Take care!

Also, OF COURSE it’s one of your favorites.

1. Archival tape.
2. It’s about an aspiring radio producer.
3. Someone dies.

It’s public radio heaven.

-Andy

After puzzling on this for a few years I realized the Old Testament is a book that was written to be read more than once. So the stories are not written so that you take pleasure in the unfolding of the next step in the plot. Rather, they are written so that you experience the satisfaction of seeing how events work toward a foregone conclusion.

So, back to this brilliant radio piece you’ve introduced me to (thank you!), when I heard the foreboding yet somewhat ambiguous opening lines I thought: Of course, it’s his destiny that he will die but that his voice will live on to inspire others through his tapes. And I paid attention to find out how this would be fulfilled. And it was very satisfying to see how that came about.

Stories like that can be enjoyed more than once, because the narrative is not as dependent on withholding critical information. So it was no surprise (destiny—I know), when you said that you play this story over and over again for your class, and no surprise that public radio stations play it over and over again for Memorial Day. This piece was written so as not to be disposable, so, yes, I do think those opening lines are what make it great.

Good to talk, thanks again.

The difference between the ATC and the E diagrams is the story keeps on going in the E past the starting point. You get to guide the narrative to its climax and end it with a neat little ribbon. The ATC story just ends where it starts.

The Morning Edition diagram is similar to ATC, but it has numerous characters all interacting with one topic… be it a piece of legislation, building, or a memory. Just know with storytelling, all the parts are interchangeable. Structures overlap. Public radio shows borrow, and in the words of Robert Krulwich, steal techniques from each other. Yes, public radio is less formal in its presentation. A friend described it as journalism with a lower-case j. But it’s sneaky, too. The journalism you hear on public radio is top-notch, accurate and thorough. That’s why people pay local stations to keep it on the air.

If you’re still confused, just head to your local watering hole. My favorite stories are always told at the bar. It’s narrative in its natural habitat. And if you find yourself in Cleveland, OH, go to the Harbor Inn. Look for the burliest guy in the room. His name is Pete. He’s known as the Bard of Lakewood. He’ll explain structure better than anyone in the industry.

Hope this helps.

I think ‘Radiolab’ is really much the same as “This American Life’ except that the sections in Radiolab are more related together and build to a crescendo, I think the diagram disguises why both are interesting to listen to (rather than too random and annoying)… which I can’t really put my finger onto. The radiolab style mixes in many moments of uncertainty and odd chunks of music and sound. But then maybe both are several ‘Transom’ pieces patched together into a whole. Seems this is similar to ‘Snap Judgment’ and ‘The Dinner Party Download’ too.

British public radio (which I’m much more familiar with) seems to lack something of the final lesson or context. In magazine format programmes, the individual pieces seem to be more introduction-stuff-interviews-more stuff-why this matters. Most live news interviews seems to be more like background-questioning of the interviewee about the background-neat resolution (or not)-move on. It seems to retain something more formal than North American Public Radio pieces.

Dunno, maybe again I’m thinking too hard about this.

Thanks again for the great work!

Ken Harper
Assistant Professor
Multimedia Photography & Design
SI Newhouse School of Public Communications
Syracuse University

Director of Visual and Digital Media
NewNarratives.org – Africans Reporting Africa

CONTACT
315.443.6131
(S) kyharper
(T) kenharper

WEBSITES
newhousempd.com
newnarratives.org
togetherliberia.org
ironcladimages.com

LONGTERM PROJECTS
rioharper.com

Our group up here in Toronto has been looking to hold some kind of workshop on story structure and this is perfect for that. I loved this episode. My only complaint is that it is too short! Please do a part-2! This kind of stuff makes such a difference when you’re sitting with a pile of tape.

Thanks,
Sean

Thanks
Eric Rouah

It would be unusual to find a person accomplished in the above
who went on to also become a skilled interviewer , writer, reporter, editor, producer.

What ever their other skills, the people who made this piece are
Amateur composers, musicians, singers, and lyracists.
It was self indulgence, not “art” to include their own music
in what otherwise could have been an enlightening piece.

