[The Interview Feature] The End: What happens after the last question?

With a lot more than four weeks, The Interview Feature has come to an end. In this final part, the charming interrogator, Theresa Bazelli, asks me questions connected with the processes that happen after an interview has been completed. What happens after the last question and before going up online? Here is the conversation.

---

TB: And so we've coming to the last part of this interview feature. It's fitting that we talk about endings. Journalists may choose to ask a series of questions during an interview, but not publish the answer to every question. Do you do any editing once an interview has finished? Do any questions fall prey to the chopping block? And does the interviewee get the last look before it gets posted?

HM: No, I don’t cut out questions [unless I ask a wrong question, which I admit I have done, when I interviewed artists]. I have had interviewees turn down one or two questions, because they felt that they were too intrusive or too revealing of their next novel [usually]. However, I do not censor my guests and allow them all they freedom they want. Just because I didn’t like or feel enthusiastic about an answer does not mean that somebody won’t, which I keep the interview as intact as possible.

Whatever editing I do is to make the answers flow better with the questions. I add a personal comment here and there to strengthen the coherence and make it all flow better, though I’m still mastering that art. As far as showing the interviewee the last look of the interview, I advise that you do that. I myself rarely manage, which is what I’m currently working on [aka time management rather than anything else].

TB: What happens after the interview gets posted online? How do you let the world know about the awesomeness you just participated in?

HM: I wait and all the comments and adoration find their way to me… Which never happens in the real world, so I have to suck it up and promote it.

I always e-mail the author with a link, who will most likely feature it somewhere. Part of the promotion comes from there. The rest I do through Twitter, which is excellent for these sorts of things. However, I would suggest that a person should tweet a thing four times at most and then cut it out, because it aggravates people. When I discovered how awesome Twitter was for shooting links into the dark I did non-stop, until I followed individuals that do the same. It showed me how annoying that was, so I stopped doing that and the promotion was dropped to a minimum there. There are other websites that one can use such as Digg and the likes, but I am rather chaotic and inconsistent with those.

I’m open to hearing more from better experts, but for now this is what I do.

TB: I want to hear a few stories! Tell me about your favorite interview (if you have one). Tell me about the most popular (perhaps unexpectedly) interviews posted on your blog. Tell me about your worst interview experience (no names mentioned of course).

HM: Popular interviews? I can’t really say which interview is most popular at the moment. I don’t keep a score of which interview fared better than the other as far as hits go. Now I do have a few interviews that got more comments than usual, but those were the early Reviewer Time interviews and the commenters where the loyal readers of said blogs. I’m not particularly interested in ranking my interviews.

I however do have favorites. Most recently I conducted an interview with Nancy Kilpatrick, which is one of the most exciting ones to make, because this is Nancy Kilpatrick after all. I’m most satisfied with the interviews I conducted with Paul Smith and Charles Tan, because they are exceptionally talented bloggers I admire. Then I think should come editor David Moore, who rocked my world with his answers about the industry [he also figured out why I asked him]. The list goes on to include authors such as Blake Charlton, Kaaron Warren and J Robert King. Basically all the newer ones.

As far as negative experiences. I’m not pleased a section of Reviewer Time. I selected guests that I did not exactly feel for and that resulted in piss poor interviews. You can probably spot the lackluster and unimaginative questions I asked.

TB: You mentioned that you hope to improve with each interview. What have you learned through the process so far? Have you made any mistakes that you've learned from? Have you made any discoveries that you're proud of?

HM: What I’ve learned is that the person you’re talking with will react in a way that you’ve not expected. I have come across questions that to me seemed perfect and simply begged to be answered with at least two fat paragraphs, but which received skinny lines instead. The opposite has also happened.

I have learned to be patient with the authors, who I am interviewing since they have all lives and I am asking of their time. Patience is valuable to have, hard to obtain.

I’m sure that they have been mistakes. Delays in my following questions. Delays with starting the interview as well. I have seen that time management and flexibility are not my strong suits, but I’m trying to compensate for those.

Discoveries… Perhaps that if you really try to speak to the person and avoid the obvious, then the magic happens.

TB: I like that - leaving a little room for some magic is an important thing. So, we've finally come to the close of this interview series. Do you have any last words for your readers?

HM: Thanks for reading [though commenting would have been nicer, just saying] and hopefully you have found this entertaining and informative.

