Thursday, October 26, 2006

Ecce NoNo: TAN Interrogated By Associated Content

Avis Yarborough put me in the Blog Spotlight for Associated Content. And one thing's for certain, I sure know how to ramble.

Thus Spach TANathustra
[Associated Content]

TANdemic [The Blog Reader]

Related on TAN:
Interview With A Man Who Never Moves Into The Center Of The Train
The NeverEnding Interview
TAN Interviews Richard Pryor (RIP)

Interview With The #9
Hybrid-Taxicab Confessions

Interview With A Negro Pig (via VV)


  1. Anonymous10/26/2006

    Your responses are patient, but this interview is very amateurish. It is quite sad that the interviewer couldn't put together that TAN is an acronym, but she didn't have to publish this "revelation." Also, the questions about whether you are being ironic are excruciating. At least half of the questions could have reasonably yielded, "Duh!" as an answer.

  2. Anonymous10/27/2006

    Tan is like the blog Jessica Simpson.
    Get over yourself anonymous-- your comment is excruciating- plus I assumed the interviewer was a he- Anyhow occasionally people have brain lapses and miss the obvious--give the guy/lady a break and stop judging people so harshly- I suppose dyoure perfect and never make mistakes. Furthermore is the interviewer even paid?-- I assume they are doing interviews for the love of doing them and not as a full time job, further reason to not put their head on the chopping block-- god. Plus I found their questions illuminating.

  3. I don't know. the interview could have been edited a little tighter. The interviewer is responsible for not letting the subject ramble, at least in presentation.

    but it was solid. some of the questions were insightful. some lacking.

    I love the related interviews content, especially the one with the person who doesn't move to the middle of the train.

  4. Anonymous10/28/2006

    I didn't know Jessica Simpson was so "angry."

  5. the herb11/05/2006

    This interview moves along at a so so pace and sensibility... until question 13. Then the interviewer commits the ol' "you're/your" mistake--and I quit reading.

    Your interview with Richard Pryor, TAN, was much much better.

    There are only a few writerly mistakes that completely throw me for a loopner: misspelling "definitely," messing up on "it's/its" and the above "you're/your" faux pas.

    When we read Faulkner with all his colloquialisms and on-purpose misspellings, we actually ARE in Mississippi, 150 years ago (whether or not that's a good thing). But when a journalist is inking a straight-up article, and is NOT trying to capture the essence of, like, street lingo or whatever, then there are certain... and I like to call them "taboos"... there are certain mistakes that just can't happen.

    I spend way too much time rewriting and rewriting and rewriting and rewriting and rewriting and rewriting and then polishing up what I've written again and again and again... and I'm very patient with a wide array of gaffes and those who commit them, but the above three are representative of the small set of mess-ups that I simply won't countenance.

    Other than that it was a pretty good interview.

    (BTW I don't even try "lie/lay"; my interviewees either recline or are reclined; I still mess up on "who/whom"; if I'm not sure, I run from these and other grammatical or usage problems.)


Related Posts with Thumbnails