It is always difficult to edit your own work
So it is not surprising rather they were blind to the problem

Still, it remains shocking that so many professionals allowed
Themselves to become so enthralled by the supposed art,
that they abandoned their well honed dispassion

Reverence for art, or regret for its diminution, should not compell one
Dilute standards. Our social appreciation for art is not enhanced
By making mediocre art more pervasive.

Being a professional includes the unpleasant duty to
Tell well intentioned people their shortcomings,
And not to flatter each other about your commitment to art.

We choose to visit Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Kazakhstan for this project exactly because they were such different countries that still share this political legacy. And that legacy is still incredibly influential in people’s lives whether it’s language (Russian), the culture of corruption in politics (something almost all young people we spoke to talked about), the tendency towards totalitarian leaders in the region or the relationship these millennials have with their parents (who grew up during a very different time/era from them). One of the things that was so interesting about this project was how present the Soviet era still is in these countries even decades later (but also how that’s starting to change, arguably, for the first time).

As for the journalist visa issue. We didn’t mean to imply that we shouldn’t have to apply for and obtain journalists visas (which we did indeed do as required in every case here) but instead were acknowledging the very different culture of journalist certification in different countries (Kenya doesn’t care, Ethiopia does. Georgia doesn’t really care but Russia more so). Actually the US doesn’t have as strong a culture of caring about journalist visas as other countries (we work with many international journalists that aren’t here on special visas but still publish journalism), and of course for any country there is a big difference between the expectations for journalists who are living permanently in a country and working for a news organization, and those who visit for a limited period of time to report a specific project.

Dealing with the expensive visa bureaucracy in a pain whatever the circumstances or country, that was just general griping

Isn’t there something a bit strange about still using this kind of shorthand in 2013? It would seem strange to me if a Russian journalist made a documentary about Seattle radio journalists and called them ‘young people struggling in a post-Reagan-era America’. Or ‘the post-Kennedy world of modern Seattle’.

Also, one of the reporters says:

‘For Russia and Kazakstan you just have to get a journalist visa- you’re not going to get away with not having a journalist visa. It was a pretty expensive and drawn out process…you have to get letters and spend a lot of money’ – Well, that’s because these two producers ARE journalists, and they are from a prosperous country. If a Russian journalist was found to be working illegally in the US on a tourist visa, he’d also end up in trouble. Most Americans wouldn’t see that as a sign of political oppression- so why is it connected to political oppression in this case?

These kinds of unexamined assumptions are one of the biggest challenges in global reporting- and usually Rob takes care to drawn attention to this type of issue in How Sound. It was shame that this was missing this time.

D

I agree with previous comments that it is a matter of transparency for a reporter to be honest about his or her feelings. Totally objective reporting just doesn’t exist. The case of the final scene in “What If There Was No Destiny?” is particularly illuminating. Another reporter might have said almost the same thing as Pat said but left out the personal feelings. But with Pat explaining his feelings there is a sense of honesty in the reporting and i feel that it’s rather less manipulative that trying to sound objective.

Also, about the “turned my stomach” quote. In this case I think Pat used his gut feeling to ask the question is such a way that it would produce the most interesting and truthful response from the interviewee. And indeed, his question opened up the whole conversation and produced the most interesting moment in the interview. Did Pat step on the line? Yes, but with very good reason.

As Michael says, Pat was honest, he revealed the ‘I’ in the story (oftentimes, it’s concealed) but he also used his opinions to evoke a more emphatic response.

It’s like when someone tells you something during an interview and you say “really?!?” and they tell it to you again with more emphasis and elaboration. Of course, it’s the second answer which will make it into the final piece.

Obviously, it can go too far. The reporter has to attempt subjectivity … but they are human. An occasional reminder of this doesn’t hurt.

It’s silly to think that reporters and their personal experiences don’t influence their subjects and the stories they tell. While this might be ideal it’s not realistic.

In many ways its more honest that Pat included himself in the story and put forward his own ideas and opinions. Its a form of transparency and declaration of interest not generally seen in reporting.

Thanks so much for taking the time to listen and for writing! Hope you’ll continue to tune in.

Best, Amy

And you may be on to something – I’m trying to recall your interview with Audie Cornish – and it was Richard Gere who said “don’t ask open-ended questions.” I’m sure when actors/writers/whoever are running the press junket, they must get extremely tired of hearing the same questions over and over again. So I can understand why he wouldn’t want to have to give the whole spiel over again.

