbling so aimlessly over the sands of language that they haven't completed a single decent sentence. The ear makes repeated allowances for missing grammar, syntax and transitions that the eye wouldn't tolerate in print. The seemingly simple use of a tape recorder isn't simple; infinite stitchery is required.
But my main reasons for warning you off it are practical. One hazard is that you don't usually have a tape recorder with you;
you are more likely to have a pencil. Another is that tape recorders malfunction. Few moments in journalism are as glum as the return of a reporter with "a really great story," followed by his pushing of the PLAY button and silence. But above all, a writer should be able to see his materials. If your interview is on tape you become a listener, forever fussing with the machine, running it backward to find the brilliant remark you can never quite find, running it forward, stopping, starting, driving your-self crazy. Be a writer. Write things down.
I do my interviewing by hand, with a sharp No. 1 pencil. I
Writing About People: The Interview 107
like the transaction with another person. I like the fact that that person can see me working—doing a job, not just sitting there letting a machine do it for me. Only once did I use a tape recorder extensively: for my book, Willie and Dwike, about the jazz musicians Willie Ruff and Dwike Mitchell. Although I knew both men well, I felt that a white writer who presumes to write about the black experience has an obligation to get the tonalities right. Its not that Ruff and Mitchell speak a different kind of English; they speak good and often eloquent English. But as Southern blacks they use certain words and idioms that are dis-tinctive to their heritage, adding richness and humor to what they say. I didn't want to miss any of those usages. My tape recorder caught them all, and readers of the book can hear that I got the two men right. Consider using a tape recorder in situa-tions where you might violate the cultural integrity of the people you're interviewing.
Taking notes, however, has one big problem: the person you're interviewing often starts talking faster than you can write.
You are still scribbling Sentence A when he zooms into Sen-tence B. You drop SenSen-tence A and pursue him into SenSen-tence B, meanwhile trying to hold the rest of Sentence A in your inner ear and hoping Sentence C will be a dud that you can skip alto-gether, using the time to catch up. Unfortunately, you now have your subject going at high speed. He is finally saying all the things you have been trying to cajole out of him for an hour, and saying them with what seems to be Churchillian eloquence.
Your inner ear is clogging up with sentences you want to grab before they slip away.
Tell him to stop. Just say, "Hold it a minute, please," and write until you catch up. What you are trying to do with your feverish scribbling is to quote him correctly, and nobody wants to be misquoted.
With practice you will write faster and develop some form of shorthand. You'll find yourself devising abbreviations for
often-108 ON WRITING WELL
used words and also omitting the small connective syntax. As soon as the interview is over, fill in all the missing words you can remember. Complete the uncompleted sentences. Most of them will still be lingering just within the bounds of recall.
When you get home, type out your notes—probably an almost illegible scrawl—so that you can read them easily. This not only makes the interview accessible, along with the clippings and other materials you have assembled. It enables you to review in tranquillity a torrent of words that you wrote in haste, and thereby discover what the person really said.
You'll find that he said much that's not interesting, or not pertinent, or that's repetitive. Single out the sentences that are most important or colorful. You'll be tempted to use all the words that are in your notes because you performed the labori-ous chore of getting them all down. But that's a self-indul-gence—no excuse for putting the reader to the same effort.
Your job is to distill the essence.
What about your obligation to the person you interviewed?
To what extent can you cut or juggle his words? This question vexes every writer returning from a first interview—and it should. But the answer isn't hard if you keep in mind two stan-dards: brevity and fair play.
Your ethical duty to the person being interviewed is to pre-sent his position accurately. If he carefully weighed two sides of an issue and you only quote his views of one side, making him seem to favor that position, you will misrepresent what he told you. Or you might misrepresent him by quoting him out of con-text, or by choosing only some flashy remark without adding the serious afterthought. You are dealing with a person s honor and reputation—and also with your own.
But after that your duty is to the reader. He or she deserves the tightest package. Most people meander in their conversa-tion, filling it with irrelevant tales and trivia. Much of it is delightful, but it's still trivia. Your interview will be strong to the
Writing About People: The Interview 109
extent that you get the main points made without waste. There-fore if you find on page 5 of your notes a comment that per-fectly amplifies a point on page 2—a point made earlier in the interview—you will do everyone a favor if you link the two thoughts, letting the second sentence follow and illustrate the first. This may violate the truth of how the interview actually progressed, but you will be true to the intent of what was said.
Play with the quotes by all means—selecting, rejecting,
Play with the quotes by all means—selecting, rejecting,