Podcast
Features
Comments
Paul and Paul |
Notes on the Piece
This piece is a personal narrative about a Vietnam veteran
and a college student – myself. It was a challenge to
try to create some kind of unique voice in the onslaught
of media coverage about the war in Afghanistan. I think
in some ways it was successful at doing that, but it
still needs polishing.
This piece originally aired in October, 2001 on Brown Student Radio in Providence, RI – but it was a completely different piece back then. Six months later, Jay proposed that we work together on re-editing the piece, and my first instinct was: no, this piece was so topical, everyone is sick of hearing about the war in Afghanistan. I don’t even have the same feelings now that I did then – let’s just bury it and forget about it. But then I realized the possibilities that having such distance on a piece of work opened up, and it seemed like a good exercise, even if wouldn’t ever hit the airwaves.
I had the perspective on the piece to look back at it in a fresh way, and hear possibilities with the tape that I hadn’t heard before. I had enough distance to realize the mistakes I made, and enough distance to try to make something out of those mistakes.
Especially when you’re working on a piece where you’re one of the characters, it seems absolutely critical to have plenty of distance from your product, so it doesn’t turn into diary mush. Of course, sometimes you want the immediacy of emotion that being in the midst of a story provides, but it’s a difficult beast to tame. I’m still learning to get that distance as I work on pieces that have short deadlines, but editing this long-deadline piece gave me easy access to critical distance. I really recommend trying this for anyone who’s new to first-person writing.
It’s a work in progress, so I’d love to get feedback about how to re-work it. Mostly I’m concerned about the setup and intro of the piece, so let me know if you have ideas. I’ll be lurking in the “talk” section of transom.
 |
Tech Notes
The interview
was recorded with an AT-835b shotgun mic and a Sharp
MD-722 minidisk recorder. The narration was recorded
with a Shure SM-7 mic and all audio was loaded into
a G4 mac using the Tascam US-428 USB interface. A pro
Sony minidisk deck with digital outs was used to get
an all-digital transfer from minidisk to Tascam to computer.
The piece was edited and mixed in Pro Tools Free with
no processing aside from basic mixing and cutting. Once
it was finished, the piece was converted to MP3 format
and Realaudio format using iTunes and Realproducer –
both free programs that can be easily downloaded. Then
everything was emailed to Transom — and not a single
tape went in the mail. When editing earlier drafts of
the piece, I did the same thing, emailing MP3s of the
different versions to Jay.
About Paul McCarthy
I just graduated from Brown University, where I produced
a story/documentary radio show called Inside Out.
I’ve interned for Lost & Found Sound and This American
Life, and did lots of editing and administrating while
running the radio show at Brown, but I haven’t ever
done much producing, to tell you the truth. I’m starting
to step out the door into the independent freelancer world, but it’s cold out there.
Support for this work provided by the
with funding from the
and
The National Endowment for the Arts
Paul McCarthy was the producer of the Brown University Student radio show, "Inside Out", featured last year on Transom. Now, freshly post-grad, he’s starting to freelance on his own. This is his first piece, a reach across time and the street he lives on — a conversation with his Vietnam veteran neighbor about the nature of war, and faith.
This piece is matched, under the heading "Two Encounters" with Andy Raskin’s "Buffalo Turkey Tail."
Hi out there in transomland. I’m trying to think about ways the piece could start better. My instinct is to get some tape in there fast, so we can set some kind of scene, make us feel like this isn’t just gonna be some boring commentary. But I’m not sure what tape would work.
I probably should have cut some of the script from the head of the piece and pasted it in text form in the "notes on the piece" section of the website to make it a little tighter. But you can tell me what you think about that. I guess that’s one of the eccentricities of producing for the web – people will probably read your intro before listening, so you can be more elusive with the actual audio if you supplement with text. But this piece was conceived for radio, so you’ll get the old-fashioned treatment. I’m just not sure that, even if it aired on the radio, it would keep your attention for the first minute or so.
