All this needs an introduction. Nameless writes: “I am pleased to report that I have concluded arrangements to become the host of an Internet network radio interview program designed exclusively for authors, and I would like to invite any of who who would like to schedule a 15-minute interview to contact me . . . I will respond with a note giving you complete instructions, and scheduling will be done once you have fully complied.”
Interested, I queried. An additional letter advised to follow six steps; some are 1) a list of 8 to 10 questions you would like to have us ask, and a concise answer to each one. This is the most critical request, and read it again for its full weight. At first I was confused. Why have me pose questions and then answer them for you? We go on. 2) a small .jpg image of yourself (head shot preferred); 3) a smalll .jpg image of your book cover. Here I forwarded a jpeg of the cover of The i Tetralogy, which has swastikas on its cover; 3) a short (60 words maximum) summary of your book. He knew full well the book was about the Holocaust. These were the crucial questions.
As you can imagine, I spent some time on the questions, in all seriousness and with care.
I received this email in response, irrelevant portions deleted. “. . . I did review your questions, though, and I wonder if you could possibly re-work them more about positive things. The ones you framed for me are quite confrontive and challenging. The purpose of the program is to give other authors good information that that they can use as they build their books and marketing campaigns, while what you suggested feels to me more like an emphatic and almost argumentative justification for your writing. It is all right to have a ’cause,’ and we can discuss that, but I’d rather be talking for most of our 15 minutes together, about how you function as a writer — your habits, your triumphs, your problems (not with subject matter) but certainly with plot, story arc, organization of materials, research and such other items that trouble so many writers everywhere . . . .”
In an earlier letter I advised him that the book was about the Holocaust. Apparently, the Holocaust is a “cause.” Hmmm. Well, I’m not in Shoah business. If I had known he wanted snowball questions, I probably would have pitched a few to him. Clearly he has his agenda and it is rather shallow. I did not ask for an analyis; he had never held the book in hand which might have been his first task as an interviewer — too busy, I imagine. Here is my answer.
Dear Nameless, the questions come from the autobiographical essay at the end of the novel; it has been published separately as an individual essay, to my surprise. So, others think differently than you do, and have a different point of view than you have. I am not into “causes,” to say the very least; it is a very false assumption. The topic is a difficult one and I have no need to “sweeten” it. I don’t believe my task is to serve other writers. Perhaps iif you had sketched out, as you have here, what you wanted I could have responded differently. (I have been interviewed before) PIF (online) Derek Alger, editor, will publish a major interview this June. However, I don’t think this will work simply because we approach it so differently. “Confrontive and challenging” –I consider that a compliment. I will decline. I do, however, appreciate your efforts.”
His response: “Thanks anyway.”
What I should have said is — Fuck you, you hustling little shit . . . Next time!
Leave a Reply