I thought that Bruce did sound annoyed with “tell me about yourself” because it was too big a question. I thought he was expecting just to talk about his tattoo and didn’t know which direction to go with his answer.

Again thanks for your reply, and also for your show. While I’m not a journalist, I’m fascinated by the way stories are put together and felt like a kid in a candy store when I discovered your podcast.

Thanks for writing. I think you may have stumbled upon a paradox of dolling out advice about radio storytelling — what may not work with one person, may work with another. “Ask wide open questions” and “don’t ask wide open questions” — both statements are true even though they may contradict each other. Wide open questions may not focus the interviewee enough which can cause an them to muddle through their thoughts verbally on the hunt for an answer. In that case, the interviewer ends up with a mushy response that’s not usable. On the other hand, a wide open question may allow someone the freedom to focus on what’s important to them. And, you may hear about something you didn’t imagine in your more focused questions.

For me, I’ve never asked someone to tell me about themselves. That feels too wide open. I’ll ask them to introduce themselves providing name, age, occupation, where they live, that sort of thing.

I think we hear Bruce stumble a bit in response to the “tell me about yourself” question as he wonders if he should keep going or not. On the other hand, “Tell me about prison” worked pretty well.

My hunch is Bruce may not be used to talking about himself in such an open manner so he stumbled a little bit. On the other hand, I suspect he’s talked about prison a lot so he may have a ready narrative to answer that question.

Then why wouldn’t Richard Gere call up his ready narrative a film for Audie? Who knows. Maybe he’s just tired of the question.

Wish I had a more concrete response for you. I think, maybe, the most concrete thing I can say is ask a wide-open question and see if it works with the person you’re interviewing. If it doesn’t, don’t ask them.

Maybe someone else can chime in and save me.

Thanks for listening,
Rob

Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment. Much obliged.

I think I agree with you, at least initially I did. When I first heard the piece, I, too, thought the ending was weak without a grand summation or revelation.

Then again, it’s what happened. And, that lack of finality or elevation in the story at the end resembles what appears to be the end for Udivilla Rutherford. It’s sad, either way. Whether what was in the box was the collection of a deranged woman or important heirlooms representing the early days of her marriage, no one seems to care about the objects or her.

I wonder, too, about stories that don’t have neat and tidy endings. When do they work? When don’t they? Maybe a subject for a future HowSound!

Thanks again.

r

Thanks for your note. Much appreciated.

To my knowledge, the only time this story has aired on the radio is via Public Radio Remix, a service of PRX. Remix programs about six hours of content from PRX for stations to air — a kind of automation service, if you will. A handful of stations air Remix, typically over night. And, Remix regularly includes HowSound, so…..

As for keeping the recorder going, it’s good practice to do so. Indeed, it gave Emily her solid ending. The only time that would be unethical is if you put the mic down as if you weren’t recording but kept recording. In Emily’s case, she didn’t do that. And, if memory serves, Bruce asks her in the piece “You still got that f-g thing on?” and she says yes and he laughs.

And lastly, yes, there is a power in a microphone, a power that gives permission for the interviewee *and* the interviewer.

Thanks again!

Best,
Rob

She was very strong in that moment. Definitely.

But I do think, in the end, whether she sounded confident or not (I don’t think that’s an important question – honestly) – I think Emily got an important piece of tape and got a rare bit of vulnerability captured for all time from the sort of character who is not going to often let himself be vulnerable. I am glad HowSound exists so that this story was able to get out there a bit more. If I’m not wrong, this piece has never been played on the radio, has it?

One aspect of this tape that I was a little surprised that Rob didn’t ask about was the way Emily left the recording equipment on in the truck after the interview was over. That seems brassy, as well. And I always wonder what the ethics of that are ( I am not a reporter – I am not make a judgment here – I just wonder ).

To Rob’s question: “Why is it you are quiet in class but more confident while doing an interview,” I think that a lot of shy people find that when they are “on the job” (whatever that job is) they are able to transform a bit. While no one would exactly describe me as shy, I can have a hard time at parties, usually. Unless, somehow, my appearance at that party has something to do with some job I am doing. Then I know what my mission is, I know what my objectives are and I am much more likely to be able to confidently approach strangers and talk to them. I have a feeling it is somewhat the same for Emily when she turns that audio recorder on, and she sort of seemed to say that.