Oh yeah. One more thing. I wanted to name it "Fortunate Son", but Jay thought it would be confusing, implying some kind of son-father relationship between Paul and I. But I guess I like names to be sort of confusing and mysterious in some ways. Better than the boring "Conversation on Duke Street", I think. But maybe "Fortunate Son" is just too cliched?
I agree that something ought to be done about the intro. I wanted sound earlier… I would love ambiance from the neighborhood, or recording from Paul drinking beers with friend on his porch…or, maybe you could put together some sot of collage of news broadcasts from radio or tv. In terms of using what audio you already have…did he describe anything for you?…like metals, or pictures from the war…did he say something wrenching that would give the listener a jolt, while introducing some problematic aspect of his character? I’m just throwing out ideas that come to mind.
I like what you have done with the piece – especially the use of your voice and interaction with Paul senior during the actual interview. it made the listening experience feel more first hand.
-Rachel Terp
Paul!
Beautifully done, especially your concluding bit. I especially like the way I could feel the tension in your well timed silences.
A few notes-
I agree that the intro needs a little work. I actually hear a little bit of background noise during the first few minutes. I might be imagining it, but it sounds like slightly rustling paper.
I think the piece could also be streamlined a little more. Maybe a few less tangents to make the sound shorter and more to the point. Some of the Paul Senior quotes started to lose me after a few sentences.
Overall, I was stunned and impressed. I have a feeling the freelance world won’t be cold much longer…
Paul- Nice piece, I like getting to the larger picture of the state of things by going around the subject, that is, looking at the tree for the forest. However, I must say that I’m not impressed by this particular tree uuntiltowards the end when the editing got sharper and a topic of information conflict surfaced. You, as interviewer, are far more interesting than your subject. Though there have been suggestions for more of your subject, I pprefermore of you, and what you’re bringing into the story. Maybe more of Paul2 at the beginning, to establish the preference of hearing more from you. I don’t care for the section on the stuttered question asking, I hate it when people say ‘I don’t understand the question’. It subverts my confidence. But I can understand having it, to establish that discomfort. Good ending, full circle, sign of a writer which is why I like staying with you.
Paul, and others-
I really enjoyed this piece, but I agree strongly with the person who said earlier that it could use more background sounds, to set the personality of Big Paul and the scene of the conversation. Something completely unrelated to the issue would place the content of the sound clips where they belong, as a conversation.
The structure of the thing is interesting, not a conversation or an interview but a reflection on a conversation. I would like to see this aspect emphasized more, like when Paul contrasts his commentary with the clips from the interview (I liked that.) In my opinion, the piece has a chance to do provide very complex commentary on this war by emphasizing one small conversation between two people with very different opinions. But I think that the balance between setting/conversation and presentation/commentary is off. So, Paul, I suggest giving the clips more freedom so they can create their own space, then you can say something about the space (if that’s not too vague).
joe
Hi Paul, This piece is really coming along. The ending is great, though I don’t quite know what to make of it, but I’m guessing that’s the point.Since the rats end the story, why don’t you use some sound effects of Paul sitting on his porch taking shots at them in the beginning? Or would that present just too neat a package? It would certainly make the listener wake up! I love the idea of a conversation with a fairly unknown neighbor about something controversial like this. I wish more people would do it, including me. We usually shy away from people we know we are going to disagree with. I’m wondering if you will do this again, or if this experience leaves you feeling like it’s not worth it? Would it be worth reflecting on that in the piece? I’m curious why you thought that he would tell you something you wanted to hear? Perhaps that’s what we all do. I’m also curious why you were "itching to tell your friends they were wrong." Maybe that’s also something we all tend to do and that’s the point also. In a way this piece is about how we form our opinions and struggling to find some truth we can rely on. We are raised one way, we try to form our own ideas by reading and talking (usually reading things we already agree with and talking with people we already agree with). Youattempt something different here, but what do you conclude? I guess from the ending that you are frustrated with the process and feel no closer to knowing. I would like to hear at least one line at the end of the show, maybe before the pretend shot at the rat, about your process. Love, Mom
"I love the idea of a conversation with a fairly unknown neighbor about something controversial like this. I wish more people would do it, including me."
