Podcast
Features
Comments Neal welcomes a Venice Beach regular into the McSweeney’s nation. |
Intro
After 8 years working as a journalist writing Joseph Mitchell styled pieces for the Chicago Reader, Neal Pollack decided he wanted a bit of a career change. And so with the help of Dave Eggers, the author of the best seller A Heart Breaking Work of Staggering Genius and the driving force behind the literary journal McSweeney‘s where many of the pieces in Neal’s book first appeared, Neal published his first book, The Neal Pollack Anthology of American Literature. The deal was this… McSweeney’s would front the money to print the book, and all profits after printing costs would go directly to Neal. But it also meant that besides the help of McSweeney’s one part-time employee and an intern, Neal was completely responsible for promotion of the book. There would be no advertisements, no agents, no promotion department to push the work on bookstores… and so, Neal took to the road…
Related Links
Neal Pollack Archive on McSweeney’s Website
Background
This piece arrived as an email pitch from Jonathan Menjivar in Fullerton, California. Since Transom.org didn’t fully exist yet and we needed material to get it cranked up, we helped him out. Our idea is that we’ll try to help sometimes if we can find the money and we’re excited by the idea. Most of the time, we’ll just take your work as you send it, because you’re so darned good.
This is Jonathan’s first ever radio piece, his first encounter with whole process — interviewing, editing, scripting, narrating, etc. etc. He was kind enough to let us inside his process and, if you’re new to this too, you may find it instructive. Read his email chronicle of the piece — from
the pitch, to
the road, to
the production.
Jonathan followed Neal Pollack (the first author published by McSweeney’s Press) on his book tour… which traveled to bars, punk clubs, a Venice Beach “weight lifting demonstration,” Neal’s hotel room in Vegas, and his parent’s house, among other stops.
The piece itself is still a work-in-progress, with some fat parts, some rough mixes. We intend to complete it for broadcast as part of the “Hearing Voices” series, and its final form will depend on its final broadcast home.
But we wanted to put it here on Transom.org at this point in its life. It is a picaresque tale, a bit longer than what would likely end up on the radio. You can listen to it in chapters. There are bonus sidebars. You can read Jonathan’s email and listen along the way. It’s an Internet kind of thing. It will be interesting to see how it evolves into radio.
To: transom@transom.orgSubject: Piece
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:19:41 PDT
Dear Folks at The Transom,
I know you guys aren’t quite up and running yet but I have an idea for a piece that is somewhat time sensitive and so I’d like to see about getting it underway. I am a completely amateur radio reporter with very little experience. I’ve been volunteering at KCRW since February and I had an idea for a short story that I think would work great on…
More on the creation of this piece:
The Intro |
The Pitch |
The Road |
The Production |
Tech Notes
This piece was created with help from HearingVoices.
Jonathan Menjivar is a volunteer and seasonal employee at KCRW in Santa Monica, California where he works as their subscription drive volunteer coordinator. “Neal Pollack Takes on America” is his first radio story he has seen to completion. It was produced out of Jonathan’s apartment with editorial assistance from Jay Allison using an audio-technica AT835b mic, a Marantz PMD 222 cassette recorder and ProTools Free. Jonathan first became interested in public radio after stumbling onto This American Life a little over four years ago and finally decided to give it a whack himself. “I knew as much about putting together radio stories as Neal knew about writing and publishing books, which is to say really nothing at all.”
Author : jay allison
Date : 03-07-2001 on 07:19
To date, the pieces on Transom.org have been made by people who at least had crafted a story before or who had pushed the Play and Record buttons with the eventual result of something on the radio. They may all have been trying something new, but they weren’t exactly new themselves.
Jonathan Menjivar got his Marantz from Ebay and took a flying shot.
He ended up with a half-hour piece, no small feat, even if it does have some fat on it and a rough fade or two. He wrote it, voiced it and mixed it. He found resources on the Internet (TAL, RadioDiaries, Radio College, here), managed to get the Free ProTools installed on his iMac and bought an external hard drive to put the sound files on, getting advice from the Digidesign website. He figured how to get audio from his cassette machine into the computer and back again.
He convinced his subject, Neal Pollack, to trust him. He hit the road.
When he got back, he had to figure out how to organize all his tapes, how to pick the good stuff and write to it, how to make it sound like a decent radio piece and also sound like HIM, how to do justice to his subject.
He recorded his narration on the Marantz PMD-222 cassette recorder with his relatively-cheapo Audio-Technica 835B microphone under a blanket (“On the day I recorded narration it was raining. So in order to block that sound out, I built a sad, sad homemade studio/tent out of two chairs and a couple blankets; a skill I perfected as a child. In any case, it blocked out the rain and took out some of the echo that was present other times I had recorded the narration”)
Jonathan pretty much proves the point of Transom.org. Even as he was learning himself, he was okay with others listening in. Check out the background stuff he wrote (“The Road”, “Production”, etc) linked from his Show page. Listen to the first radio piece he ever made, “Neal Pollack Takes on America,” and talk about it here.
Author : A Knight
Date : 03-07-2001 on 15:00
Lemme just dive right in. I liked it. I liked it alot, actually. Though I’ll start with the things that I didn’t like.
I don’t know who Neal Pollack is, nor do I know who Dave Eggers is. McSweeney’s sounded familiar, but I couldn’t place it. After having listened to the piece, I know that Pollack wrote a book and that Pollack is a brave and funny guy, but I know nothing of his writing (other than it contains references to drugs and/or drug use based on the school segment). I know that Eggers is somehow affiliated with McSweeney’s. McSweeney’s, I have learned, publishes stuff, but not books, except for this one.
