Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

66

[ocr errors]

Mr. Saunders, during the whole period between the suggestion of the interview and its completion, he was the amiable, conciliatory, almost fascinating collaborator. I could bring all my dogs with me to our friendly meeting, and when I protested that that was too, too much, his injunction was, Bring Jack.” The time chosen was one when we might be sure of two hours' quiet, uninterrupted tête-à-tête at Streatham. I can see him now, in his brown velvet coat, stretched out at full length on his back upon a couch in the dining-room of his Streatham residence. He had wheeled me up an arm-chair till it came just abreast his knee. He gave me carte blanche as to time and questions, received with meekness the caresses of " Jack," who had established himself on a chair at his shoulder, in a word, did his best to make my work easy and plain before me. And Mr. Saunders was a man who was not without shrewdness where journalists were concerned. He had a certain dry humor-very dry, perhaps -and as he leant affably upon my arm after the interview, showing me round his place, there was the raw material of the smile in a portion of his conversation at least. I was neither puffed up nor carried away by this câlinerie. It was purely the representative of the great paper that was caressed. The humble individual was recognized as having a transitory importance as an interpreter, as an advertiser perhaps. And the late Mr. Saunders was right. If he was in error at all it was in supposing that the interviewer was not fully cognizant of the business-like considerations that prompted his admirable attitude.

Of course, the interviewee may throw himself into the interview with the exhausting enthusiasm of the egotist, which is very trying, to say the least of it. I recall another Member of the late Parliament, who kept me for three long hours writing, correcting, re-correcting his utterance, till I was dead beat. It was one hundred and eighty minutes' unbroken concentration on the work of shaping and re-shaping his views to what he thought was the best advantage. I read his statements aloud over and over again to him, and

ad nauseam, my own interlarded observations always causing a slight tremor of impatience to flicker across his striking features. I had not grudged the time, if my place in the collaboration had been adequately recognized. As it was, I knew that the outcome of all this straining and striving for three hours would be depressing for every one except the interviewee. However, at the close of our long council, a pleasant human episode amply made up for the weary waste of time I had had to endure.

"You read, of course, my speech on the Second Reading ?" he asked. "I am afraid,' said I, "that I missed that pleasure.

[ocr errors]

"It filled more than a column of The Times," said he, and, then rising, went over to a table, from which he took a copy of the paper in question, brought it back, opened and scanned it with much satisfaction.

It's a pity you haven't read it," said he.

"I shall be very glad to hear it now," said I.

66

My interviewee began to read in a sonorous voice, well calculated to bring out the beauties of his oration. I leaned back in my chair meditating a few moments' mental rest, but not expecting the real refreshment I got. I was roused from a semi-reverie by a rapturous "cheers," and, looking quickly at my interviewee, I saw that he was dilating with the memory of his triumph. He omitted no hear, hear," though each was lightly emphasized, but there was all the exuberance of a great joy in his rendering of the word cheers." He seemed so completely to have forgotten, me, to be so utterly absorbed in his speech, that I surrendered myself unreservedly to the delight of watching him, and my facial expression, I fear, had become too frankly appreciative and indicated too plainly my mood of mind. All would have gone well but that, just when the peroration was within measurable distance, two bracketed "loud cheers" followed each other with too brief an interval between them. The first

[ocr errors]

loud cheers" pleased me immensely, and the second even more than the first. Unhappily, at this moment my

legislator looked up, and I had not time to constrain my features, and above all my eyes to the reverend wonder, awe, and admiration which I knew by instinct that he must expect to find there. I was saddened at once, when I saw a brilliant blush mantle his features. I would not for the world wound the feelings of a man who had done me no harm. In fact, I had but a moment before been rejoicing with one who rejoiced, as I now reddened in sympathy with one who reddened. It was a mere accident, a miscalculation on my part, that had done the mischief. Anyway, the peroration was spoiled both for him and for me. He still went gamely on, but, as Lord Byron says,

[ocr errors]

“Soul was wanting there."