Hmmm… a Transom Series perhaps? Dust off your minidiscs.
Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. I think more rats are certainly in order. I just need to get the tape first. But with summer approaching, it shouldn’t be hard to get the tape soon. I think also starting off with the interaction between Paul Francis (that’s his name, so you’re not stuck calling us Paul 1 & 2, or Paul senior, or whatever) and I will force me to tighten up all the background info in the beginning, which is one of my biggest concerns.
Megan Hall mentioned that some of Paul Francis’ tape kind of dragged at a few points – which ones were those? If you remember…
I think that Katie Davis inspired this piece in a way, after hearing some of her work on TAL and then at the Third Coast Festival in Chicago (you can listen to her talk about her work and play some of it from the third coast archives at:
http://www.thirdcoastfestival.org/ra/gallerydavis.ram
She does great stuff, and anyone interested in interviewing their neighbors should absolutely listen to it.
yay! good work.
I really liked how honest the piece seemed — akward silences, questions gone awry and all. It made it believable. I agree with other people above in that I found that in the beginning I was engrossed not by what Paul Sr. was saying but by your descriptions of him and his environs. I wonder what it would be like if you reinterviewed him later, after getting all of this feedback and how (if at all) it might change the way you proceed. I like how not easy this piece is, how it wavers from being about paul sr. and then to paul jr. and back again.
Could you talk a bit about how you approached your decision to not use much ambient sound or music? I liked the intimacy it provided, creating the sense of this one house and this uninterrupted conversation, but it also could have been an effective tool to move things along and connect the many pieces of thought that are here.
As for the title, I like having something a little more provocative, but "Fortunate Son" I think will remind too many people of the controversial book about George W. of the same name, and confuse your story with too many other issues, unless that was what you were going for.
I loved your ending.
elana
Hey Paul-
I remember editing this piece with you back in October when you were putting it together for Inside Out. I really like most of the changes you’ve made. I think the decision to take out the music was good, because the pauses have more tension, and I love getting to hear more of your interactions with Paul Francis. The give and take in your question and answer and the awkwardness that comes across puts us right in the scene, and as a result we get such a strong sense of both of your characters.
There are moments however, where I wish things were drawn out a little more, where I feel cheated out of your response.(I agree with a previous comment that most of what makes this piece compelling is your voice and dilema and reactions to your interactions with PF) For instance, at the end where PF rattles off the cliche of freedom isn’t free, and you ask him how he learned that (which is a great moment) and he responds with the breif annecdote of the WWII veteran who related his own experiences of war to PF, you respond by saying thank you and concluding the interview. Was this editing or was that really how you responded?
of course, right after that you make up for it with a killer ending (no pun intended) which hits so strong. the image really resonates and ties things together without tying it down.
congratulations. like that final image, this is a piece that will stay with me I think. it’s pretty intense and inspiring.
It’s true, Paul Francis was the more predictable part of the piece – like I could get some water and not worry that I had missed some bizzarre revealment. (this in fact happened, and I re-wound, and no, nothing was revealed) I feel bad and somewhat disrespectful in saying that but so it is. PF could have been introduced more quickly perhaps for the set up so you could get back to your premise and wondering. I was much more interested in what YOU were thinking and squirming about. In fact you could have spoken over him (maybe that’s way too disrespectful) or better yet, interwoven with his speak, almost as subtext of the established then vs now. Might have made a nice counterpoint duet thing.
