Ojai Orange.com | home | archives | press | contact us

Ojai Orange | The Column of Lasting Insignificance October 10, 2009
John Wilcock - January 5, 2008


  The column of lasting insignificance  

also posted:

November 26 2011
November 19, 2011
November 12, 2011
November 5, 2011
October 29, 2011
October 22, 2011
October 15, 2011
October 8, 2011
October 1, 2011
September 24, 2011
September 17, 2011
September 10, 2011
September 4, 2011
August 27, 2011
August 20, 2011
August 13, 2011
August 6, 2011
July 30, 2011
July 23, 2011
July 16, 2011
July 9, 2011
July 2, 2011
June 25, 2011
June 18, 2011
June 11, 2011
June 4, 2011
May 28, 2011
May 21, 2011
May 14, 2011
May 7, 2011
April 30, 2011
April 23, 2011
April 16, 2011
April 9, 2011
April 2, 2011
March 26, 2011
March 19, 2011
March 12, 2011
March 5, 2011
February 26, 2011
February 19, 2011
February 12, 2011
February 5, 2011
February 5, 2011
January 29, 2011
January 22, 2011
January 15, 2011
January 6, 2011

December 25, 2010
December 18, 2010
December 11, 2010
December 4, 2010
November 27, 2010
November 20, 2010
November 13, 2010
November 6, 2010
October 30, 2010
October 23, 2010
October 16, 2010
October 9, 2010
October 2, 2010
September 25, 2010
September 18, 2010
September 11, 2010
September 4, 2010
August 28, 2010
August 21, 2010
August 14, 2010
August 7, 2010
July 31, 2010
July 24, 2010
July 17, 2010
July 10, 2010
July 3, 2010
June 26, 2010
June 19, 2010
June 12, 2010
June 5, 2010
May 29, 2010
May 22, 2010
May 15, 2010
May 8, 2010
May 1, 2010
April 24, 2010
April 17, 2010
April 10, 2010
April 3, 2010
March 27, 2010
March 20, 2010
March 13, 2010
March 6, 2010
February 27, 2010
February 20, 2010
February 13, 2010
February 6, 2010
January 30, 2010
January 23, 2010
January 16, 2010
January 9, 2010
January 2, 2010

December 26, 2009
December 19, 2009
December 12, 2009
December 5, 2009
November 28, 2009
November 21, 2009
November 14, 2009
November 7, 2009
October 31, 2009
October 24, 2009
October 17, 2009
October 10, 2009
October 3, 2009
September 26, 2009
September 19, 2009
September 12, 2009
September 5, 2009
August 29, 2009
August 22, 2009
August 15, 2009
August 8, 2009
August 1, 2009
July 25, 2009
July 18, 2009
July 11, 2009
July 4, 2009
June 27, 2009
June 20, 2009
June 13, 2009
June 6, 2009
May 30, 2009
May 23, 2009
May 16, 2009
May 9, 2009
May 2, 2009
April 25, 2009
April 18, 2009
April 11, 2009
April 4, 2009
March 28, 2009
March 21, 2009
March 14, 2009
March 7, 2009
February 28, 2009
February 21, 2009
February 14, 2009
February 7, 2009
January 31, 2009
January 24, 2009
January 17, 2009
January 3, 2009

December 27, 2008
December 20, 2008
December 13, 2008
December 6, 2008
November 29, 2008
November 22, 2008
November 15, 2008
November 8, 2008
November 5, 2008
November 1, 2008
October 25, 2008
October 18, 2008
October 11, 2008
October 4, 2008
September 27, 2008
September 20, 2008
September 13, 2008
September 6, 2008
August 30, 2008
August 23, 2008
August 16, 2008
August 9, 2008
August 2, 2008
July 26, 2008
July 19, 2008
July 12, 2008
July 5, 2008
June 28, 2008
June 21, 2008
June 14, 2008
June 7, 2008
May 31, 2008
May 24, 2008
May 17, 2008
May 10, 2008
May 3, 2008
April 26, 2008
April 19, 2008
April 12, 2008
April 5, 2008
March 29, 2008
March 22, 2008
March 15, 2008
March 8, 2008
March 1, 2008
February 23, 2008
February 16, 2008
February 9, 2008
February 2, 2008
January 26, 2008
January 19, 2008
January 12, 2008
January 5, 2008

December 29, 2007
December 22, 2007
December 15, 2007
December 8, 2007
December 1, 2007
November 24, 2007
November 17, 2007
November 10, 2007
November 3, 2007
October 27, 2007
October 20, 2007
October 13, 2007
October 6, 2007
September 29, 2007
September 22, 2007
September 15, 2007
September 8, 2007
September 1, 2007
August 25, 2007
August 18, 2007
August 11, 2007
August 4, 2007
July 28, 2007
July 21, 2007
July 14, 2007
July 7, 2007
June 30, 2007
June 23, 2007
June 16, 2007
June 9, 2007
June 2, 2007
May 19, 2007
May 12, 2007
May 5, 2007
April 28, 2007
April 21, 2007
April 14, 2007
April 7, 2007
March 31, 2007
March 24, 2007
March 17, 2007
March 10, 2007
March 3, 2007
February 24, 2007
February 17, 2007
February 10, 2007
February 3, 2007
January 20, 2007
January 13, 2007
January 6, 2007