[ocr errors]

There were no more "hear, hears,' cheers,' "loud cheers, 99 66 loud and continued cheering" to break the hurried delivery of that masterpiece. He even heaved a sigh of relief as he went galloping in at the finish. When he had folded up The Times, and I had put my note-book in my pocket, we rose to our feet. After a moment's embarrassed pause, he leant forward, poked me gently in the chest with one forefinger, and said : "You rascal " It was a remark which one might have been justified in taking exception to, but I understood him and smiled appreciatively. If he had allowed me to conduct the conversation more in the spirit of that poke in the chest, it would have proved much better reading, and his dignity in the eyes of the world would have in no way suffered.

But then, alas, these obvious considerations are not always present to the wise and prudent. More often they are revealed to babes. I remember well, when I had occasion in October, 1894, to see the Hon. Lyulph Stanley, on the subject of the controversy between himself and Mr. Riley as leaders of the warring educational parties, he once began a statement thus:

"As I was about to observe, when you cut in with," etc. Now, it is just this "cutting in" which gives vivacity to an interview, even if one can only indicate the conflict between an exuberant loquacity and a grave and sol

The humor of

emn sententiousness. the shock of such conversational elements irradiates the whole article, and renders what would be for the sterner digestion of specialists, a source of good-natured amusement to the shrewder general reader, who is pleased at being able to combine assimilation of useful knowledge with an occasional smile. It is those, however, who are most conscious of their entire perfection, who blend blood, brains, specialism, knowledge, social status, and superiority to antiquarian prejudice in one whole of awe-inspiring completeness, whose Achilles' heel is frequently to be found in an absence of a sense of humor, for one can scarcely call humor the simper of contempt at the slightest manifestation of weakness on the part of inferior mortals.

[ocr errors]

And talking of humor, reminds me that I had the honor and privilege of a newspaper conversation of one hour's duration with that prince of humorists, M. Alphonse Daudet, and to the creator of Tartarin, Bompard and Numa Roumestan, my homage paid was very genuine. He impressed me as being personally as charming as his books lead one to suppose him to be, and he interviewed" well. He entered into the spirit of the thing, his bright and beautiful eyes always on the point apparently of welling over with the fun that darkled and glimmered in them. He was sympathetic, willing to aid, and knew exactly when I had got as much copy as I needed. I mention him because he was not always fairly treated by the interviewers. I do not mean the English interviewers. Indeed, nothing could be more admirable in tone and method, more charming in point of style than Mr. Robert Sherard's rendering of a conversation between himself and M. Daudet, which appeared in The Daily Chronicle. am thinking of certain foreign interviewers who, I should imagine, gave to their reports of their interviews with M. Daudet a color and a tone if nothing else, when he was speaking of this country and its inhabitants, which were originally wanting to his remarks. At least, I should be both surprised and disappointed if I discovered that I was not right in this supposition. If

M. Daudet criticised us unfavorably, I feel sure the expression of his view was redeemed from a repulsive harshness by an excellent vein of banter, which the foreign interviewer for his own purposes took occasion to gloss over.

And this brings me to an important point. The methods of the English interviewer must not be confounded with those which would appear occasionally to find favor with certain of his colleagues across the Channel and the Atlantic. I know that, as for myself, I have never wilfully attributed to any public man anything he did not say. What he said has always been given in his exact words, and I am sure that the same thing is true of the interviewing representative of any English paper of standing. I have not, when contending for the proper prominence of the interviewer in the interview, meant for a moment to suggest that he should trifle with truth or accuracy in his report of the observations of the interviewee. Indeed, I have lost, more than once, a good interview by suppressing, at the latter's request, what would have been very desirable features in a published article. "For God's sake, don't put that down," said a great pro-consul to me, as my pencil was advancing on a nimble path. There was a sigh of regret, a remorseless crossing out, and a meek waiting for the next utterance of Verres. And as regards that interview, if I remember rightly, the published portion was about a third of the material I had got in my note-book. A certain Oriental diplomatist kept me for two hours laboring with him through an interpreter, and then at the end suddenly asked, "Why are you making those notes? I told the interpreter they were to form the basis of my article. To appear in a news paper? "Yes, what did his Excellency suppose I wanted them for, else?" And then the diplomatist rose to his feet, and gesticulated wildly, saying, "No, no, no, I am afraid of the Russians; and that in English, after going through the farce of a couple of hours' interpretation. I have my notes now, but, of course, the interview was never published. I scarcely fancy he would have fared so well at