In other words, the piece could have done a better job at letting me know some information about these people/institutions. (thanks to the various links I was able to figure out all of my answers after the fact)
What I love about it (other than the great characters in it, especially the ever changing Pollack) is the fact that it has been left fairly open and malleable for public radio. TAL could add scoring and some editing and it would sound like they did the whole show with in house production; Morning Edition could make some big cuts and combine clips of it with an fresh interview of Joseph or Pollack; etc.
Good Job, Joseph
Author : Michael Poirier
Date : 03-07-2001 on 15:49
I just finished listening to this and I really enjoyed the piece. The segment in the hotel room had me in stitches, and I think moments like that are what make radio such an engaging and entertaining medium. I can’t imagine conveying the fun and fervor of that event nearly as well in print or video or whatever…
However, A Knight just wrote about one thing that did concern me with the piece. I think it does take for granted that the listener has some knowledge about McSweeneys and Eggers, particularly in fleshing out Pollack’s love/hate relationship with his publisher, so some more backgrounding here is probably necessary. Just a few sentences about McSweeneys might better reveal the proper context for Pollack’s literary philosophy and his conflation/rivalry with Eggers.
One aspect I myself might have done differently is in the choice of readings. Pollack’s "Poem" is indeed hilarious and mock-pretentious, but I think the stories in his book itself are actually more illustrative of the unique brand of parody Pollack is a master of. Maybe selections from the "Introduction" or "My Week at Sea" would better highlight the kind of self-inflated pseudojournalism Pollack loves to shred. Just my opinion here of course, but I don’t think it would hurt to let the listener hear just how funny Pollack is when he explains that "If there is one rule in writing, it is this: I am the best."
Author : Michael Poirier
Date : 03-07-2001 on 16:05
Wow. Just listened to the sidebars. That Christopher Penn thing was just…wierd…
Anyway, there was one line in the "Canada" segment that I would love to see make it into the next version — when Pollack says "This isn’t how George Plimpton gets treated when he comes to Santa Monica, I can tell you that!"
I think that one quote sums up so much of what is going on Pollack’s writing and in his tour. It puts him into the familiar literary context he is lampooning, while simultaneously contrasting the unique circumstances of his own quirky book tour with those other writers. I think it’s great sound that could fit almost anywhere in the piece, and I think that one quote illustrates many of the themes the piece is getting at (thus saving the narrator some of that burden as well).
Author : larry
Date : 03-07-2001 on 20:58
It’s really neat to hear a piece at this stage where it’s okay (it is okay, isn’t it?) to make suggestions. This is good material. It just seems to start a little slow, is all. The only reason we have to care about Neal is a) he’s a fun guy and b) he’s written a good book. We never do get much of the book, though; we have to assume it’s interesting because Neal turns out to be interesting. But his most interesting bits don’t come at the beginning. The scene in the Las Vegas hotel room, where he introduces himself, let’s us know he’s on a book tour, and then gets loopy, comes at the end: why not move it to the beginning? I think it would grab the listener, and then the narrator could take us back to an earlier part in the tour and do some explaining. Speaking of the narrator, we don’t really hear him having much of a relationship with Neal (is there tape?); he more often drops in like a traditional arts piece reporter. Which is fine, but if the narrator’s going to do that, why doesn’t he give us some of Neal’s book while he’s at it? I really did want to know more about the book.
Anway, great job so far… look forward to hearing more….
Author : jay
Date : 03-07-2001 on 21:21
Yes, editorial notes are welcome, by all means. Always. That’s the idea. Even if a producer feels his piece is finished, it’s legitimate to dissect it here. It’s a Master Class type o’ thing.
these are all interesting suggestions. AKnight is right that it has been left "malleable" so that it can be tailored to suit whatever program adopts it as part of the "Hearing Voices" series, which is where we found some budget to develop this.
Some of the context stuff — what is McSweeney’s, who is Eggers, what is Neal’s book — could be handled in a long-ish intro. Jonathan drafted a "host intro" on the Show page which would have answered some of these questions if you’d heard it on the air. Still, the book itself feels like it’s missing.
Interesting notions about including parts of the sidebars (I agree about the Plympton line) and fooling with the order. A straight chronology is a comforting structure, though, especially when you’re sorting out hours and hours of tape for the first time in your life.
Author : jonathan (producer)
Date : 03-07-2001 on 22:17
first off, thanks everyone for taking the time to listen to a half hour piece on the internet…and then taking the extra step to say what you think about it. i really appreciate it.
about the issue of explaining mcsweeney’s and neal more…i think jay is right that we can deal with it in the intro. maybe adding or changing a few things there might help alleviate any confusion.
the order of the piece. i think my concerns here go back to some of the stuff about the nature of documentary work that was talked about in scott carrier’s topic. how much do you bend the facts of what really happened for the sake of story? i guess i felt like because it was a tour, that laying things out chronologically was the only way it could be done. but i think larry is right. it’s probably best to start off with the more captivating material and wind it back around. though i didn’t see it too clearly when i was putting the story together i think that could be done and explained away in the narration honestly and with ease.
more of neal’s book. again, i kind of saw things as having to be one way or the other. either the story was going to be readings from his book OR it was going to be all of the stuff of the tour that surrounded it. but i think i could manipulate things just slightly so that there was a more healthy dose of the two.
also larry, there isn’t much tape of interaction between me and neal. even though i had a mic in his face all the time, i was kind of trying to stay out of neal’s way and let him do his book tour thing. i was also afraid in a way that if there was too much interaction between neal and me in the story it might alienate listeners from what is admittedly already a sort of obscure topic. i thought that people who weren’t mcsweeney’s fans might get turned off if there was too much interaction. basically it comes down to the fact that i’m a neal pollack fan and i didn’t want that known thinking that it might negatively affect the story…that it might make it feel…i don’t know…a little too much like that movie almost famous.