[The Interview Feature] Mechanics of the Interview: The How

As I have revealed earlier in September I switched to a new accomplice to help me complete my Interview Feature. Please welcome Theresa Bazelli, a writer in training [quite the treasure] with her own spot on the web, Ink Stained. She’s not from the book reviewer circles, but she’s curious to hear more about interviews and has decided to help [I did not threaten her life… or I may have just a little bit]. *clears throat*

That inappropriate joke aside, in today’s long overdue third installment of the feature I discuss the how of interviewing [specifically how I do it]. How to keep our guests talking or from the opposite, when needed. How to steer the conversation. How to sprinkle controversy and all that is in-between.

---

Theresa Bazelli: You have interviewed a variety of individuals on your blog: authors, publishing professionals, book bloggers, and even the fictional character or two. How do you decide what kinds of questions that you will ask? Do the questions stem from personal interest, what you think that your readers will appreciate hearing, or do you tailor your questions to what the interviewee is interested in?

Harry Markov: Now that you ask it, I came to realize that interviewing is about pleasing everyone. I interview so that I can satisfy my innate curiosity, but I also think what would intrigue the readers. Plus, I believe that the interview should benefit the author and be relevant to his interests. This is a very summed-up answer to such a myriad of questions. It isn’t an exact science, but objective is to make it interesting and pleasurable for everybody. The trick is to be selfless, when doing one [it seems a bit philosophical] and keep in mind that you are not doing it just for you. The best interviews are the ones that make the interviewee speak loads and keep the reader’s focus and attention. I don’t think I have mastered this [as I came to the conclusion just now]. I have a more simplistic approach and it has to do on why I am interviewing a person. Factors like whether I am asking to learn, asking in order to discuss or asking just because help me guide the interview.

TB: You mentioned that the best interviews are when the interviewee's do most of the speaking. Do you have any tips for how to make your interviewees comfortable, and how to get them talking? Do you start with a few warm-up questions or offline introductions before getting to the meat of the interview?

HM: I seem to be saying a lot of things, now aren’t I? Yes, I do have a model I’m most comfortable with, but I can’t honestly offer it as a tip as I think I am stagnating sticking to the same old as far as interviewing technique goes. But here goes. There are always offline introductions to be had before an interview can be considered. As I said in an earlier part, I need a damn good reason to bother someone for an interview. In 80% of the cases I have read a novel so sharing my review with the author is my ice breaker. Once the actual interview starts I thank my guest for accepting my invitation, because to me it is always humbling for someone to hand over his or her time to me without knowing whether my interview would return the investment. But to be able to make people talk the interviewer has to be able to direct the conversation, ask with details and never let the interview wonder what the questions demand as answers. That is one of the things I learned early, but still working on.

TB: Have you ever had an interview go off track and how do you direct the conversation back onto course? Are there any topics that you consider off-limits, or that you try to steer away from?

HM: In the competitive and highly controversial world of literature and publishing, you have to ask with caution lest you step on a mine… Eh, no. Not so much really. Literature is pretty tame compared politics [lame example, but gets the point across]. There are not many taboos. I do think, however, that talking about Science Fiction’s supposed death to a SF author is probably not so tactful. I also avoid talking about the war between literary and speculative fiction. It’s very old and therefore much has been said on the matter. Those are the two major topics I like to keep away from, though I personally have issues not to trash Twilight. I just happen to slip it in from time to time. As far as ever losing control over an interview… No, this has never happened to me, so I can’t say anything on the matter.

TB: So speaking of controversy, does that mean you're with team Edward or team Jacob? I jest. What if your interviewee is not very talkative, or the questions you have asked are not getting much of a response? How do you change your approach?

HM: I am team Buffy. She kicks ass and is the natural predator of both Edward and Jacob. One can hope that she also deals with the raving and brainwashed fans. One can dream about chainsaw nun-chucks…

Ahem, but I seem to be digressing…

In the first instance, I don’t force someone to spill out paragraph after paragraph just because I want a longer interview. Perhaps the person in question is a man/woman of few words. It’d be a shame to demand more than what that person is comfortable sharing. Then again, I might be saying all this because I keep missing the magic formula that makes anyone and everyone talk and talk. Go figure. It’s all subjective, but coming from my experience such people do exist as do interviewers who have the gift to squeeze out information out of every interviewee.

As far as the second scenario goes… I keep my question and answer in the interview I post, if that is what you’re asking me. I don’t ask people for do-overs because that would be insulting. I try to avoid these downs in conversations by doing my homework beforehand.

TB: Have you ever conducted an interview on a subject that you weren't really interested in, and had hard time coming up with questions? How do you keep finding interesting questions? How do you keep from repeating yourself and keeping things as fresh?

