Here is a summary of “The Interview” and the answers to the questions from the provided excerpts, drawing on the information in the sources.
Summary of “The Interview”
The chapter “The Interview” examines the nature of the interview as a common tool in journalism. It explores the diverse perspectives on interviews, noting that while some view them positively as a source of truth and even an art form, many celebrities see them negatively. For these individuals, interviews can feel like an unwarranted intrusion, diminishing their essence, akin to the belief in some primitive cultures that a photograph steals one’s soul. Notable figures like V. S. Naipaul felt wounded by interviews, Lewis Carroll had a “just horror” of them, and Rudyard Kipling condemned them as immoral and vile. Despite these criticisms and acknowledged drawbacks, the interview remains a highly serviceable medium of communication. According to Denis Brian, interviews are now a primary way we gain vivid impressions of contemporaries, making interviewers very influential.
The second part of the chapter features an interview with the acclaimed writer Umberto Eco by Mukund Padmanabhan. Eco, primarily a professor with extensive academic work, is widely known for his massively successful novel, The Name of the Rose. He explains his remarkable productivity by revealing his method of writing during “empty spaces” or “interstices” like waiting for an elevator. Eco describes his academic writing style as playful and personal, distinct from typical dry academic prose, stemming from his doctoral research approach of narrating the process. Despite his fame as a novelist, Eco identifies himself first and foremost as a university professor, finding it bothersome when people only know him for his novels. Regarding the immense success of The Name of the Rose, which sold millions globally, Eco calls it a mystery that cannot be predicted, suggesting journalists and publishers often underestimate readers’ willingness to engage with challenging material.
Answers to Questions
Here are the answers to the questions provided in the excerpts, explained for clarity:
Questions from Part I:
What are some of the positive views on interviews? 🤔 Some positive views mentioned are that, in its highest form, the interview can be a source of truth and, in its practice, an art. It is also considered a supremely serviceable medium of communication. Interviewers are seen as holding a position of unprecedented power and influence today because our most vivid impressions of contemporaries often come through interviews.
Why do most celebrity writers despise being interviewed? 😒 Most celebrity writers often despise being interviewed because they view it as an unwarranted intrusion into their lives. They may also feel that it somehow diminishes them. For instance, V. S. Naipaul felt he was wounded by interviews and lost a part of himself, Lewis Carroll had a “just horror” and disliked being lionized, and Rudyard Kipling called it immoral, a crime, an assault, cowardly and vile. Saul Bellow described it as being like “thumbprints on his windpipe”.
What is the belief in some primitive cultures about being photographed? 👻 In some primitive cultures, it is believed that if one takes a photographic portrait of somebody, then one is stealing that person’s soul.
What do you understand by the expression “thumbprints on his windpipe”? 💨 The expression “thumbprints on his windpipe” was used by Saul Bellow. It metaphorically describes interviews as being like pressure or choking on one’s throat, suggesting a feeling of discomfort, violation, or being stifled by the interview process.
Who, in today’s world, is our chief source of information about personalities? 📰 According to Denis Brian, in today’s world, our most vivid impressions of our contemporaries are through interviews. Almost everything of moment reaches us through one man asking questions of another. This indicates that interviewers are our chief source of information about personalities.
Questions from Part II (Understanding the text):
Do you think Umberto Eco likes being interviewed? Give reasons for your opinion. 🤔➡️🤷 Based on the text, Umberto Eco appears to tolerate or accept interviews, but it’s not clear if he necessarily “likes” them. He states that it bothers him that most people know him only as “the novelist” when he identifies primarily as a university professor. He explicitly calls his statement about being a “university professor who writes novels on Sundays” “not a joke”. He attends academic conferences, not meetings of writers. While he engages in the interview and even tells stories or makes jokes, his strong identification with his academic identity suggests the focus solely on his novel writing, which often happens in interviews, is not his preference.
How does Eco find the time to write so much? ⏳✍️ Umberto Eco finds the time to write so much by utilising the “empty spaces” in his life. He calls these spaces “interstices” and uses them productively. For example, he mentions writing an article while waiting for an elevator to go up a few floors.
What was distinctive about Eco’s academic writing style? 📚✨ Eco’s academic writing style is distinctive because it has a playful and personal quality. It marks a departure from the standard academic style, which is usually depersonalised and often dry and boring. He writes by telling the “story of the research,” even including his trials and errors.
Did Umberto Eco consider himself a novelist first or an academic scholar? 👨🏫📖 Umberto Eco considered himself an academic scholar first. He states explicitly, “I consider myself a university professor who writes novels on Sundays. It’s not a joke”. He identifies with the academic community and attends academic conferences.
What is the reason for the huge success of the novel, The Name of the Rose? 📈❓ Umberto Eco states that the huge success of The Name of the Rose is a mystery. He believes nobody can predict such success. He also suggests that if he had written it ten years earlier or later, it wouldn’t have had the same impact. While it dealt with medieval history, he doesn’t confirm that as the sole reason. He notes that journalists and publishers were puzzled because they expected people only to like “trash”.