Author : jay allison
Date : 03-08-2001 on 10:58
jonathan (03-07-2001 22:17):
basically it comes down to the fact that i’m a neal pollack fan and i didn’t want that known.
Speaking as Jonathan’s editor, we did indeed play away from that fact, but, ultimately, it’s there. You knew he was a fan, didn’t you?
Should it be hidden entirely? Is that a lie?
Should the fact be bumped up and made more obvious? Or should listeners get to decide for themselves what they think of Neal?
But Jonathan’s guiding their perceptions anyway, isn’t he?
Could you come away from this piece with a negative impression of Neal, depending on your beliefs?
Do you like Jonathan’s quasi-objective, give-the-facts narrative role in a piece about Neal, or would you prefer to hear *his* story?
Author : larry
Date : 03-08-2001 on 16:27
you know, the stance of the narrator is really the toughest part of this piece to think through, isn’t it? Of course we know the narrator is a fan of Neal’s, otherwise he wouldn’t bother with the tour, but it’s not acknowledged in the piece; so I guess the "neutral reporter" comes to feel a little troublesome, a little off-tone somehow. It’s not that we need to hear Neal and the narrator partying together (and since there’s no tape for that, we won’t). But what about a really straightfoward approach in the narration? Like, "there’s this writer whom I really like, and
this magazine maybe you’ve never heard of but I think you would dig it and I’m following him around….etc." The narrator doesn’t have to pretend to be just another arts reporter on assignment, does he? A while back Scott Carrier did a piece on a filmmaker, Trent Harris, whose work he really liked, and as I recall he just said so and urged people to take a look at some unkown film; it wasn’t a problem.
Geeze you’ve done so much work on this piece already, and such good work, maybe it’s criminal to suggest rethinking something fundamental.
But maybe it wouldn’t be that hard to rethink if the aim was just to be more natural in the narration; that would come naturally, no?
Author : Nannette
Date : 03-08-2001 on 17:06
to me it goes together with the writing that’s missing. I’d like to hear about the writing that moved Jonathan to follow Pollack. Otherwise, as a fellow beginner I’m immensely impressed, but as a listener I am left with my imagination at the beginning of what could be an infinite number of mirrors, each containing a different author saying in succession, "No, *I’m* the real true blue author raging against the machine.Those other guys are more established and it’s bogus…"
Which guy should I believe unless I know at least one reader has been deeply affected, or unless I can be touched myself?
Or…What’s wrong with being like Almost Famous? you even have the older [scuzi, slightly middle-aged] writer figure in correspondence with you… and there you went on a rollercoaster ride with these guys…( and with Jay and your equipment). It could be fun to mix in the adventure you emailed about. To me that’s an interesting story. I can identify with you more than wtih Pollack because I don’t see Pollack at the beginning, when he decided to embark on this. I don’t hear about specific home friends of his, for example, so I must take your word for it that he’s a real unassuming guy who assumes he is important to literature. I can’t get that from his reading about the barrio.
Will others get something about the ways latin references are made presumptively in mainstream literature (are they?) or will some people be offended by the latin references without latins present?
I’m rushing here and perhaps a little rough. The upshot is you’ve left me curious and impressed with the huge project. Congratulations
And I wouldn’t open with the hotel scene. That would be an invitation to laugh at Pollack before we get to know him. Later, we’re more likely to laugh With him.
Author : Paul
Date : 03-08-2001 on 21:34
jay (03-08-2001 10:58):
Do you like Jonathan’s quasi-objective, give-the-facts narrative role in a piece about Neal, or would you prefer to hear *his* story?
I think that partly depends on what his story is. Jonathan, one thing that I always like in a radio piece is the moment of surprise, where either the reporter or the subject has his or her expectations subverted. I thought it was going to be this, but it turned out to be that. I think those moments are interesting on a basic human level. (Though perhaps I just love formulaic narratives; that’s another possibility.)
Anyway, that’s what Jay’s question above made me wonder — were there moments of surprise for you that didn’t make it into the piece? Did you expect more than four people to show up in Neal’s hotel room? Did you expect him to be nicer? Meaner? More ironic? Less ironic?
Author : jonathan
Date : 03-09-2001 on 00:22
Paul (03-08-2001 21:34):
Did you expect more than four people to show up in Neal’s hotel room? Did you expect him to be nicer? Meaner? More ironic? Less ironic?
I know that element of surprise thing is definitely part of the TAL formula and if they’re interested, I think the piece could be bent in lots of ways to fit that. There is that moment of surprise I had after the Venice event that’s actually included in the emails I sent from the road. Something about me realizing that Neal wasn’t a Neal Cassidy type figure but just a nice guy trying to do some good. That was actually included in the narration of the story at one point but Jay and I talked about it and once I really thought about it sounded really gushy. I’m a sap sometimes but I thought that being a sap in the piece would really turn off people who weren’t Neal or McSweeney’s fans.
Yes I did expect more than four people in Vegas. Does that come across in my narration? I really did expect a lot of people to show up and I felt bad for Neal when only a few people did. But he turned what I thought was going to be a dissapointing night into one of the best parts of the story. Would including that revelation give that scene more depth?
I expected Neal to be loud and funny…which he was. But he’s also a really caring and intelligent guy even if you have to sift through occasional obnoxius behavior to find those things. But I didn’t find him to be ironic at all. Even though his book is parody driven, I think it’s 100% genuine and irony free in some ways.
