[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 54 KB, 770x877, b4b6c3d19faecf4d3b5af71830827753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20704490 No.20704490 [Reply] [Original]

Why do writers agree to interviews? I've never seen one that improved my image of them they always come across as midwits

>> No.20704498

>>20704490
So watch a Gore Vidal interview

>> No.20704505

>>20704490
I liked Baudrillard's interviews. Interviews are very useful for obscurantist writers because it forces them to bring down their terminology to day-to-day, conversational level.

>> No.20704509

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HsLfrpEAfB8

This is probably the most retarded author interview I can think of.

>Announces himself as a flat earther.

I don’t know why anyone would do this.

>> No.20704517

The best interviews are the ones with the really big names, bc the interviewer often finds it necessary to ride dick for a good few minutes before asking the first question.

>> No.20704524

>>20704490
The Deleuze interviews are good.

>> No.20704526

Usually to promote their books.

>> No.20704537
File: 505 KB, 1032x1470, 1914_07_04_mccay_oldmansdream.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20704537

>>20704490
Not infrequently, I've read author interviews that motivated me to get one of their books.

And that's why they do interviews -- to get the word out and sell books.

>> No.20704590

>>20704524
I like that they could only be shown after his death

>> No.20704595

>>20704490
Most of them are not trying to improve their image, they are advertising.

>> No.20704804
File: 22 KB, 500x586, Ernest-Khalimov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20704804

>>20704509
>Announces himself as a flat earther.

>> No.20704863

>>20704509
>I don’t know why anyone would do this.
it's a rejection of scientism and appeal to authority, same as refusing the vaxx

>> No.20705109

>>20704509
To get you to talk about him. It worked.

>> No.20705111
File: 89 KB, 1280x720, dfw laugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20705111

>> No.20705182

>>20704509
Holy based

>> No.20705207
File: 178 KB, 700x702, pinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20705207

>>20704490
>>20705111
i had the same though about this nick land interview.
i'm actually glad they do it, as it exposes their mediocrity, so that i know to not bother reading them. i've found that genuine geniuses will come across as such in real time, not just in their writing. (an exception would be if they have literal autism or some other mental illness, in which case they get a pass).

>> No.20705211

>>20705207
*thought

>> No.20705222

>>20705207
I don't agree with you. I wanted to post a still from the /lit/ famous interview. You're a genuine retard if you listen to a writer speak off the cuff and come away thinking they must be retarded. Someone eloquent enough could convince you to suck cock.

>> No.20705252

>>20705222
there is 1) form and 2) substance. i was only referring to the former. obviously, if what they are saying lacks substance i would still think they are retarded.

>> No.20705266

>>20705207
>>20704490
Nick always came off to me as an intelligent guy, even after he went off his rocker. My main takeaway from this interview was just that he was clearly stuffed to the gills with amphetamines during it, but that didn't really change my view of him, it's not like it's some big secret he was doing speed kek

>> No.20706052

>>20704490
Interviews in Paris Review are often so good, that I have given a chance to many writers I would usually ignore and never read. My favorite is one by William Gass.

>> No.20706136
File: 353 KB, 673x868, 3f39e82383aeb8d08d8c863430cbe202.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20706136

>>20704490
That's why you keep your mouth shut during interviews or public outings. If anyone here gets famous for their literary work, remember to talk as little as possible. Leave your art open to interpretation.

More importantly, shut the fuck up. Nobody wants to hear it. Keep it to yourself

>> No.20706143

>>20706136
this is like 80% of why Pynchon has endured

>> No.20706149

>>20704490
This interview in particular was fantastically cringe. Even in the 90s when Singularitarianism was new his pronouncements sounded inchoate and childish.

>> No.20706152

>>20706136
gardener's interview was pretty much that way.
'oh hmm yeah. i wanted to take aspects of Dante/Faust/X/Y/Z'
'i wanted to make a mystery which is a horror'
'i wanted to reference the yellow king'
literal hack mindset with nothing more than the bare bones of reference to other shit. baudrillard wept.

>> No.20706154
File: 26 KB, 713x136, F. Tardner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20706154

>>20704509
>I don’t know why anyone would do this.
Flat Earthers are below the IQ threshold for self-awareness.

>> No.20706178

>>20704490
Where can I watch this Nick Land interview in particular? Can't find it on youtube

>> No.20706275

>>20706178
I saw it the other day embedded in some documentary about how AI is going to take over the universe and paperclip-maximize our genitals or something.

>> No.20707517

>>20704490
I'm been asking the same question. I get actors and musicians are pressured by the studio, but authors and mangaka are allowed to go the Pynchon route.
If Shakespeare had done a journalistic interview, it would've ruined everything. Part of the fun as a reader is trying to figure things out.
My only guess is that writers feel important. Their voices MUST be heard, because they have so many oh so profound things to say. Either that, or they use interviews as an excuse not to work. The best authors are those the media labels "recluse", because they have nothing else to do except grind.

>> No.20707532

>>20704490
>Why do writers agree to interviews?
Marketing. Houellebecq might be almost unknown without his media presence and eccentric interview performances.

>> No.20707544
File: 2.37 MB, 320x240, _ubeXw.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20707544

https://youtu.be/pUeGsTjIj0A

Who was in the wrong here?

>> No.20707607

>>20707544
He was really stupid to kick and push her on camera (which isn't abuse to anyone who has gone through a real abusive relationship), but that's what she wanted and she was pushing him to do it.
>Know he's drunk
>Is his women, therefore she knows which buttons to push
>Raises her voice and curses at him as he's being introspective
>Bukowski establishes the context: "I've given you dozens of chances and you keep laughing at me."
>She teases him; tries to make him look like a cuck
An OG Amber Heard, only she managed to get what she wanted from a broken man.

>> No.20707650

>>20707544
>>20707607
Whore

>> No.20707659

>>20707544
People take this guy’s advice?

>> No.20707922

>>20705207
>i've found that genuine geniuses will come across as such in real time, not just in their writing.
That’s false because the intelligence used in written communication is different from the one used in oral communication. I guess for a philosopher or scientist your assessment can somewhat apply but it absolutely does not apply to literary writers.

>> No.20707988

>>20707517
>My only guess is that writers feel important. Their voices MUST be heard, because they have so many oh so profound things to say. Either that, or they use interviews as an excuse not to work. The best authors are those the media labels "recluse", because they have nothing else to do except grind.
What the fuck is this nonsense? You do realize that historically most of the greatest writers and philosophers were public figures, and the recluse ones are a very tiny minority? And in the times of Shakespeare no one was journalistically interviewing authors about their art so you bringing that up doesn’t make any sense.

>> No.20708120

>>20707988
>And in the times of Shakespeare no one was journalistically interviewing authors about their art
And I wish it never changed.