HM: Yes, I admit that among my interviews I agreed to interview an author on request, rather than me contacting him. The result was a lack-luster and short interview that served as additional promo material for him, but to me was very unsatisfying. It was an impulse decision, because I’m rarely contacted by US publicists. I would have done a better one had I read his novel first [it is a good novel], but I was swamped and time was of the essence.

I did a standard 10-question introductory review without juicy, interesting questions that you are referring to. Those need a lot of background information to come up with. I usually end up with a lot of scratched off questions that never get send, because they are obvious. As Leo has said: ‘We need to go deeper’. And that is what I try to do everything. There is more often than not something special in each person to dig for questions.

That is my strategy for keeping things fresh as well. Part of why I closed my feature Reviewer Time [where I interview book reviewers] is because after awhile interviews boil down to the same topics and rephrasing keeps the charm only for so long. I need a new scandal, shit storm or epic news to add diversity in my questions. Repetition is an enemy, but sometimes it’s even good to have it pop up, because asking the same questions to wildly different people will get a different set of answers and give the interviewer a wider understanding of whatever topic he’s asking about.

TB: Are there any scandals, headlines, or storms that you see on the horizon? Are there any subjects that really pique your interest right now? Do you have a dream list of interviewees (alive or dead) that you would chomp at the bit to interview if it were possible?

HM: At the moment, I’m out of shape and far from tuned to the massive monster that is the blog-o-sphere. I’m interested in the upcoming zombie TV series ‘The Walking Dead’, which isn’t as book related [although I currently learned that it was optioned for a trilogy as well] as it could be. Storms happen all year long to be honest. We’re an ever-growing lot and we’re opinioned, so we step on our toes every so often and that results in what reviewers call ‘shit storms’. So far there is a sign that one may crop up soon enough… I’m not sure why I’m never involved in those [they look like fun]. I guess I’m an on-looker.

To answer the second part, I’m currently interested in how anthologies are assembled. It’s not entirely new as a topic for me, but it has held my interest so far the longest. As far as my own special list goes, I’d definitely go with the obvious: Poe, Lovecraft, Tolkien [Jane Austin as embarrassing as it is] and Angela Carter. From the living I’d pick Stephen King and the weird Haruki Murakami. I’m not good at listing to be honest. I’m sure I have way more.

TB: So you've asked a bunch of questions. How do you create on a logical conclusion to an interview? Do you factor in time constraints or interview length? Do you just cut it off, or do you ask the interviewee for a final word?

HM: In the beginning I did not use anything to mark the end of an interview. It ended and that was that. No clue or anything. After reading enough interviews I spotted how interviewers prepped their guests for the end, giving them the opportunity to say whatever they had on their mind as a final word. I rarely bother with time constraints or length. I like to talk and listen to others. I wouldn’t interview them otherwise and the e-mail allows me to go at length without bothering with time or length.

[The Interview Feature] Types of Interviews

Foreword: Last week Amanda and I discussed the motivations and prep work that go behind an interview. This week we are talking about the types of interviews and how the interviewee influences the length and the style of the interview. Among certain topics, we will discuss the tailored and the static interviews. Or more likely, Amanda will ask and I will be the resident know-it-all.

Amanda: Once you have picked your victim (mwah ha ha!), does that affect the type of interview you will conduct?

Harry: As any good serial killer will tell you, you need to stalk your victims thoroughly and learn all their habits. Where they eat, what they eat, what they read and their preferred choice as far as toilet paper goes. All these are essential. The same applies to good interviewing [even though the comparison is slightly creepy], because it gets the interviewer tuned to the wavelength of the author.

This beneficial in two ways. One, you as an interviewer seem professional [unless I’m delusional about the impressions I make], who knows how to do this. Two, it gets the most out of the conversation and the interview is the best it can be. There is no point in being overly serious when talking to an easy-going author or dropping jokes when speaking to a restraint author.

Amanda: Are some people suited to a different style of interview?

Harry: Yes, I believe so as much as I don’t believe in labeling and categorizing people. I believe that given the right circumstances, a person can be suited for any and every type of conversation. I also believe the same to be valid about interviews, but even so, a person is predisposed to one or two conversation models [judging by myself and the interactions I’ve had with authors and people in general].

I am not as skilled to discern how an author will react to my questions and how he prefers to be interviewed. The written interviews don’t give that kind of information. Now, if the author has podcasts online, I can hear in his voice, whether he likes it shorter or longer, more serious or lighter.

Amanda: Is there ever any benefit of simply asking the same questions of every person you interview? Should you always tailor?