Author : jay allison
Date : 03-09-2001 on 07:29
McSweeney’s has graciously acknowledged Jonathan’s work
http://www.mcsweeneys.net
[A first-time radio producer named Jonathan Menjivar was unfortunate enough to accompany Neal Pollack to Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Phoenix last fall. Click here for the results. Jonathan has come up with a brilliant and not always flattering portrait of America's Greatest Living Writer. The piece also features the first-ever performance of the unpopular song "Neal Pollack vs. We Are Scientists." We thank Jonathan, who is recovering nicely at the Betty Ford Center, for his efforts.]
Author : Paul
Date : 03-09-2001 on 07:39
jonathan (03-09-2001 00:22):
Yes I did expect more than four people in Vegas. Does that come across in my narration? I really did expect a lot of people to show up and I felt bad for Neal when only a few people did. But he turned what I thought was going to be a dissapointing night into one of the best parts of the story. Would including that revelation give that scene more depth?
My personal answer to that question would be yes, definitely. In fact I think you could use that scene to create two moments of surprise, one sad, one happy: first, that you expected it to be a crowded room, big deal, you just drove across a desert to get there…and then there are four people. Disappointment. This tour sucks. What are we doing here…But then it turns out that Neal doesn’t really care, he turns it into a great time, and that makes you realize (maybe) that this tour isn’t really about selling books, it’s about something…else.
Or something like that. I don’t want to put revelations in your mouth. But it sounds from your description above like you did go through both of those moments there in Vegas, an emotional low and then a high. If you allow that emotional swing to enter the piece, both through narration and tape, I think you’ll capture the listener’s attention and emotions more.
But like I said, or started to say, above — that idea of surprise and change being important elements of narration seems so natural to me, I sometimes forget that not every listener (or reader) thinks it’s as essential an element as I do.
jonathan (03-09-2001 00:22):
I didn’t find him to be ironic at all. Even though his book is parody driven, I think it’s 100% genuine and irony free in some ways.
I think that’s a really interesting idea, and it might give you a way to do what some other listeners were suggesting, above — to give some context to the book for those who’ve never heard of Neal Pollack (or McSweeney’s).
You could explain that it’s a book of parody, that it’s labeled as ironic by some critics (and fans), and here’s why…but you’ve come to understand that Neal doesn’t think of it that way, and here’s why you believe him.
And of course, formulaic old me would like it even better if you came to that realization in the course of the piece — e.g., if when you’re on Venice Beach with the hipsters watching ukeleles and weightlifters, things are feeling pretty ironic, but by the time you get to that nice final speech in his high school, you’ve concluded that he’s more earnest than ironic.
Of course, it might not have actually happened that way. But if it did…mmmm, sweet.
Author : Zack
Date : 03-09-2001 on 12:55
I thought this was a wondeful piece. I’ve been a fan of McSweeneys for a long time, ever since I stumbled onto this: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2000/01/17faq.html . I’m still trying figure these guys out, and that’s the fun of it. It seems Jonathan is participating in the same process and enjoying it as well.
Author : jonathan
Date : 03-10-2001 on 08:48
I think I said somewhere in all that writing I did about the story that when I was done recording the story, it looked as if there were about ten different directions the story could go in…and it looks like it’s still that way.
Paul I really like the suggestions you’ve given. You’ve proven your skills as a great editor again. When I say that I mean you haven’t put words in my mouth, but you’ve ordered and organized the wide range of feelings I was experiencing on the tour into a clear narrative. thanks.
But I still think it all depends on who, if anyone, is interested in airing this story. Making those changes might make the piece more interesting to some (including me) but it might also mean the piece ends right here…that it won’t see another life on the actual air. I guess we just have to wait and see.
Author : jonathan
Date : 03-11-2001 on 08:32
It’s been a long time coming, but Neal has made the big time…
http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/11/reviews/010311.11shafert.html
Author : Jen
Date : 03-12-2001 on 20:04
I think the consensus among the comments points to, perhaps, a technical error?
When listening to the story, under "Hear Entire Story" button, the piece starts out with "This is the first thing I have with Neal Pollack saying anything on tape."
It does not start with the introduction that is on the webpage (which is quite explanatory and would frame the whole story perfectly.)
Is this how it’s supposed to be Jonathan and Jay?
Jennifer
Author : jay allison
Date : 03-12-2001 on 21:25
Jen (03-12-2001 20:04):
Is this how it’s supposed to be Jonathan and Jay?
Yes, but now that you mention it, someone should have voiced the intro and stuck it on the front of the piece. I just figured that people would read it on the "Show" page, so it wasn’t necessary.
We have learned a lesson here today.
Author : Neal Pollack
Date : 03-13-2001 on 08:21
I thought Jonathan did a terrific job. I gave him so much access to my tour because I’ve worked as a journalist myself for years, and I know that the more access a reporter gets, the better his or her story becomes. If Jonathan had wanted even further access, Regina and I would have done what we could to accomodate him.
I have few criticisms of the piece itself. I should take singing lessons, first of all. The only thing I wish is that J could have included more of the characters he met while on tour with me. When you’re on the road, the people you meet make up the majority of your experience, and I would have liked to have gleaned a better sense of that, particularly in the LA segments. But other than that, I am so pleased.
Author : jonathan
Date : 03-14-2001 on 09:53
Neal Pollack (03-13-2001 08:21):
I should take singing lessons, first of all.
I think it’s important to note that Neal never considers that he should just STOP singing. Also at nealpollack.com there’s a new link that will let you watch a video of Neal singing "Wild Thing" in Toronto.