I’m old maybe, impatient almost with your kicking imaginary stones and figuring out WHAT you wanted to ask, and while I sort of loved that and over-related, I was then totally enthralled with the last line. knocked me out. I was hoping for music, then, PART TWO. Honest to god, I wonder still what came of that moment, that shooting-the-rat-moment.
One of the reasons I’ve been tardy in responding to Paul’s invitation to join in this discussion is that its difficult for me to do it lightly. In trying to listen critically, I wished I had a time-stamped transcript that I could refer to in order to make constructive, detailed suggestions. Do producers usually have at least an approximation of a transcript that they could share in order to facilitate the dialog?
FOr example, most of the commentators agree with you that the beginning of this piece could be improved. But without a transcript to refer to, its pretty difficult to make specific suggestions because that requires listening over and over again. And that gets old pretty fast.
I’m delighted to hear your voice in this piece — both literally and figuratively. Its good to hear you experimenting with how to use that voice and what you want to say. Its one thing to be a producer, but quite another to be able to do your own interviews and narratives. I think you have a good voice and style for it, and doing your own gives you greater creative possibilities. I really like the way you combine several conversations, the one between you and Paul, another between you and yourself, and yet another between you as you were when you did the interview and you as you are now, after some months to give more distance and perspective.
In the parts that you narrate (versus the more extemporary conversation), do you usually try to write down exactly what you want to say and refine it word for word?
I thought about different ways to order the material, the idea of having the sound of gunshots, etc. — but I think the main thing is simply to condense it further. There are whole sentences you probably could cut without losing too much. At the same time, I occassionally found myself wishing you had thrown in an additional word. For example, in the very first sentence I think it would be stronger if you said "MY NEIGHBOR Paul is a Vietnam Vet…".
When you refer to your Quaker upbringing, I’d suggest a slightly revised wording such as "My parents are Quakers, so I grew up among people who categorically oppose violence."
Later on you say something like "I’m itching to tell my friends that they’re wrong." Is it that you just like being contrarian? That’s what this sounds like. I think you mean something subtler and more nuanced, like "I want to ask my friends to re-examine their knee-jerk responses and platitudes."
When you take your leave of Paul, you might cut out the "I appreciate it..I’ll let you get back to work." Just go from "Thank you very much" to "..Good to talk to you" to "Its dark out now…"
In addition to further refining of this particular story, it occurs to me that there are several related stories you might want to consider doing.
1. follow-up interview with Paul;
2. interview with someone equally dogmatic from the left;
3. conversation (not interview) with someone who is more nuanced about
all the shades of grey, how do people change their minds over time, etc.
4. interview/conversation with someone from a pacifist tradition who nevertheless thinks that force is necessary when it comes to terrorism (e.g., NPR’s Scott Simon);
5. interview/conversation with someone who doesn’t shirk from use of force, but who feels that it can too easily be counterproductive in the long run
(e.g., Robert McNamara?).
I got the link from John, McC, and was really pleased that my system allowed me to listen to the interview! First time real audio has worked for me. Like John, I find it hard to recall enough to have specific feedback, but here’s what struck me: I particularly like the voice over tecnique to make revisions to the original tape interview. This creates the "distance" you spoke about in your commentary, and I think could be used more, to give the piece more depth and reflection. And that’s my second main suggestion: make more revisions, take it deeper, with the distance and hindsight–go to the hard places… eg as others have mentioned: "I want to tell my friends they’re wrong"–the voice over could add your considered reflections on what you were feeling then, and how you see it now. Similarly for other critical places in the interview. Finally, it could be a bit tighter. Cut some of the talk on the actual interview, use the voice over, or some other technique to do some depth and exploration of the more critical aspects raised. ‘ ‘Overall, it was intriguing, moving and provocative. Thanks, Jill (your aunt -in law, or something like that!) Cheers.