That’s totally worth unpacking.

On the other hand, I came to the end of THE STORY OF LOT 180 and was like… well he didn’t find anything. He found what sounded like a really sad, estranged family, but he didn’t find out anything about what was in the box. I guess we’re meant to assume that she was just deranged, but I don’t know that that’s true. If she had a photo of her husband in there with the salt-and-pepper shakers it could have been a collection she started when they were still together?

On some level I listened to it and thought it was also an example of how a reporter can get stuck chasing a story for two months and not get anywhere. Is it worth doing a story on all your dead ends? I suppose we got some vignette about the escheats of Florida, but I couldn’t help but think that he might have really gotten somewhere if he’d chased another lot.

I think I was over-critical on this story. I do think there were some unreasonable risks taken and that it could be even better with a little more editing, but overall it was a very compelling story and was nicely executed. I think I forgot what this podcast is really all about and judged it in the wrong context.

A great, gutsy interview…and you really got the story that he needed to tell. “Faking confidence” is a great piece of advice that I think all of us can learn from. I share a bit of Skip’s concerns about driving off in a car with Bruce. I’m sure you took precautions, but it made me a bit uncomfortable. And, not just because he might be violent or dangerous. But because there was a chance that he’d be “in charge” the whole time – and use that leverage. Anyway, I love characters who leave you with questions and no clear moral compass. You gave him a great platform – and miked it beautifully, so you really heard his voice.

And I love your answer to his question: “will this be a trying experience?”

Just really great work.

jd

Ok. Just giving my personal impressions.

Nice job & good luck.

Skip–it’s true that I did sass Bruce several times during the interview (in response to his sass), but it was never my intention to be sassy or cute. I was there to interview him and get his story. At the time, I didn’t know I’d end up including myself in the piece. That was a decision made after the interview, when I was deciding how I wanted to put the piece together.

For whatever reason our personalities really gelled. Of course there was some initial nervousness, but that was brief and at the very beginning. By the time we had forced some small talk and gotten sodas and driven to the beach, we were pretty good. There was no sheer terror. And that’s when I started recording. What you hear at the beginning of the piece is pretty much the beginning of our interview (some things I left out: him asking “You gotta put that thing [the mic] so close to me?!”, me saying yeah, me asking him to introduce himself…three times). It was mostly just me trying to get the interview up and running. My voice at the very beginning of the interview is noticeably softer–perhaps that indicates something? But I don’t think there was any real trepidation to capture there; in order to capture that, I would’ve had to start recording as soon as I met him. But I do think you can get a sense of the “build” or “initial tension” in Bruce’s answers. Those first few pauses weren’t edited…he really waited that long before saying anything else. He was the uncomfortable one.

Before meeting Bruce, I had talked to him a little bit on the phone. I knew he had been in prison for some drug-related charges, but I didn’t know about the heroin or details of his record. He was actually less scary in person than he was over the phone. The day of the meeting, we had arranged to meet at the bus station. I knew we’d then go somewhere and conduct the interview in his car. I am definitely grateful nothing terrible happened. I know I got lucky. Thanks for your concern; I’ll continue to be careful from here on out!

Take care,
Emily

First of all, if I didn’t didn’t think this piece had potential for me, I wouldn’t have bothered taking the time to critique. Emily herself says that she was “sassing” him so don’t give me that gender tripe. I was using Emily’s own term.

Second, this critique was in no way an attack on Emily of her piece. It was an honest personal impression of the piece. Most people won’t take the time to give you their honest feedback, they’ll simply pat you on the back or move on without a word.

After reading Emily’s reply, I think what might have made the piece work better for me would be if it were cut a bit longer to allow the story to unfold a bit slower so the listener could get the initial trepidation and ultimate rapport develop. As cut, it comes across like a teen doing a hit piece on a crispy character.

I applaud the spirit of the piece, but for me it needs more work in the editing suite. However, I have to give a well deserved congratulations to Emily for reaching this level on merely her second interview. VERY well done!