Author : Raquel
Date : 03-14-2001 on 19:04
Hello folks.
I want to chime in becaue I really enjoyed Jonathan’s piece. And I admire the fact that he pitched the story to Jay Allison. More importantly, he got encouraging advice and guidance – and a check. (!)
The keys to pubradio success: talent, drive, and intelligent self-promotion?
I use my microphone and a razor every day… But it doesn’t make it any easier to follow up on a complex story idea that I love. It’s so hard to stop thinking about imitating established styles and just get some tape. We talk and think and listen, but pressing the record button is the biggest challenge. It was so inspiring to watch a fan of innovative sound stories get out and do one. Congrats Jonathan and thanks to Jay!
~~Raquel
My introduction to transom.org came when my friend Neal Pollack arrived at my home in Tempe, Arizona for a book party with a box of books, his wife Regina and a very young guy with a very long mike. Neal hadn’t mentioned Jonathan — our communication had been sporadic, mainly about how it was unseasonably rainy in metro Phoenix, which meant no tiki torches for the party — and no one introduced Jonathan, so after the marshmallow roast (Neal’s other party request, aside from candy corn) I cornered Jonathan in the kitchen and wrested the transom.org story out of him. Actually, he volunteered the info — along with Jay’s email — happily.
All that said so you understand that while I don’t come at this with any more radio experience than that of The Listener, I am well-versed in Neal Pollack. Old family friend, fellow alt-journalism person. (I write for Phoenix New Times, where Neal and I both grew up; until recently he was at the Chicago Reader.)
Having just finished putting my own first radio piece together, I listened to Jonathan’s with new respect. Here are my comments to him:
Jonathan, you did a fabulous job — (and, thanks to you, I now know how hard it is to put these pieces together, so consider the compliment as heartfelt)! I also know how hard it is to take them apart — so consider my comments with a big, huge grain of salt.
I’ve read the comments on the transom.org talk page, and i tend to agree with those who say they don’t really get a feel for what the book is about, by listening to your piece. I’m at a disadvantage in a way because I know exactly what it’s about, and what Neal’s about….but let me take a stab at this.
I’ll take it from a journalistic angle, since that’s what I do (or try to do). This was a great piece for radio (as opposed to mine; trying to tape action in a nursing home is tough!). But as for the story-telling: Pollack, Eggers and McSweeney’s are extremely difficult to explain. Here are some suggestions.
First off: You do need to explain up front what this is all about, or you’re going to lose listeners early. From a truth-telling standpoint, I admire the fact that you follow a strict time narrative — in other words, each scene follows the other as it did in real life (with editing, of course). But I think it hampers
you quite a bit in the story-telling. I know some people on transom.org think an intro to the piece would take care of this, and perhaps it would, but the story should stand on its own, too, in my opinion. I’d approach it differently, and mix up what you’ve got in
order to tell the story in a way that makes sense; you can explain to the listener that you’re jumping around, time-wise, without bamboozling him/her. (I wonder what Jay thinks of this….)
For example, I think it’s not til the road to Vegas that Neal and Regina really explain (or try to; I personally think they fail) McSweeneys. And the stuff at the very end with Neal and his mother (although I might lose it altogether, as they were clearly
performing for you in an annoying, cloying way — something you did a remarkable job of avoiding in almost all of the piece) gets at what Neal’s doing — vis a vis the performance art stuff….But it’s way too late.
(THIS IS PART TWO OF MY MESSAGE — I COULDN’T GET THE WHOLE THING ON THERE AT ONCE. AMY)
At some point toward the middle Neal also gets at some of the explanation of McSweeneys — and reveals himself, which, frankly, as his friend makes me cringe, but as a journalist makes me howl — with that bullshit comparing himself and Eggers to Andy Warhol and Tom Wolfe. (I honestly can’t tell if he’s kidding or not, but you should be able to discern it and point it out to the listener; remember, though, that Neal and Dave make fun of exactly the kind of journalism my publication, Phoenix New Times, does, so maybe I’m a little sensitive on the topic.) In any case, you need to not only explain Pollack, but Eggers and HIS schtick waaaay before you get to that — otherwise your listener will just be scratching his head. The joke about Eggers and Pollack being the same person is totally lost otherwise.
I know this takes away some of the spontaneous joy you want the piece to have, but you’ve got to let people in on the jokes first. And that leads me to my main problem, which is really more about McSweeneys, Neal and Dave rather than your radio piece, but i think it could be
cool to capture this in your piece:
Neal and Dave are all about the inside joke. They don’t care if you get it or not; they’ll keep writing their books and posting their stuff on the web no matter what. But you, as the radio documentarian, have to explain and then cut through that BS to get to those readers who are not dumb, but not in on the joke. You do that a tiny bit, maybe by accident; you need to do it more. In my mind, it’s the story here.
(OK, now, bear with me on this next part. This could only be my opinion/observation, but if it rings true with you, maybe it’s a way to explain why you wanted to do this piece and who this book/movement is for):
You never really identify who the prototypical Pollack/McSweeneys reader is.