December 30, 2006
December 23, 2006
December 16, 2006
December 9, 2006
December 2, 2006
November 25, 2006
November 18, 2006
November 11, 2006
November 4, 2006
October 28, 2006
October 21, 2006
October 14, 2006
October 7, 2006
September 30, 2006
September 23, 2006
September 16, 2006
September 9, 2006
September 2, 2006
August 26, 2006
August 19, 2006
August 12, 2006
August 5, 2006
July 29, 2006
July 22, 2006
July 15, 2006



October 10, 2009

John Wilcock
the weekly column

Bidoun #18

This is the second part of an interview with JW by Zachary Hooker for the magazine Bidoun.

[Part one appeared in last week's column]

ZH: Has interviewing always been a central part of reporting for you?
JW: Well. yes... I was thinking about it after you had contacted me. So. I started doing this little cable TV show around the early 80s, and by that time I had worked and written for five of the world's biggest dailies—the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail in London, the Toronto Daily Star, the Mainichi Daily News in Tokyo, and the New York Times. And I realized that I had learned more about interviewing by trying to start a cable TV show than I had in thirty years of work as a reporter. And one of the things was that—and this was because I had to edit in camera, couldn't afford post-production—the order I shot was the order they took it, so I didn't bother with gathering background information and small talk, I would just jump in mid-sentence, interrupt a thought. Say I'd be with a tour guide. I wouldn't even mention the fact I was there to film him, and then mid-sentence I'd start the camera and ask, "Well, what do you think of that?" Or something like that. A great deal of interviewing is catching people off guard, but not aggressively. Just giving them something they don't expect.

ZH: It seems like you find many affinities between being on camera and the act of interviewing, regardless of if there is actually a camera present. I'm just thinking of all those references to Warhol's camerawork, and this experience producing for public access.
Yeah. it's all mixed up, really. When you go and interview somebody... I started before there were tape recorders, there were no tape recorders until the 50s or 60s, really. So, it was in shorthand, all shorthand. And you can't interview somebody and take shorthand. the mere fact of sitting there taking notes shuts them up. So basically you had to remember what they said, and not only remember what they said but the actual words they used. And I reaIized one way to do that—like when I went to interview Marilyn Monroe, for instance, one of my earlier jobs—what you have to do is ask the questions you are personally curious about, what you want the answers to. Because if you know what you want to know from them, when you get back home, of course you will remember how they answered the question, you know? So that was a big key to interviewing for me... asking the questions you want to know, not rote questions or something like that. And also catch them off guard a lot. I mean, I'm very amiable on camera, but some people get really nervous when you put the camera on them. You know what Quentin Crisp used to say? He used to say, "If you're going to be on television, decide what you want to say and say it no matter what the question is." Which is really great advice. So I'd put the camera on someone, and I'm very informal and friendly and I don't challenge them. I'm not aggressive.

And then there is this trick to writing novels—you raise an issue, a question, and don't answer it until later in the book. Keeps people curious. Well, you can do that in interviewing, too. I was talking to this art dealer once, and I asked something like, "Remember when Larry Rivers abruptly left your gallery, was he kicked out?" And then follow it up really quick with another question, so they are festering, waiting to answer that provacative question. You delay that answer as long as possible.

ZH: Regarding shorthand and note-taking, something important seems to hinge on the act of reproducing speech. The issue of how truthful to what the person "actually" said do you have to be, as an interviewer of a reporter.
JW: Well, when I write, I like to keep three things in mind: keep it interesting and provacative, never have a word more than is necessary, and the third rule, which is the best one, is that even one unusual word in a sentence will give it life, will make a reader remember it. So the most valuable book you can have is a thesaurus. i use one all the time. I'm always looking for a word that is not too far from what I want to say but keeps the original meaning. And that's the secret to doing an interview without taking notes, and getting it in exactly the sense the other person was using. You remember a couple key words, and you wrap the sentence or paragraph around those. You are going to either replicate exactly what the interviewee was getting at, or come up with something that sounds a hundred times better. And

they aren't going to deny they said it. Especially if it sounds good, they will probably believe that that is exactly what they said.

ZH: Talking about how video has influenced your take on interviewing and writing is making me think of Glenn O'Brien's TV Party, a public access show from New York in the late 70s that revolved around the Warhol scene to some degree. That show fascinated me a while back. Were you around for any of that?
No, no. I was long gone. But Glenn O'Brien's a big shot over at Interview now. I might have met him back in his early days in New York, but I doubt it. People like him and Bob Colacello have made that magazine kind of pompous, elite...

