Anna Maslennikova

Anna Maslennikova

St.Petersburg State University

Interview in Russian Discourse

The Genre of interview is one of the youngest in Public Speech, officially dating back to 1869. Nes in the United States less than 150 years ago, it has now grown into mass media’s preferred tool of promulgating or exposing the views of public figures. Originally the interview was intended to familiarize general public with the life of celebrities, show them in their home setting among family members. The first known example in the Q/A format interview was Horace Greeley’s (editor of New York Tribune) interview with Brigham Young published in 1859.

It is not surprising that the interview established itself in Russia only much later, in the 1880s. However, several quasi-interview texts produced by foreigners visiting Russia, in our view, can be considered as the genre’s samples. Marquis de Custine’s accounts of his conversations with Nicholas the First manifest the interview’s salient features, such as the use of response-inducing techniques, the explicit intention to publish on the one side (de Custine) and to see his opinions and pronouncements published in a favourable context, on the other (Nicholas I). Here is what de Custine writes:

I publish these details, because it is well that they should be known, in order to teach the obscure to envy less the fortune of the great.

Moreover, de Custine’s “interview” is, in a way, an approximation to the in-studio audience, since according to his account, when the emperor talked to somebody in public, the courtiers would make a wide circle, thus attending to the conversation, but keeping at a respectful distance from the conversing parties. What makes those accounts different from a standard interview is the person of the interviewer: de Custine wass not a professional reporter. However, the format bears clear resemblance to the Q/A, let alone de Custine’s comments which indicate indirect “non-interrogative” techniques:

“Obliged to avoid all allusion to the great political interests of the day, I wished to lead the conversation towards a subject which interested me… I added therefore, “Each time that I am permitted to approach your majesty, I recognize the power which caused your enemies to fall at your feet on the day your majesty ascended the throne”

This passage sounds similar to a contemporary reporter’s confession: he makes an attempt to lead the interviewee to disclose the information he is anxious to obtain. In De Custine’s case, it was the coronation day insurrection on the 14th of December 1825.

For the most part, De Custine avoids direct questions. He operates solely through inconclusive remarks. Since Nicholas is interested in creating a favourable impression, he eagerly expands on the subject. Thus, on the surface the conversation makes you think that the speaker and addressee create a unison of concurring opinions. The rhetorical tactics employed by De Custine include tropes (metaphors, epithets. simile) alongside with the massive use of positively charged evaluative lexis. He continuously throws in court mannerisms and outright flattery. His flowery rhetoric is in stark contrast with the emperor’s direct and simple style characterized by understatement and lack of evaluative terms:

C. Your majesty has better appreciated the wants and the position of this country than any of your predecessors”

N. Despotism still exists in Russia: it is the essence of my government, but it accords with the genius of the nation.

C. Sire, by stopping Russia on the road of imitation, you are restoring her to herself.

N. I love my country, and I believe I understand it. I assure you, that when I feel heartily weary

of all the miseries of the times, I endeavour to forget the rest of Europe by retiring towards the interior of Russia.

C. In order to refresh yourself at your fountainhead?

N. Precisely so. No one is more from the heart of Russia than I am. I am going to say to you what I would not say to another, but I feel that you will comprehend me… I can understand republicanism, it is a plain and straightforward form of government, or, at least, it might be so; I can understand absolute monarchy, for I am myself the head of such an order of things, but I cannot understand a representative monarchy: it is the government of lies, fraud, and corruption; and I would rather fall back upon China than ever adopt it… p. 195

Another account of royal opinion we find in the interviews taken by a professional journalist W.T. Stead (described by J.W.Robertson Scott in his book “The Life and Death of a Newspaper”) Stead interviewed Alexander III, but he was denied the permission to either publish it or even refer to the text. The tsar Nicholas the Second and his wife Alexandra were interviewed by Stead several times. Stead was known for his excellent memory. His reports cover dozens of pages, “all conversation in the first person.” Describing the tsar as both a pathetic and a tragic figure, Stead quotes Nicholas,

“No one knows how difficult my position is. I would not inflict it to my worst enemy” Who is there, however among the grand dukes who would not be immeasurably worse?

.

Without the necessary background knowledge, Stead’s interview of the empress could be taken for a conversation with an unusually open contemporary first lady who naively describes her husband’s weaknesses and his government’s uselessness to reporters:

Empress: “He is so good-natured and so sympathetic that he agrees with everybody’

Stead: ”Now you have a very different character from his, quite different. Look how you contradict me and I contradict you. We stand up and fight for our views. He would never do that; it is not in his nature. Whereas you ! You must have a great influence. I forget you are Empress and only regard you as a woman.

Later:

Stead: “Who are your men, your Ministers? Who by his strength could supplement the excessive amiability of the emperor?’

Empress: I know of none,”

Stead: “Why not give the women a chance?”

Empress: “Our women are much more superior than the men”

Stead “Our Queens have been better than our kings—Elizabeth, Anne and Victoria – and you have had your Catherine.”

The peculiarity of Russian cultural history is such that innovation does not come from its rulers, it’s born within the ranks of opposition, for the most part the writers’ community. According to Lakshin, a news interview became accepted only in the 80s-90s. The first published interview in Russia was that given by Lev Tolstoy. Accounts of meetings with Tolstoy found their way to the Russian newspapers. Strahov equaled gossip of Tolstoy’s life in Iasnaia Poliana to the news items, accounts of earthquakes, scandals and suicides. Since Voltaire, there was not a figure of such influence as Tolsoy. The number of interviews published reflected his national and international popularity. At first a couple interviews a year, then meetings every month, and finally every week. In 1908-1909 it started to resemble the paprazzi attacks. Correspondents from France, US, England and other countries invaded the estate. Tolstoy never gave Q/A interviews, but he eagerly engaged in a relaxed conversation never refusing to discuss the questions his guest was interested in. The accounts, however depended largely on the intellectual ability of his interviewer. Music, painting, literature – these were the widely discussed subjects.