It’s YOU, Jonathan! Twentysomething, cerebral, sharp-witted guys (from what i’ve seen, virtually ALL guys — Regina and Neal’s mom don’t count) who love Neal’s humor — from the literary rants to the
unbuttoning pants in the hotel room — the whole thing. Case in point: my living room, the night of my book party for Neal. These random 20-something guys show up at the house of someone they don’t know, a whole hour early, and hang all over Neal. One of them actually saw Neal in Seattle (his home) and then flew to Phoenix to see him again. They’re groupies, he IS their Tom Wolfe, their Andy Warhol….Screw Neal’s family and their friends; none of them really got it at all, although they laughed at the jokes and there was some Phoenix humor they all got; they were just there being nice to Susan and Bernie. (Neal, don’t kill me — I’m sure you’ll read this.) It’s those young guys like you, Jonathan, who make McSweeneys what it is. Neal and Eggers are just slightly overgrown (and overblown) versions of you and these other guys. You relate to them. It’s almost like a fraternity. Look at the mcsweeneys.org writers — just about all 20-something guys. Neal touches on it a tiny tiny bit in your piece, but unless you’re looking for it, it’s lost.
(OK, THIS IS EMBARRASSING. EITHER I CAN’T FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK YOUR DISCUSSION BOARDS, OR I’M WRITING TOO LONG. LIKELY BOTH. LAST PART, I PROMISE. AMY)
I know it’s taboo in much journalism to talk about yourself (unless you’re Neal Pollack!) but what we need in your piece is what drew YOU to McSweeneys, to Eggers, to Pollack. Why YOU think it’s a phenomenon worth exploring or a joke worth exploiting — or something in between; obviously it’s got some of these elements for you or you wouldn’t have poured your heart and soul into making a radio piece. I don’t know if you have any of this in your dozens of hours of tape, but what about some of these groupies talking about what THEY like about Neal? I just got uncomfortable in that Pasadena bookstore — Neal being goofy, those people not getting it (even if you say they were holding back laughter, my guess is it was embarrassed laughter –
like the pratfall joke you made, very astutely)– I know what was going on, but others may not. You need to explain it up front.
Neal’s right, the McSweeneys thing and the Neal thing is a cultural phenomenon (albeit microscopic) and it’s hitting a very important group. But (I know I’m beating a dead horse here) you’re not doing this piece for people like you. Your listeners aren’t going to know
anything about this stuff. You’ve got to take them by the hand and explain why you, Jonathan, are so intrigued, and why there’s this
underground following of McSweeney-ites….The rest will follow.
I hope my ramblings made some sense.
What a thoughtful and thorough analysis! Another Transom T-shirt has been earned.
I’d be interested in the McSweenys Fan perspective on that critique. Any present? Or Neal… are you about?
Neal can write books but sometimes he can’t do certain things…like figuring out how to post on the transom boards. So he asked me to post the following:
"Amy. You have betrayed my true nature. Run me over with your pickup truck of critical thought. And you’re right about a lot of things, but not about all. While it’s true that the majority of my audience are 20-somethings, and many of them are male, they do not comprise the entirety of this little world. Eggers has a lot of female readers, for various reasons, and I have a small share myself. There are also a number of people who fall outside of the age bracket, both older and younger. I think those people who respond to McSweeneys do so because it has energy, and not because they feel as though they are in on some inside joke. At its best, and it is not always at its best, McSweeneys does something that Big Publishing cannot; it creates literary culture. We have parties, we throw entertaining live shows, we hold contests for our readers. While some of this may be bullshit, most of it is simply out of a sense of fun. Why should being a writer not be fun?
So I quit my "legitimate" journalism career to be a kind of traveling literary clown. So what? I was bored at the Reader, and not moving forward as a writer in the way I wanted to. This is nothing against the Reader, but I’d had enough. I was tired of the artifice, so I thought I’d spin my own.
Every journalist and every writer creates artifices and has pretensions. Of COURSE I don’t think I’m Andy Warhol. For pity’s sake."
1. My book doesn’t target alternative weeklies. I aim higher, at glossy magazines. Alternative weeklies are not the problem; while they may vary widely in quality, and many of them are about as "alternative" as VH1, they generally tend to be engaged in their communities and are, at least, lively. I worked for the Reader for seven years, and have written for the New York Press and currently have a books column with the Philadelphia Weekly. So obviously, I do not disdain the weeklies. No need to be defensive there, Amy.
2. Regina points out that there are, in fact, a LOT of female McSweeneys readers, that there are a lot of McSws readers in their 30s, and that there are a lot of teenage McSws readers. The guys that showed up at your party were a statistical average, perhaps, but not much more. Also, you’d be surprised about my parents’ friends, many of whom do, in fact, get the joke, particularly since they’ve known me a long time. One of the guys came up to me after the party and said, "the Jewish ladies were a nice touch." I thought, no, dum dum, they are not a nice touch, they are friends of the family, and they are at the party to support me, not to serve as your entertainment. To suppose otherwise is cynical beyond belief.
That is all.
NP
OK Amy, since no other McSweeney’s people have stepped up to the plate and Neal has had his say, allow me to respond.
First off thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed critique. I agree that the piece needs restructuring and that it needs more of me in it in order to try and explain the McSweeney’s phenomenon and I will certainly use your comments when it comes time to revising the story.
But I DON’T think that McSweeney’s is really some twenty something boys’ club. I think that like the impression that they’re all about irony and the inside joke (something dressed earlier in the boards with Paul Tough), there is a misconception that McSweeney’s is this fraternity just playing at literature. I even had that impression going into the story. But I must say that after being on tour with Neal and taking the time to catch up on the vast amount of McSweeney’s stuff out there, I don’t think that perception is true. It’s two biggest stars so far are men and the guys at your party certainly represented a percentage of the McSweeney’s audience. But the people I met on Neal’s tour (some of whom I mention in the emails to Jay)who were his biggest fans who took the time and effort to help plan Neal’s tour and promote his book were women; women either closely approaching or into their thirties.