Emily, did you know Bruce was an ex-con heroin addict before you got in the truck with him, and did you know that he was driving to the beach? Or, did you just you just blindly get into a vehicle with a complete stranger off Craigslist without a clue where you were going? I’ve been around the block, spent time in the military, have traveled 22 different countries, spent 3 nights in a Guatemala City half-way house after being robbed, was nearly clubbed in an abandoned Varanasi India building, been kicked in the chest by some crazed Argentine while just minding my own business, and recently punched in the face by a glue-sniffing punk during a failed mugging attempt in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. And even so… I would never get into a vehicle with a stranger I met off Craigslist and drive off into the unknown. It might have been better to meet up in a public place first to at least get a feel for the situation. My mother was a psychiatrist so I heard plenty of stories growing up. Bruce’s incessantly shaking leg would definitely give me pause. My gut tells me, you got very lucky.

Great job, consider re-editing to let the story build a bit so the listener gets a feel for you initial trepidation and how a rapport was ultimately achieved. This plays more like a compelling scene than an interview because the interviewer is as much a part of the story as the subject.

Please do be careful out there and looking forward to hearing much more from you in the future!

I’d like to echo Skips last remarks that it’s always wonderful to hear interviews with “regular everyday characters.” Not to mention the willingness and talent on the half of the producer to create a compelling or interesting story out of something that might have been passed over by most. This does set great producers/artists apart from the rest.

I did want to point out some things I found problematic in Skip’s post. I listened to the piece before I read these comments and I will say that I agree with Rob that I found Emily’s tone to be curious, encouraging. The options of tone that you suggest, Skip, are for Emily to be either a “brat” or “cute & sassy” as if those are the only two options for someone who might be displaying “confidence.” I’m sure you will agree that this a tired stereotype of the “confident” woman, that ff she is not to be cute and sassy, she is over-confident and being a brat.

As someone who has spent time working and interviewing diverse populations, I did not sense “sheer terror” in Emily’s voice, but rather cool, calm and honest curiosity about her subject. Assuming that this was a “terrifying” situation is making assumptions about Emily and also about Bruce. I also did not get the sense that the piece was exploitative, as Bruce was willing to be interviewed, seemingly honest with Emily, as well as trusting enough to actually open up to her. They seemed to have hit it off quite well!

Congrats Emily on a work well done. And like Genevieve, looking forward to hearing more of your work.

She does not sound like a brat as noted above, nor is there any need for her to be “cute & sassy”. Confident young woman on a mission to record a fascinating life story would be a more appropriate description. Can’t wait to hear what you do next!

Emily here. Thanks for weighing in on the piece. Several people have asked me if I was playing a character–or even a caricature of myself–during the interview. I’m still not sure whether I should be offended or perplexed by that. It’s interesting it sounds that way, because the thought never crossed my mind. That was me in the moment, and it was real…terrible teen voice and all. Don’t worry, I’m not the biggest fan of my voice either.

I interviewed Bruce for over an hour in his truck, and then I interviewed him some more as he drove me to my bus stop. I felt very comfortable around him, maybe too comfortable. At no point did I ever feel afraid. Some questions I asked were more tactful than others. But I knew within minutes that Bruce was a no-frills, no-BS type of guy. If he didn’t like something, he’d tell me. Over the course of our interview, Bruce did become tired and annoyed. I’m sure of it. I had pelted him with questions for over an hour. I had repeatedly asked him to stop shaking his leg. I had made him explain uncomfortable things about his past to me. I had refused his gum. But I don’t think it was a “this girl’s way of asking questions is unbearable, she needs to leave already” kind of annoyance. He wouldn’t have given me a ride or answered more questions if that were the case.

You do bring up an interesting point about “crispy characters.” I have felt conflicted in putting this piece together; I’ve wondered if the piece is interesting only because it involves an ex-con heroin addict with an offensive tattoo. At times I’ve even felt like I was in some ways exploiting Bruce, like “Look everyone, here’s a criminal. What a rough life he’s led!” But I’ve realized that I haven’t portrayed Bruce as just a crispy character or an interview subject. I’ve ended up presenting a story about Bruce. There’s more to him than just being a racist, ex-con druggie. He’s a son, a brother, a sports fan, a person. Whether people like him or not, I think almost everyone can empathize with and relate to him on SOME level–going wayward somewhere, hurting your parents, not getting what you want out of life, and so on.

