Isaac Fitzgerald has been a firefighter, worked on a boat, and was once given a sword by a king, thereby accomplishing three out of five of his childhood goals. Formerly of The Rumpus and McSweeney’s and most recently the founding editor of BuzzFeed Books, Isaac is now the co-host of BuzzFeed News’ Twitter Morning Show, #AMtoDM. He also appears frequently on
The Today Show to talk books, and is co-author of
Pen & Ink: Tattoos and the Stories Behind Them and
Knives & Ink: Chefs and the Stories Behind Their Tattoos (with Recipes) (winner of an IACP award), and the author of a YA novel and picture book forthcoming from Bloomsbury. He uses
Twitter.
11 responses
Yeah, me again. *rolling eyes emoticon*
Is this an actual face-to-face interview? or is it one that was conducted via chat or email?
Because I think this kind of “disclaimer” should be right up front these days. I bet you can figure out why I’m asking. =)
This was an interview conducted via email over several months. I changed and edited my questions somewhat during the process, and Tao did the same with his answers.
I actually do not know why you’re asking or why you would like a disclaimer. Care to explain?
hi, sarah, just saw your comment on the post re the “cooking the books” interview. i understand your comment now.
you don’t seem very empathetic, accepting, and/or comprehending of variances in social skills/affect/demeanor/outlook. to me tao seemed nice, shy, but sweet and polite. and he smiled nicely a lot, which i find charming. emily seemed to interpret his behavior as indicative of him not enjoying himself or being uncomfortable, but i perceived him as seeming fine and enjoying himself throughout the interview, prior to him saying so. the exceptionally socially skilled person, i feel, would seemingly effortlessly adjust their demeanor/approach depending on the person with whom they’re currently interacting. to me the interview was a little awkward occasionally, but sweet and nice. even had the interview been more awkward i would not have interpreted that as “bad” or “effing annoying” or “indicative of tao’s near-autism.”
emily gould seems very nice, btw. i was not demeaning her social skills. she seems to be skilled, to some degree.
the “unableham” seems relevant here: http://thoughtcatalog.com/2010/“unable-to-process-neutral-statements-as-neutralâ€-hamster/
thank you
Well, first of all, most journalists say in the interview whether they’re talking on the phone with someone or talking face-to-face with someone or whether they’ve done an email exchange with someone they’re interviewing, and the time-frame the interview has been done. The medium in which the interview takes place is relevant, and, by now, most people understand the differences between the media by which interviewer and interviewee have their interview. Talking to someone, and asking questions and receiving answers face-to-face is qualitatively different from responding to someone emailing you questions and having you respond in an email after considering same. Especially “over several months”. Or in a chat format. Everyone understands that the medium mediates the message now, or they should. Typing is just so different from speaking face-to-face. I honestly don’t think that should be a contentious issue.
It’s just *different*. It’s kind of silly to pretend it’s not. There’s just a difference between a verbal response/exchange, and a textual response/ exchange. An interviewer should understand that difference, too, I think. And should want his/her readership to know how it went down. Because you’re obscuring something if you edited text over a series of months vs. recorded a conversation over the course of an afternoon and transcribed it as it occurred. I would think a writer would want readers to know that.
Emily Gould is amazing. I think she acquitted herself beautifully. But it’s not really “effortless” for the “exceptionally socially skilled person” to adjust their responses to someone who is so obviously outside of the norm of social exchange behaviors. It’s a hard row to hoe when you’re faced with someone like that. Sometimes it’s worth it to go the extra mile to absorb their awkwardness and to create a safe space for them to express themselves; sometimes it’s not. When all you want is an interview or a video, sure, great. No problemo. We can work with it. But, over a long-term intimate relationship? Maybe not so much. Think Bernard, maybe.
Maybe that gives you the impression that I’m not “very empathetic, accepting, and/or comprehending of variances in social skills/affect/demeanor/outlook”. I would counter that I have more experience with such things than most people. That’s why I said it’s exhausting to have to compensate for those lacunae in social skills over a long period of time. Look, I’m sorry that it bugs me that Tao Lin uses his real-life activities as “material.” I’m sorry that I perceive him the way I do. It’s great that people think he’s a great writer and “charming” and “sweet” and “nice.” I’m sure he can be all those things. Like I said, though, seeing him in these kinds of situations, I totally comprehend how he could glom onto a 16-year-old fragile, vulnerable, compromised girl. If that makes me a monster, or an asshole, or someone who’s not very sympathetic/empathetic or accepting, well, there ya go. I’m sure he’s gonna keep doing what he does, no matter what I say or do. If you don’t like what I say or do, fine: expunge me.
hi sarah. i’m not a journalist. but i understand your general point. i didn’t think about if readers would want to know how the interview was conducted. i can see how that’s relevant from a certain perspective, and actually, some people might even be interested in how an interview was conducted. in an older version of the interview, there was a question where tao clarified, unprovoked, at the tail end of an answer, that he, i’m paraphrasing, sounds like a robot in interviews because he has time to edit (i presume he meant edit with the goal of maximum clarity, logic, efficiency, and to eliminate any rhetoric or vague statements), due to the way he works and does interviews.
i added the qualifier “seemingly” before “effortless.” not trying to be annoying, just uh, i deliberately added that qualifier to indicate that it’s not literally effortless. but yeah, idk…
i don’t understand how you can judge someone’s capacity for “glom[ming] onto” a “fragile, vulnerable, compromised girl” based on an internet cooking show video, but ok.
you don’t seem like an asshole or a monster to me. glad this has been a civil exchange hehe…
I’m really glad you get how “how” an interview was conducted could be really important to a readership. The medium can be an important part of the message. Plus, a lot of us can’t believe when people come off as so polished and highly verbal and perspicacious in what we perceive as a “talking” interview. It’s much easier to come off as same when thinking and then typing. That’s just a really important distinction, I think.
My “understanding” of the “capacity” for someone glomming onto an “etc – see above” comes not just from Richard Yates but also from what i have now seen of Tao Lin in various online interviews and videos of readings/interviews. I admit this is probably not fair, but, when you get to a certain age and experience with things, you tend to jump to conclusions based upon just a smidge of data just to save time and effort. That these judgments are usually right on the money is not unusual, I hate to say.
The lack of anything happening when I click Sarah E.’s name! The wrongness! Here is a jury-rigged Sarah E. blog: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:therumpus.net+%22sarah+e.%22&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS392US392&tbs=blg:1,sbd:1&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=iTO3TK0xpe2dB7PpgacI&ved=0CBMQpwU
So, that’s kind of threatening, or something approaching threatening.
Care to explain your motive there, Josh? You muscular, cynical, observant guy, you?
Sarah, you are illustrating the difference between clicking my red name and your non-red name. You are also doing some of the most engrossing writing on the site. It’s a pleasure and I want more, and found it.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.