I think the misunderstanding is a fault of my reporting. I know from the criticism on the transom boards and some I’ve received in private emails that the piece sets Neal up in some ways to be a bit of drunken clown. I know he’s not that, as would McSweeney’s fans, but the people who have never heard of McSweeney’s wouldn’t. I think in restructuring the piece, my voice that every wants to hear could be used to combat those misconceptions. You know like, "McSweeney’s and Neal are not just overblown frat boys playing some big ironic joke…and here…let me tell you why they’re not." I think the legacy of pranksterism associated with Might (Egger’s previous, now defunct publication) has followed McSweeney’s and the fact that they refuse to play by the rules has led to a misrepresentation of what they’re about. Maybe Neal and McSweeney’s aren’t doing anything significant, but what they are doing is honest and real. And even if it is funny and silly and even stupid at times, it’s good. Neal’s book may not be read by many people 50 years from now, but so what.
If this post sounds defensive, forgive me. I just think it’s the truth.
Jonathan: I don’t think you sound defensive at all! And your own self-critique is right on. I do think that perhaps I jumped in and offered my own opinion of McSweeney’s when what I should have done was urge you to share YOUR opinion of McSweeney’s — whatever it may be.
More on that in a minute.
But first, I don’t think I accurately expressed my own opinion of McSweeney’s, et al, so let me start there first. I don’t mean to suggest that McSweeney’s is not worthy, or that Neal and his book are not worthy. They’re a collective phenomenon, and that’s fascinating. We don’t have enough phenomena (I think that’s a word) in our culture. That said, I still do believe that much of what McSweeney’s does, and certainly much if not all of Neal’s book, is satire. So inherently, it’s all about the inside joke, even if all the smart folk out there are in on it. That’s OK. It’s not bad. It doesn’t mean that the work doesn’t have literary value. And it’s not bad to agree to disagree on whether we like it, based on personal taste. Just because McSweeney’s is not my favorite doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate its greater value. And to say that 20something guys seem particularly into it is not meant as a slam, or a fraternity reference. Somehow, you, Jonathan, don’t strike me as a fratboy. I didn’t think it was the bathroom humor as much as the smart humor that drew those guys like you in….THAT said, I still think those 20something guys at my house were fascinating. I didn’t mean to say that those are only Neal’s only fans, but any fans that act the way they did are intriguing — even if they’re 60-year-old Jewish ladies. BUT as the listener, I’d rather hear from fans who have no connection to Neal other than through their pure McSweeney’s/Neal fandom — no matter what their age and gender.
Now, I’ll readily admit that while I pull up the McSweeney’s site most every day, and I have read Neal’s book (and Eggers’ book) and was present for one event on Neal’s tour, I must totally defer to you on all matters Neal/McSweeney’s. You are the expert. You’ve done the legwork. You’ve earned the right to interpret this stuff for the listener.
To that end, what I was trying to tell you in my obviously clumsy way was that I think the piece would be better if you could boil down what — in your opinion — this stuff is all about. And yes, if that means raising what you think is a stereotypical, shallow observation that this stuff only appeals to 20something guys like you, then great. Do it. THEN knock it down and tell us why that’s wrong, and then tell us what it’s really about. Not what Neal thinks, necessarily, although his opinion has its place, but what YOU think. I know in an earlier post you mentioned that you were trying to be the objective journalist, but your opinion is far more valuable than objectivity in this case. (The reason I chose to work for the much-maligned alternative weekly genre instead of a daily newspaper is because I don’t believe there is such a thing as pure objectivity in journalism — even the way you place a comma can influence the reader’s feeling about what you’re covering. I didn’t want to pretend.)
So go for it. You’ve got our ears. And again, really, I’m in awe of your work. It’s a lot easier to fire off about this stuff in a chat room than to create it as radio!
IMHO, I think you can avoid the subject of stereotypical McSws/Pollack/Eggers fans in your story completely. You will be introducing McSws/Pollack/Eggers to the vast majority of listeners. You should probably concentrate on explaining why these people are worth the listener’s time, not reasons why the listener may not relate to the subject.
If you set up the perception of a demographic and then spend the rest of the show refuting that perception, the non-McSws listener will still come away with the perception of a McSws demographic. The reason is 2 fold: #1 You aren’t objective in this story and therefore won’t have credibility in this regard. You are a McSws/Pollack fan, and no matter how hard you try, that fact will shine through. #2 Once you bring up outside sources, you give those sources extra power. They are Ghosts, and they are indestructible. They aren’t speaking for themselves, so the listener isn’t given the chance to hear the humanity and fallibility in their voices. You give the detractors power by letting the listener know that not only do the detractors exist, but their point of view is strong and valid enough to be mentioned.
If I mention to you that some people say I have no fashion sense, and I swear to you that I am a snappy dresser and that my friends say I’m a snappy dresser and even have me help them shop for their wardrobes, having not seen the way I dress for yourself you will assume that I, and my friends, have no fashion sense. It’s called ‘poisoning your own well’, and it’s the same reason that McDonalds never mentions their competitors in their ads. McDonalds is #1, and they won’t validate their competitions existence by mentioning them. They spend 100% of their ad time on self-promotion, not fighting what people may say about them (same with Coke).
Promote the hell out of McSws/Pollack/Eggers. Focus on introducing all the things you love and admire about these folks to people who have never heard of them. The listener will decide whether or not McSws appeals to them.
i Yes, I _do_ have horrible fashion sense. (And Neil! I ordered your book from McSws last month and it hasn’t shown up (hell, the Credit Card I used has already expired)… Deciding not to make the same mistake twice, I ordered McSws #6 through tmbg.com. This is how you treat your new fans?)