Harry: Yes and no. If you interview an author, then you really want to know more about their work, a book in particular and the author as a person. It’s also safe to assume that you want to learn different things from different authors. It’s common sense to tailor. Otherwise, it shows you are interviewing for the sake of having content on your blog. For the sake of the argument, lets say you’re consistent in what you ask and are comfortable asking [very curious] about a limited number of topics. Then you will receive the satisfaction from the interview, but your readers will eventually get fed up with the same questions.

However, repeating questions works when you’re doing a group interview [kinda obvious]. I believe that Booklife.com has the best examples of how the group interview works. Though, I guess, these interviews group all the answers together. So not exactly what you have in mind. This can also work, when you want to establish a trend and ask authors the same, then sum it up and analyze.

Amanda: How many questions makes a decent length interview? Do some authors prefer shorter interviews to longer? Are you ever given any real guidance or should you just decide yourself?

Harry: There is no universally accepted length. I usually go between 15-20 questions, since I feel comfortable with the longer form. Sometimes though, I can’t personally keep to the number, because I do not feel as nosy about a particular person or because there has been no spark between me and the interviewee. The length is determined by these two factors. If the interviewer is shameless in his/hers nosiness then the interview will be longer and vice versa. The second factor is how well the interviewer clicks with the interviewee. Sometimes the chemistry is not there and the interview shortens or is skinny.

But to answer your question, I think that authors, who reply with one or two sentences on average are best candidates for short interviews. Fewer questions, shorter answers. It just feels proportioned. Authors who answer with multiple paragraphs are more likely to enjoy a much longer interview. Again, proportion-wise speaking.

Amanda: How do you make it sound as though you are conducting an actual conversation in an interview when you have to send across specific questions, and don't know the responses beforehand?

Harry: I send a batch of questions first [six to ten]. When I receive the answers I send a follow-up and then connect the questions with the answers. It’s like plastic surgery. Not entirely organic as far as the flow is considered, but not stilted as sending the whole set of questions. It’s not that hard to do, especially when discussing topics you enjoy. However, there are some truly awesome conversations [not interviews, not really], where the initiator asks a question and the whole is a natural question-reply. I consider Mark Charan Newton’s recent conversation with Alden Bell as the purest and most awesome example of the conversational interview.

Amanda: When is it more beneficial to do a very short interview? What kinds of questions would you ask then to keep it sweet and snappy?

Harry: Two reasons come to mind. One, when you want to be funny and the interview is a way to get a good laugh with the author [given that you know the author]. Two, when you don’t know the author’s work. A version of the last would be promoting a work of the author, which you have not yet read. If you are conducting an interview for any other reason, then a longer chat would be a better option.

I’ve yet to do a gag-interview. I do enjoy some cheekiness here and there, but interrogation is my true vocation. When I start asking questions, I mean business [even if the result is not as I want it to be] and that’s that. Now, for the second scenario. I’d say trust your gut and ask the very first questions that pop. What’s the book about? What makes it different from the evil competition, thus worthy of our attention? Everyone has a different set of go-to questions that are the first to come to mind.

[The Interview Feature] Motivation, Prep Work, Expectations

Introduction: The Interview Feature will run for four installments every Saturday throughout September. I’ve not named it a Guide to Interviewing or How to Interview or any other presumptuous title implying I’m an authority on interviewing. There are plenty of reviewers I know, who provide epic and in-depth interviews: Larry Nolen and Aidan Moher. Through this feature, modeled as an interview itself, I share my experience and opinions on interviewing.

It’s my experience and I don’t consider myself at the top of the game. My co-conspirer and aid is Amanda Rutter [Floor to Ceiling Books], who wanted to know more about interviewing authors and helped me set this one up. Can’t deny there’s not an egocentric moment involved, but it’s done entirely to help people, who want information on the subject. I hope it does that. In this first installment, Amanda asks me questions about my dabbling with interviews, my motivation, prep work and expectations. Enjoy [as it is written to be funny].

Amanda: So....You're, like, really great at this interviewing lark - I dig the interrogation techniques you use. I always imagine you shining a light in your victim's eyes and demanding they answer just one more question! I had the pleasure of answering some of your rather dreamy questions a couple of months back, and it got me wondering whether you would be willing to spill some of your closely-guarded secrets as to how you achieve the BEST interview?

Go on, Harry! Tell all!

Harry: What? Me? You sure you have the right guy? *looks around* Thank you for the compliment, lovely interviewer, whom I have interviewed before. It would be a pleasure to answer your questions with the utmost care. For starters, I'd like to stress how the standard interrogation techniques have become outdated and are no longer applicable, when dealing with today's modern human psyche [which may or may not be under the influence of squirrel overlords]. I don't bother with lights and harsh voice. One must become nefarious in order to extract the right amount of quantity and what is more nefarious than chocolate pudding. My main technique involves a tied to a chair victim... eh, interviewee, a bowl of the homemade [vital detail] chocolate pudding and time. Sooner or later the interviewee's digestive tract becomes your ally.