ZH: How long did you stay involved wilh Interview?
JW: Well. Andy and I had that fifty-fifty arrangement for a year, and during that time I had nothing to do with Andy or the paper or anything, with respect to content. I was travelling to Japan a lot, Greece... I've written a lot of travel guides. Not long after I got back to the city I was planning to leave the country again, for good, and I wanted to keep some part of the paper, because I had already been through this type of thing with the Voice... I was one of the people who started the Voice, and I didn't make a penny out of it, you know. And even today they still run fifty-year-old articles of mine, post them on their blog, and I don't get any kind of credit. Anyway, I didn't want to go through that again, so I tried to persuade Andy to give me a portion of the ownership, and all he said is that I could either keep paying my half or sell it to him. So I just charged him the typesetting fee for the previous year, $6000—twelve $500 bills—and he paid me most of it, and then just before I left, I went up to him and said, "Give me some artwork, Andy, because I know you're not going to give me that last thousand doIlars." So he gave me a couple flower paintings, I think they had just came back from the Tate, and that was the end of my time with Interview. Since then, they have refused to mention my name at all or plug my Warhol book or my autobiography.

ZH: About that experience cofounding the Village Voice, can you tell me a bit about how that paper situated itself in the midst of 1950s American Levittown conservatism?
I think there was a growing awareness at the time that there was no real alternative to the straight daily press—in other words, any established newspaper. And not long after the Voice began—and I think this was one of the motivations for my cofounders Dan Wolf and Ed Fancher—the Village Independent Democrats began to challenge the Democratic Party in the same way the Voice challenged the established press. And there were all these other things happening that went along with what the Voice was doing. Jane Jacobs wrote this seminal book on American cities, while Robert Moses—who really was a czar, thought he was above the law—was trying to put a highway right through Washington Square Park, right through the Village. The Off-Broadway movement had gotten off the ground, which Jerry Tallmer had a lot to do with, founding the Obie Awards, etcetera. Anyway, these things were happening, these were the issues that the Voice covered, the issues they created awareness about. They justified the early existence of the paper.

ZH: What made you leave the paper?
JW: When I left the Voice I had recently met Walter Bowart, who started the East Village Other (EVO), which was the first real underground paper in New York. And Ed Fancher called EVO and the Voice and demanded I choose one. He didn't make this demand on anyone else—Nat Hentoff was writing for a slew of papers, for example. I think they were worried because EVO was a direct competitor to the paper—and it was certainly more hip than the Voice. So I think there was bad blood because of this, and after I left there was a sort of fatwa against me. No longer was I to be associated with, to be mentioned in any official history of the paper, not in Mailer's memoirs, nothing. Even though they still rerun my pieces—my Warhol piece was even republished in the fiftieth anniversary issue—I never get credit. They don't bother to mention my books or my website, and I certainly don't get any money.

ZH: Do you think your ideas regarding what journalism is, and the role of the underground press in general, made you difficult to work with?
JW: Well, that is certainly a possibility. The underground press, after it got rolling, began to realize there was little support for it from the straight press, and mostly hostility. This might have been the case with the Voice. The people who were making a lot of the underground papers, these were mostly college kids. I don't think it lent much credibility to the movement. And I was associated with all of that—l championed that. Maybe I shouldn't have smoked so much dope around that time, or been such an advocate of the legalization of marijuana. I wonder if that strain of my career did more harm than good sometimes, in terms of journalistic reputation. I also coedited The Witches Almanac for thirty years, with a witch named Betty—Elizabeth Pepper. I know that couldn't have sat well with a lot of circles in the straight press.

ZH: Any regrets?
JW: I have no regrets—I've always loved what I do. But somehow, I always end up written out of history all the time. It's a real mystery to me. I can't really understand why it is that nobody will mention me anymore. I'm not looking for ego satisfaction, I'm just looking for credit for what I did originally. But it's just water under the bridge... What can I say—it's gone. Time is gone now. I have no contact with most of those former colleagues, none at all.

John with mother and cousin Margaret
c. 1935 at Llandudno, U.K.

So in a way, stuff like this, I feel like my whole life has been... I wouldn't say a failure, but a series of me doing whatever I wanted to do, but never really being recognized nor recompensed for It. And I think I've realized it's got to be my fault. It's just what I do—get really fascinated by something, really into something, then leave before any kind of payoff. So I can't really blame anybody. And why would I? I've always enjoyed myself.

You know, there was this one time... My mother is very shrewd. One time I was bitching about money to her, and she said, "I don't know why you are complaining. You know you have never done one thing you didn't want to do, ever?" And she was absolutely right, and that was the first time I ever realized it. She had told me the absolute truth—I never did anything I didn't want to do. I still won't, really.




comments? send an email to John Wilcock



      return to top

© 2006-2018 ojaiorange.com