[ocr errors]

the hands of some American or French interviewers. And, as a matter of fact, I rather felt myself to be victimized, for the intent of my visit had been fully explained by letter, and an appointment made by His Excellency's secretary beforehand. Moreover, I derived no useful information from His Excellency to compensate me for the circumstances under which I was privileged to make his acquaintance. Still his views on Oriental politics remained where they were, as far as I was concerned, since I did not wish to be the innocent cause of his death by strangling, decapitation, or what not, when he returned home to his native land. On the whole, therefore, I should maintain that the English interviewer is a person much more frequently sinned against than sinning in the matter of good faith.

Possibly 1 may seem to lay myself open to the charge of desiring an egotistic intrusion of my own opinions or fleeting impressions, where they are not needed. That is only a seeming, however. If a special interview is desired by a newspaper of importance, the person, honored with a commission to do it, is expected to do it in his own way, to give the article the coloring more or less, that his work usually has. It is understood, perfectly, that there are many men, not unknown to the public, who require just that amount of friction and guidance which a practised journalist can supply, if a column mainly concerned with their personal opinions is to make palatable and pleasant reading. Of course there are magnates on whose slightest utterance the world waits with bated breath; but there are many public men who are not magnates of this water. Their distinction is recognized by a considerable section of the public. while their dulness is only impartially and properly appraised by journalists. Certain persons of this class "work up" into a very fair interview, where the accident of a day for a moment exaggerates their slight ordinary importance, but no editor, of the intelligence of those with whom my journalistic lot has been cast, would, I imagine, assign them a whole column of undiluted utterance unless for very grave reasons.

This does not arise from prejudice, but from an altruistic compassion for the reader. What an editor wants is an interview that will be read with interest by those, who have perfect faith in the honesty and accuracy of the information conveyed in his journal. If it is a paper of standing among the more intellectual newspaper readers of the capital, then he expects, when he honors his representative with his commission, that on both sides, on the side of the interviewer as well as of the interviewee, there should be manifest an intelligent mental activity. For his own reputation, to say nothing of his livelihood, the interviewer is concerned that his work should be good, and in the main this end is best attained by collaboration.

[ocr errors]

There is, further, one way especially in which an interview may, in my opinion, be of the greatest service to a public man. Amid the violence of some heated controversy, he may suddenly find himself involved in a very tangle of misconstruction or misrepresentation. He himself may be quite incapable alone of putting himself right with the world, partly because of the obscuring influence of the " ego," partly because he misses the precise points which are prejudicing the general body of observers against him. His very sincerity may be in doubt. Here the cold-blooded interviewer, for whom the fluttered, wounded amourpropre of the man is only one more subject for treatment, can step in, and guide the interviewee to the really crucial sources of misunderstanding, and point out exactly where the outsider has gone wrong, or he may enable the interviewee to show conclusively to all intelligent readers of the interview, that he is at least honest and earnest, and not a humbug. In fact, there are a thousand circumstances which may render a man anxious to set himself night with his fellows, and in a large number of them he will find the inter

view more serviceable than any other form of newspaper publication.