But then again, these small tricks and techniques are in a perpetual state of modification as I am never truly satisfied with my interrogations.

Amanda: First of all, I wanted to ask you how you choose your candidates. I mean, do you just have a wall of author / publisher / editor photos and throw a dart to decide the next one? Is it thanks to a new book being published, or do you interview more randomly?

Harry: No... No, darts I'm afraid. My aim is disastrous. I have commissioned a small Wheel of Fortune to be mounted on my living room wall, though. I will fit the slots with pictures and will have a random interviewee generator.

While that is in the works, I revert to a simpler approach. I read through my never-ending bookstacks and when a book becomes an extraordinary experience, I know I would love to hear the story behind it and get to know the mind, which wrote it. I work best, when I am fully involved with the concept of interviewing someone. As I am quite emotional and impressionable, I need an emotional connection with the work [applicable only to novels] in order to produce better questions. Something I am working on to change at the moment.

Amanda: And what gives with interviewing more than just authors? Really, what do those other folk have to say that your adoring public would find interesting?

Harry: Adoring is a strong word. [I hope that it's true, public.] While I do try keep content restricted to literature, because, hey, I run a book blog, I am interested in a lot more than reading. I imagine that most people are multi-dimensional as far as their interests and hobbies are concerned. Who knows, maybe I can engage new readers or perhaps new readers will discover something new.

I experimented a lot with interviewing artists, but since all forms of drawing are alien to me that experiment did not last for long as I grew repetitive in my questioning patterns. However, I enjoyed interviewing industry people. I have interviewed Lee Harris from Angry Robot Books and Dave from Abaddon Books, both topping my personal charts as funny and insightful. Reviewers and the industry are building bridges and I think that bit by bit our interactions with people inside the industry leaks out on the blogs. So why not show more of the industry to the reader. After all, we are all bookaholics.

Amanda: I'm doing this in such a roundabout fashion, but maybe you could also explain why you go to such lengths in your interviews?

Harry: For one, it is in my nature to ask more. The likeliest sentence to come out of my mouth is a question, which translates to longer interviews. But more often than not I try to surpass other interviews with the same people. I imagine it being daunting to be contacted, cut out a slot for a person you don't know in your schedule [which in some cases is a real challenge] and find that you have to answer the ten or so questions, you have been answering for the past six or seven interviews.

Sure, the author receives promotion and the readers [let's suppose] have not read previous interviews with the said author, so it is a win-win situation. But I think that it's better for everybody, when the interviewer aims for the best possible and most informative interview. The readers diversify their information diet and authors are more often than not grateful for the fresh questions.

Though to be honest, sometimes it's hard to bring something new to the table. It depends on the interviewee and the tone of the interview.

Amanda: What do you enjoy about interviewing? What are the benefits?

Harry: I enjoy it, because I get to talk to people I admire and like, creatively and professionally. This is as much for my readers and traffic as it is personal. One cannot talk about benefits as if this is a business transaction, but of unexpected surprises. I have had the pleasure of developing friendly e-mail exchanges with various authors I have interviewed and it has been enriching.

Amanda: What should people consider before they take the plunge for the first time?

Harry: Tough one. Have a clear idea I guess. If you want a fun, quirky interview, then you should aim for the right author and the right questions to get that effect. A rookie should think about whether he would feel comfortable asking fewer or more questions, whether to use default questions or segment the process by using the first round of answers to inspire the second round of questions. It's not vital to get it right at first or stick with one model over time. The interviewer just needs to actively think about it with every sequential interview.

Amanda: Then, I guess, maybe you could tell us how best to approach the person in question - do you contact authors through their publishers, or can you just send them an email asking for interview time?

Harry: I do it directly. However, I do think that while you can reach a considerable amount of authors [debut authors, small press authors, midlisters and even some bestselling ones] with a direct e-mail, you do need to contact publishers and agents for the big guns. I am talking Gaiman, Kay, King, Le Guin...

Amanda: How does it feel having the tables turned? *evil grin* Are you sweating under my unique interrogation skillz? I shall let you off the hook - for now - but next time I want to ask you about the types of interviews that can be conducted. Prepare yourself!

Harry: My inner attention whore has been activated and is starved for attention. Bring it on. I am quite fond of talking about myself, so handling you and your hellish nosiness should not be an issue.