Hey Paul, this is great. I really liked your exploratory narrative, and of course as a reporter, I liked the humor as you totally screwed up your question about casualties — i know the feeling! Most of us edit that stuff out, so it was refreshing to hear it left in along with your admission of not making sense. Neighbor Paul’s comments are clear and sharp. My only gripe is about your voice — a bit too quiet, not enunciating enough. I know you don’t want to sound like some plastic dj, but I think it would be good if you sound almost as strong as the other Paul does.
What I really liked was the way your narration honestly explored the topic and we followed the changing of your mind and questions at various points.
I didn’t feel the need for sound effects, and I liked the ending. Of course, rats WOULD be cool…
Originally I had planned on interviewing everyone on Duke street, or most people anyways (there’s only about 8 houses so it wouldn’t have been impossible). I wanted to make some sort of collage of voices on the war in Afghanistan, woven together by my relationship with them as a neighbor. Duke street has such a wide spectrum of people living on it that I thought it would have had a nice effect. The problem is that I don’t really have all that much of a relationship with a lot of the people on Duke street, so weaving those interviews together would have been a mess.
Katie Davis’ stuff works because she actually spends a good amount of time with her neighbors and has relationships with them that go back years. With that in mind, I decided to focus the piece on my interview with Paul Francis. But even still I felt like the piece would have been more interesting if we had a longer-standing relationship as neighbors. That’s one of the problems with the personal narrative format – if there’s not much to your relationship in a story, then there is no story. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but it would have been much more engrossing if our relationship had more history.
Lots of helpful thoughts here, including the very specific line edits from John McCarthy and others.
Putting up a transcript is a good idea and we’ve done it when it’s available. Paul, if you email one to Josh, he can add it as a link from this topic and from your SHOW page, okay?
Katie Davis did a piece for us about her neighborhood right after the 11th, and it’s on Transom in the Days That Follow section under the title, Reinventing Normal
that’s all. don’t know whaat/how to focus. only reader/listener response heree
An interesting supplement to this interview would be to read, first of all Ward Churchill’s "Pacifism as Pathology", and secondly to read a response to this paper by George Lakey entitled "Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals." (It’s available on the Training for Change website at http://www.trainingforchange.org/reports_0103_pacifism.html
I had to listen twice in a row because I found myself spacing out the first time through — Paul the Vet’s voice/words didn’t engage me so much….Second time through his voice caught me when he talked about the Vietnam vets getting shit thrown at them when they returned and his visit to the memorial. Where "life" came into his voice and the flatness of rote opinion subsided. I think Viki Merrick’s suggestion is a good one….less Paul expounding, more you pondering. Or re-interview him, get him to reveal his views through telling stories about stuff he’s been through…but that would be a different piece.
In this piece, you’re the story–your effort to understand or find a place from which to look at war today. Your narrative is what compels. Like others, I loved the end. Totally didn’t expect it and it left me wondering what you were feeling/thinking when you aimed and right after.
Also wonder, like Kathy Barnhart, what’s with the "itching to tell your friends they were wrong." Wrong? About what exactly, since you seem so up in the air…
A review of this piece just appeared in the Utne Reader Web Watch
Hi Paul
just wanted to let you know, I think it sounds great! Yeah, I agree we want to get to tape quicker but I think you should be uber proud. I
Dear Paul,
Like several of the other respondants, I really liked the parts of this piece that were about you having and then reflecting on the conversation. I can relate to the question that goes nowhere, and it was a nice touch to step away and "spare us" from having to listen to it. I also liked your descriptions.
Your instinct to bring the tape in sooner is right on. I would have liked to hear Paul’s voice before you even got to the premise of the interview. I loved the description of him sitting on the porch with his gun, but I agree with Mom that it would have been nice to hear that gun (maybe just the click of the bolt). I think it was Chekov who said that if you show a gun in the first act, it has to go off by the third act. The gun sets up a tension that makes us want to keep listening, to see what happens. It wouldn’t hurt to remind us midway through the piece that the gun is still around, to lend even more force to your very nice ending.