What happened to your friend is devastating. I’m sorry that happened. There ARE large numbers of dangerous ex-convicts out there, no doubt. I was lucky. But assuming all ex-cons prey on women (something I’m guilty of myself) is an unfair blanket statement. Meeting Bruce was my choice. Rob forced me to consider my safety, but I knew I wanted to (or at least try to) get the story. I went with my gut, and things turned out all right. Bruce is STILL giving me flak over the way I met him. He’s told me several times not to go meeting people off of Craigslist, and I appreciate that. There’s so much about Bruce I don’t agree with, but after spending some time with him, I also see the good in him. Things aren’t so black and white.

Thanks again for your thoughts, Skip. Good stuff to ponder for my future pieces!

Take care,
Emily

Emily here. Thanks for weighing in on the piece. Several people have asked me if I was playing a character–or even a caricature of myself–during the interview. I’m still not sure whether I should be offended or perplexed by that. It’s interesting it sounds that way, because the thought never crossed my mind. That was me in the moment, and it was real.

I interviewed Bruce for over an hour in his truck, and then I interviewed him some more as he drove me to my bus stop. I felt very comfortable around him. Some questions I asked were more tactful than others. But I knew within minutes that Bruce was a no-frills, no-BS type of guy. If he didn’t like something, he’d tell me. Over the course of our interview, Bruce did become tired and annoyed. I’m sure of it. I had pelted him with questions for over an hour. I had repeatedly asked him to stop shaking his leg. I had made him explain uncomfortable things about his past to me. I had refused his gum. But I don’t think it was a “this girl’s way of asking questions is unbearable, she needs to leave already” kind of annoyance. He wouldn’t have given me a ride or answered more questions if that were the case.

You do bring up an interesting point about “crispy characters.” I have felt conflicted in putting this piece together; I’ve wondered if the piece is interesting only because it involves an ex-con heroin addict with an offensive tattoo. At times I’ve even felt like I was in some ways exploiting Bruce, like “Look everyone, here’s a criminal. What a rough life he’s led!” But I’ve realized that I haven’t portrayed Bruce as just a crispy character or an interview subject. I’ve ended up presenting a story about Bruce. There’s more to him than just being a racist, ex-con druggie. He’s a son, a brother, a sports fan, a person. Whether people like him or not, I think almost everyone can empathize with and relate to him on SOME level–going wayward somewhere, hurting your parents, not getting what you want out of life, and so on.

What happened to your friend is devastating. I’m sorry that happened. There ARE large numbers of dangerous ex-convicts out there, no doubt. I was lucky. But assuming all ex-cons prey on women (something I’m guilty of myself) is an unfair blanket statement. Meeting Bruce was my choice. Rob forced me to consider my safety, but I knew I wanted to (or at least try to) get the story. I went with my gut, and things turned out all right. Bruce is STILL giving me flak over the way I met him. He’s told me several times not to go meeting people off of Craigslist, and I appreciate that. There’s so much about Bruce I don’t agree with, but after spending some time with him, I also see the good in him. Things aren’t so black and white.

Thanks again for your thoughts, Skip.

Take care,
Emily

I have mixed feelings about this piece. On one hand, her voice sounds like a teen doing an interview for school & she’s at once thrilled at the thought of being able to show off some gritty tape to her classmates.

She also sounds like she’s overusing “confidence” to mask sheer terror and coming off like a brat instead of cute & sassy. However, for that bit of moxie it took to get into the truck & ride to the beach with a complete stranger’s truck… well gotta give her props for that.

Back in school almost two decades ago, I did something similar video interviewing homeless transients on the street and ultimately hanging out with them taping at a hobo camp by the railroad tracks. At the time I didn’t even think about how wrong that could have gone, especially wielding an expensive video camera and a pocket full of cash around a group of “characters” who mostly didn’t want their faces possibly Identified by authorities. Got great footage, but I have to wonder how bright that was.

I agree with Emily that there should be far more I interviews with regular everyday characters who aren’t YouTube sensations, reality TV stars, entertainers, etc. I think that’s why I’m drawn to you excellent podcast & others like Radiolab, This American Life, 99% Invisible, The Memory Palace, etc. There’s something deeper going on when a story is done well using only sound.

Keep up the stupendous work Sir!

Thanks for writing. Great comments.

