ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2015
- Jonathan Franzen, who was hailed as the "Great American Novelist" by Time Magazine in 2009, joined MPR News' Kerri Miller on stage to kick off the 2015 Talking Volumes series on Sept. 15, 2015. Franzen's latest book, "Purity," debuted in early September to glowing reviews.
I have no tolerance for interviewers who play the role of devil's advocate. 15 minutes of this was enough. I only kept watching so I could decide whether my generous view of Franzen the person was going to hold up and , it did. So, Franzen does a great job of respecting his audience. In all interviews or talk I have seen him give, he has proved to be unfailingly perceptive and charming and the interview is worthwhile. Watch this only if you want to see what a decent person he presents as.
Miller seems to be trying to appear bold or edgy, trying to get Franzen to erupt with her cliche' laden barbs. Interesting that he keeps his cool and actually makes the interview entertaining.
Franzen is gently generous and unfathomably tolerant in the company of this inane drunken interviewer.
The interview was fine. I think they both liked each other. The only thing pompous is the comment section, as usual.
Post the full James Ellroy interview please
Miller needs to lay off the liquor. She doesn't need more fuel for her defensive, confrontational manner...
Imagine if Terri Gross had done this long interview.
Think how much...better it would be.
😐
When Norman Mailer was asked his opinion of Jonathan Franzen, he said, "Well, I've read him, and I'll tell you, I got exactly the same impression from his writing as I did from reading Thomas Pynchon. And that is: he is either a great writer, or he has perpetrated one of the greatest literary frauds in history. That's how I feel about him. As I said, I felt the same way when reading Pynchon. And I admit it: I can't tell whether it's great writing or he's an absolute literary fraud. I would lean toward the latter explanation. But I just don't know."
What a weird interview. Kerri Miller does not seem to be interested in taking advantage of the fact that she is talking to a very thoughtful, intelligent writer, and seems content to prod him for self deprecating anecdotes, with vague psychological implications. She asks shallow, relatively uninteresting questions, and Franzen has to jump through mental hoops to come up with interesting responses. You can tell she likes Franzen, but she seems to be trying to trap him, or trip him up, so he will embarrass himself, like a jealous little sister. She comes off as trying to sound smarter than she is, and Franzen winds up just playing softball with her.
+Adoniram McCarthy The "shallow, relatively uninteresting questions" are a big part of why I don't listen to her interviews on air. She has all these amazingly smart and diverse guests on. She constantly squanders their time together. Always trying for a conversational tone with the guest and radio audience. She asks the guest for info they would give without the prodding or info she gave in their intro. MPR runs a promo for her show where Steve Seal boldly states "Kerri Miller, asking the questions that NEED to be answered" Then they play a tiny clip of her asking something like "But what ABOUT the BWCA water shed?" "How DID ISIS become a internet phenomenon?" "Why are BLACK people repressed?" While all those questions should be answered my issue is they already have been and she is not adding much of anything to the conversation. Maybe MPR/Kerri don't believe it's audience is of high intelligent capacity. Maybe she thinks "trapping" an interviewee is the same as hard hitting journalism? She wants specific answers out of him. He doesn't like it but plays cat and yarn ball anyway. The art of the interview is compelling. This is not compelling. It's lite fair with a heavy, albeit long-winded, writer.
I'm actually enjoying it quite a lot (the first ten minutes at least -- will watch the rest when I'm not supposed to be working). Franzen obviously has a sense of humour beyond the written word and is something of a performer. His answers so far (first 10 minutes) have already offered some interesting insights. I'm reading Freedom and his answers here suggest to me that Walter and Richard may be two aspects of Franzen's own nature, with the Jekyll-and-Hydesque duality between the "nice Minnesotan boy" and the minor rock star (/celebrity writer?). So the line of questioning and the style in which the questions are put are yielding some interesting answers as well as an entertaining performance.
...I liked it...
This interview is best heard while doing something else at the same time.
I cannot stand this interviewer. Typically, from watching other Franzen interviews, is so easy to pick his brain and get A+ answers from him. Horrible job in this one
Terrible, thoughtless interview. She approaches Franzen as if she thinks he is a stand-up comedian.
Shwe is terrible !
Surely it should be 'tewwible.'