A prejudice, I know, exists in certain quarters against the form of journalism which I have been discussing. One great paper, for example, which publishes interviews conducted in Paris, holds the home-made article in abhorrence, and cannot away with it in its columns. I have received occasionally notes - rarely, however-in which the correspondent has gone out of his way to condemn interviewing in general. The prejudice, however, is not based on knowledge, I imagine. To write to a gentleman on behalf of a paper of position, and ask for a conversation on some topic of general interest, is surely no very iniquitous proceeding. To call on that gentlemau by appointment is a perfectly decorous act, and to publish with his consent his observations is no breach of faith. He does not complain, nor the public, which has been interested. Why anybody else should shrug his shoulders and grimace, as if his finer feelings had been wounded, I fail to understand. After all, that prejudice, I take it, is passing away, and, as far as it ever had any real justification, is the outcome. of anecdotes of the prowess of the Transatlantic journalist. For myself, I think the interview has come to stay, in one form or another. Sometimes, it may take the shape of an article interspersed with dialogue, sometimes, of an adroitly directed monologue. One can lay down no fixed rules. Each real interview must have its own color, as varying as the moods, or characters, of the different interviewees, though the tone of the individual interviewer may, and in my view should, affect the whole. To conclude, while the interviewer must always be honest and fair, his role in the business should be properly understood, and I can only hope that what I have written may prove helpful and convincing to this end.National Review.

I.

AMERICAN TRAITS.

[ocr errors]

BY MARTIN MORRIS.

THE United States have advanced greatly, by leaps and bounds "commensurate with Niagara, since the days when they were known as our American Colonies, and the inhabitants were supposed to hold their land as in the manor of East Greenwich, near London, and to be represented in Parliament by the members of the county and borough which contained that manor. Nevertheless they are still a young people, in a new country, and their history has yet not only to be written but even to be made. Saved from the deluge that spread over England in the seventeenth century, the Mayflower is the Noah's Ark of the New World, while, as a nation, the States have existed for little more than a hundred years.

Everything is fresh and young and early. There are no oaks, but there are plenty of acorns. They have excellent breakfasts, but they have no afternoon tea. They have not reached that time of day at all yet. There is no past, but there is a future. The country is in no way mature or classical, nor has it any of the associations of custom and tradition. It is not a growth. It was discovered one fine morning and abruptly started, and that not very long ago. Parts of the West are contemporaneous with last night's mushrooms. Rome was not built in a day, but Chicago was. Time has not so far been able to produce a genuine ruin. I saw no moss. In fine, to say briefly what, though probably heard before, experience and personal observation during a short visit confirm very strongly -The United States is no ancient historical playground or mediæval demesne of romance; it is not the home of princes and nobles, churches and shrines, castles and galleries. It is no fairyland, nor can it be said to be rich in legends and myths. It does not abound with antiquities and curiosities, and minia. tures and fossils. The only relics the

country possesses are living specimens -the Indian and the buffalo-and they are very scarce. A few may still be seen in the Indian Reserves and the National Park: great open-air museums where they are kept and protected. In this broad, open country there are no nooks or crannies. There is little that is picturesque, nothing that is artistic. Finally, there are no persons, nor are there any "splendid paupers.

[ocr errors]

In

No this is the land of the people and the miserable Millionaire. This is the country of new cities and of fresh citizens; of clerks and artisans, lawyers and politicians, manufacturers and miners, merchants and farmers, butchers and brokers; of stores and offices, factories and institutions, trains and trams, bells and wires. dustry and trade, labor and capital, stocks, shares, trusts, rings, pools, strikes, monopolies, and syndicates, these are the powers that reign. I remember well how in New York City, instead of spending one's time as a stranger would in London, at such places as the British Museum or the National Gallery, or Westminster Abbey or the Tower, I passed a long day on Blackwell Island going over jails, reformatories, hospitals, and asylums, seeing idiots, lunatics, criminals, and invalids. The way in which I spent that day in the metropolis of the States was, I thought, very characteristic, and 1 showed in the most typical manner the very different interests of the Old and the New Worlds. The sights and specimens to be seen in America are eminently social and economic.

[ocr errors]

Of such is the kingdom of the West and Modern," and as such I was very glad to see it. For, right or wrong, the Americans are the destined pioneers of our civilization. A writer is not much anticipating the importance of the American Republic when, speaking of some event that influenced it, he adds, "and therefore the world " They are the chosen people of the coming century; their country is the Land

« VorigeDoorgaan »