First, and most importantly, we took safety precautions. I’m not entirely convinced they were enough, but we had a plan in place. And, I’m terribly sorry to hear about what happened to your friend. Truly.

It’s true, Emily was fascinated by someone who she found to be very different than her. Maybe what you hear is that fascination. What I hear is equal parts curiosity and courage.

I do think he was annoyed by the end. Emily believes it’s because he talked about some difficult subject matter (aging and regret) and hit a wall — he was done and he let her know it. At that moment in the story, he also sounded genuinely interested in her success when he asks if she got what she wanted. He felt completely annoyed, I don’t think he would have asked if it had gone okay.

Perhaps the reason it played like a scene was because it became a scene. It unfolded the way you hear it. She could have chosen, I suppose, to produce an acts and tracks and music piece. But, leaving it relatively verite reveals the rawness of his character and the situation. Frankly, it feels more honest. Another approach might have sanitized the story. And, I think her choice to make the interview itself part of the story was clever.

I should say that the plan was for her to spend time with Bruce while he got the tattoo removed. We hoped that she’d capture the story of someone in transition. The tattoo removal never happened during the workshop (not sure it has since). But, when she returned with this tape, the story seemed complete — his mere contemplation of removing it and his reasons why offered enough of a glimpse into his transition and his character complications.

I hope that helps you understand some of the decisions that were made. I’ll be sure to forward your comments to Emily. Maybe she’ll chime in, too.

All the best, Rob

I also find it difficult to understand why you would encourage a young student contacting a rough ex-con heroin addict on craigslist and getting in his truck to drive off to who knows where to do who knows what… for the sake of an interview with a crispy “character”.

Had a friend who did the same many years ago, but she wasn’t as lucky. They found her body several days later in a North Dallas ravine.

Thanks for posting some comments. Much obliged.

I don’t know if Robert is seen as a leader in stand-ups by others, to be honest, but he sure is by me. Just listen to his reports from NYC after the recent hurricane. Incredible.

Thanks for listening.

Rob

I wish you would have unpacked what the producer said at the beginning, though. About how people responded hostilely to this. It really squares with the story Steve Volk told in his great book, FRINGEOLOGY, about a class of educated people who don’t like anything with the hint of supernatural to even get an airing.

I’m sure loads of that group are public radio listeners. Ha, ha, ha…

As a person who has played around with a bit of public documenting, I always feel very shy about asking strangers to talk to me. I’m surprised you guys didn’t go into that aspect of it.

With Smith’s stories, when he constructs one while talking to people (like in the Bus story), I always think to myself – when he does his little dissertation on the topic at hand – is that person still standing there while he does his mini lecture? That must be awkward. He must have a lot of self-confidence.

Thanks for the note. I’ll forward it to Carma. I’m sure she’ll appreciate your comments.

Best,
Rob

I think it’s an imprecise science. And, it also seems like a potential vortex. There’s ALWAYS more tape to get, right?

It’s possible, the answer lies in having a focus and a plot-line BEFORE you go out to get tape. Without a focus, there’s a tendency to record EVERYTHING because everything has equal weight. A focus helps to narrow your needs. And, creating a penciled-in plot line (a set of scenes for the story) will give you a to-do list and a potential beginning, middle, and end to go after in the field.

As I collect tape, I’m constantly checking back at my focus and my plot-line. As I discover info I didn’t know about initially, I will re-draft my focus and plot-line and continue on. But, as I continue, I connect all the dots in my plot-line. Once those are filled in, I stop.

Or, put another way, I’m editing the whole time I’m collecting tape. They field work and editing take place simultaneously for me.

Hope that helps!

Best,
Rob

I definitely wonder about ‘when is enough’ when interviewing someone, but usually push myself to ask as many questions from as many angles as the person will put up with, then call it a day.

More specifically for me (at the moment) what I am thinking about is at what point do you stop collecting source material and get editing. I know it’s not that simple and I’m sure that different people do it differently, but my current novice approach is to try to collect all the interview tape up front so I have a clear direction of where the piece is going to go, then write, narrate, edit, etc. But given the meandering way these things can go, when do you stop? I appreciate that this open ended approach is a luxury of time most professionals probably don’t have, but any insight into all that is greatly appreciated…