In the genre’s early development, the Q/A format was rare. In point of fact, reporters would compete for detailed accounts of the setting and content of the conversation. The interviewer is on almost even standing with the interviewee. Thus, Grigory Danilevsky representing Istorichesky Vestnik (Herald), Tolstoy’s first interviewer, not only describes the weather (a calm pleasant spell), the carriage that took him from the railway station to Yasnaya Poliana, Tolstoy’s study but also his own feelings and thoughts with regard to Tolstoy, his reverence and for the great Russian writer. He also expands on what we will call now the format and setting of the interview. He remarks on the love of foreigners, especially the English, for descriptions of dwellings and decoration of their writers and artists, politicians and public figures. They provide detailed accounts and photographs not only of the studies and reception rooms of the best “servants” of England, but also pictures of their favorite parks and paths, views of fields and lakes, benches on which they loved to sit etc. One can only grieve that our artists have not yet familiarized Russia’s readers with the views of Gogol’s, Aksakov’s, Fet’s or Tolstoy’s estates.

By the beginning of the 20th century reporters became a pest for celebrities. Chekov, Bunin and Kuprin voiced their disgust with the news makers practice. Kuprin published a short story “The Interview” in which he depicted the tactics of an interviewer as a combination of impudence and faked manners aimed at extracting scandalous information. In the story the message of the writer to the reporter ranges from “Please leave me alone” to “I’ll kill you, son of a pike, if you don’t get lost right now”

The interview conducted with prominent writers survived through the Soviet period. These were interviews for the most part published in Literaturnaya gazeta, Literaturnoie obozrenie or other dailies and monthlies, especially during political communist political campaigns, such as the Virgin Land, the BAM, etc. The interviewer was never of interest, his/her name given at the bottom of the page. The reporter becomes a mechanical tool for the interviewee’s monologue. Interruptions are very rare, performing either the clarifying or encouraging function

As an example, here is a quote fromYuri Bondarev’s interview for Literaturnoie obozrenie

Q. Which problems of today, Yuri Vasilievich seem to you crucial for people, and therefore, for literature which reflects life?

Y.B.Today the most important problem the humanity is faced with are the danger of the nuclear war and ecological catastrophe. The earth is just a speck of sand in the Universe and it is now in peril of being destroyed 30 times by the weapons accumulated in the world. There is no doubt that the answer to Hamlet’s question To be or not to be is now contingent not on one person, but on humanity on the whole

Interview given to the correspondent of “Soviet Russia

Q. Yuri Vasilievich, where does a real man of letters begin?

Y.B. From talent, able to speak of itself in literature. It is a rare and precious gift and not as much of a lucrative activity, as it is sometimes considered. The word talent, itself is overextended/degraded in our country…

Q. Talent is the first, but, presumably, not the only condition?

Y.B. Genuine talent in literature is inconceivable without the hard work, unbearably hard work, without being possessed. Only the one who is possessed can have the persistence of a pearl diver, who, to quote Flober, is able to plunge into the depths of the ocean a thousand times, and maybe, only once return not empty handed

Abramov An interview to Molodoi Kommunist

C. Today there is a lot of talk about young writers. But what is a writer’s youth about – is it about age, or about perception of life? What is your understanding of the concept the Young Writer?

A.  A young writer… What do I as a reader care about the writer’s age? Maybe, I am in a way biased, but when I read a book, I have only one requirement: how does this book affect me/ enrich me. Certainly, there is an issue of a writer as mouthpiece of his generation… and certainly the young writers create some sort of a romantic fever and fervor – the specific features of young age. In this case, we can talk about the age factor. But for a serious discussion about life, in my view, age is a relative notion…..

Real art is always unexpected, both in its for and in its content. That is why the preplanned issue of the young in literature is simply non-existent. In art, everything boils down to the question of talent.

At the same time the beginning of the 20th century sees the birth of investigative adverserial interview which aims at obtaining the reasons for certain actions or policies performed by public figures. Freedom of speech was almost immediately gagged after the Bolsheviks came to power. For the next 70 years, interviews with political figures are granted to a handful of foreign correspondents. Thus, H.Wells’ and W.T. Goodes interviews of Lenin are of almost epic character. Goode provides the description of a frustrated aide who learned of the uncomfortable questions the reporter was planning to ask. Contentwise, the interview reflects mutual apprehension:

Q. What guarantees could be offered against official propaganda among the western peoples if by any chance relations with the Soviet republic opened?

L. They were ready not to make official propaganda. He cried out against the british “defence of the Realm Act” and speaking about freedom of speech in France, he said that he was reading Henri Barbusse and in the novel there were two censored patches. They censor novels in free democratic France?

In Emma Goldman’s “My Disillusionment in Russia”, we find a symbolic quote from Lenin, which determined “the postponed free speech policy in Soviet Russia,’ “We have peasantry against us because we can give them nothing in return for their bread. We will have them on our side when we have something to exchange. Then you can have all the free speech you want – but not now” This had become a continuous pretext for curbing any attempts of openness in the Soviet era.

Emil Ludwig’s account of his interview with Stalin leaves the reader chilled by Stalin’s ability to transform an outright lie into a fact by the mere authority of his voice and manner: