LIC Masterclass in Interview

Tuesday 13th October 10.00am-2.30pm in Building 19, Room 1003

Dr. Margaretta Jolly (University of Sussex; co-director of the Centre for Life History and Life Writing Research)

Life writing and the interview: A masterclass

This master class will develop ongoing debates about the relationship between oral and written life stories and between oral history and life writing criticism. We will do this through considering the particular meeting point of the interview, an under-considered but central element of much life story writing. The class will include practical exercises and assessment of a range of interview techniques. To prepare, please read:

James, Daniel. "Listening in the Cold: The Practice of Oral History in an Argentine Meatpacking Community."

Frisch, Michael H. "Oral History and the Digital Revolution: Toward a Post-Documentary Sensibility." 

Both in The Oral History Reader (second edition). Eds. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson. London: Routledge, 2006.

Please also think about the following quotes, and bring your own examples of interviewing or orality in life story research to discuss.

‘Raymond Gold (1958), suggested four ‘ideal’ type researcher roles, ranged along a continuum from complete observer through observer as participant and participant as observer to complete participant. The continuum captures nicely the delicate balance needed between the relatively distanced, unattached, objective observer and the relatively involved, subjective participant: in life document research the latter, more subjective, view is stressed – and to gain this, intensive involvement between researcher and subject is a must. Simply getting respondents to write ‘raw’ letters or simply flicking on a tape recorder for a subject to ‘tell their story’ will certainly provide a subjective tale, but it will lack the depth and detail that could be gleaned if the researcher was immersed in the subject’s world for a long time and tried to build up an in-depth description from the inside.’ Kenneth Plummer. Documents of Life 2: An Invitation to a Critical Humanism. 2nd ed. ed. London: SAGE, 2001. Page 208-209

‘Oral history was [Dmae] Roberts’s primary source of information about her mother’s past, but she was working with a reluctant informant. When interviewed, her mother spoke without feeling of her own early life, giving information only reluctantly and in small bits and pieces. In addition, Roberts’s effort was inhibited by a language barrier: her mother’s limited grasp of English and her own weak grasp of Chinese. What this meant for the documentary was that she could not rely on oral history actualities to carry the programme. These problems, then, forced Roberts to be creative in presenting her mother’s story.’   Charles Hardy III. "Authoring in Sound: Aural History, Radio and the Digital Revolution."  The Oral History Reader. Eds. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson. London: Routledge, 2006. 393-405. Pg 400

‘John Lennon was easy to interview. If he was in the right mood, in the right humour and didn’t just say, get lost; if it didn’t happen to be a day he had decided was a day for not talking, then he was easy. Paul loved talking, but could be careful and calculating, not really giving himself away. George had hobbyhorses, from which it could be hard to unmount him, some of them very boring. Ringo was amusing, but in the end had not a lot to say. John, at the right time, told you everything, asked or unasked, bashing and lashing out all over the place, his friends and enemies, rubbishing himself as much as anyone or anything else.’ Hunter Davies. ‘Forward’, to Jann Wenner’s interview with John Lennon for Rolling Stone magazine, 1971 (interview itself, New York, 1970), reprinted for Great Interviews of the 20^th Century by Guardian News and Media, 2007.

For further information please contact Anne Collett (anne_collett@uow.edu.au )