Here is an interesting footnote which arrived in Transom’s email box, posted here with Gadi’s permission
=============
I came across the Neal Pollack show on transom.org and thought you and Mr.
Menjivar (his e-mail address is not listed) might be surprised to read an
account of what really happened at Pollack’s Venice Beach reading, regarding
the homeless man accusing Pollack of white supremacist teachings. It might
provide some interesting background color. It’s all true, I’m told.
You can read the article — and Pollack’s response — in TRAGOS online >>>
Pollack’s response: http://tragos.org/issue2/letters.html
Original article: http://tragos.org/issue1/pollack.html
Best,
Gadi Dechter
editor, TRAGOS Magazine
http://tragos.org
Interesting background color maybe, but not really a surprise at all.
I think it should be noted as well that everything we hear from Gucci in my story, except for his praise for Neal at the end, came before this incident happened. All of it was unprovoked and I believe, Gucci’s genuine reaction to witnessing Neal’s spectacle. My story originally contained the scene described in the Tragos piece and now I’m especially glad we cut it. Good call Jay.
And for the record. If you’ve read the Tragos piece…I myself am not a pasty white boy and take offense to being described as such.
I meant to post something here before, questioning why the Phoenix Pollack party wasn’t mentioned at all in the piece (I wondered if the hullaballoo of such an event made taping difficult), but having belatedly read Amy’s comments, I’m nearly compelled to respond.
Whatever one’s opinion about journalistic objectivity, facts are facts, and Amy has exercised poetic license with some of them. I quote:
Case in point: my living room, the night of my book party for Neal. These random 20-something guys show up at the house of someone they don’t know, a whole hour early, and hang all over Neal. One of them actually saw Neal in Seattle (his home) and then flew to Phoenix to see him again. They’re groupies, he IS their Tom Wolfe, their Andy Warhol….
Although this paragraph suggests that I, a Seattle resident, was one of the random guys who showed up an hour early, I was not. I know the hostess, and am known by her–in truth, I was mailed a special invitation to attend her soiree. I did see Neal at a reading in Seattle, and did fly to Phoenix, but not exclusively to see him again–I was primarily interested in seeing my good friend Tricia, who is herself a close friend of Ms. Silverman and attended the party at my side. And I’m flattered about the demographic cohort into which Ms. Silverman has placed me, but I must confess that I’m well into my 30s. There were a pair of college students on break who arrived at her house unexpectedly–if it’s fair to say that any partygoers can be unexpected at an event that was presaged by an open invitation on a popular, nationally-known website.
I believe Amy (if I may call her that even though she’s cast aside years of mutual acquaintance to refer to me as a "random guy") has miscast the circumstances of that evening to serve her theory that the popularity of McSweeney’s and its affiliated authors is deep but narrow and aberrant.
OK, the strain of pretending to be so aggrieved has proved too strong. I just wanted to join the chorus of those who don’t think that McSweeney’s, or Pollack’s appeal is intentionally limited to an audience of cognoscenti, especially not one consisting of hip, wiseass twentysomethings. I will say that these writers may appeal most strongly to former wiseass twentysomethings, those who grew up on the smart but often shallow snarkiness of David Letterman and Dennis Miller. David Foster Wallace (who’s been accused of using the same knee-jerk irony to titillate the same kind of audience) has written pretty eloquently on the difficulty of writing anything that’s intelligent and sincere simultaneously, and I think Neal’s trying to do just that, succeeding more often than not.
Sincere? Man, I must have bought an alternate version of his book. Well, I guess I could say that he is sincere in his insincerity, but that would bring me that much closer to believing in Feng Shui.
I was going to expand on that "sincere" comment, but I figured I’d already gone on long enough. What I meant to imply, I suppose, was that almost all of Neal’s fakery is in service of good old fashioned satire–he’s not just making flip remarks at anything that moves, he’s making fun of specific things he finds objectionable. We obviously can’t take the persona he adopts with a straight face, but in his book (and especially elsewhere, when he’s writing comically but more obviously as himself) it’s usually pretty clear what his true feelings are about most things. He was a protester at W’s inauguration, for example, and wrote about carrying a sign saying "Minor Literary Celebrities Against Fascism." That’s funny (subject to personal opinion, of course) but not terribly ironic, and the sentiment it expresses is sincere. I dug these remarks up from his own website:
Q: Was your "affinity group" meant to be ironic?
A: No. There was certainly humor, and silly humor, but humor is often used in protests. I called for this group to come together because I wanted to march with people who were angry and open-minded, but who otherwise might have felt that they didn’t fit under the big tent of
protesting. Most of the people who joined me were first-timers, but they didn’t come to be ironic. They came because they are opposed to George W. Bush and his policies, and also thought that they could have fun.
You could sum up the whole Eggers/Pollack/whoever project by stealing from that paragraph. "[H]umor, and silly humor . . . open-minded . . . didn’t come to be ironic. They came because they are [smart (yes, I'm equating opposition to GWB and his policies with intelligence)], and also thought that they could have fun."
This high-toned discussion is all well and good, but it doesn’t answer my question. How come the party at Amy’s house never showed up in the piece? Was it strictly an editorial decision–i.e., my friends and I are too boring for radio–or are there technical problems that made it tough to get good sound?
This high-toned discussion is all well and good, but it doesn’t answer my question. How come the party at Amy’s house never showed up in the piece? Was it strictly an editorial decision–i.e., my friends and I are too boring for radio–or are there technical problems that made it tough to get good sound?
No, you and your friends weren’t boring that night. There was good material that I wanted to use. Neal having a pinecone ceremony being just one those funny things. But some things had to go and unfortunately the stuff from Amy’s party was the first victim. I can’t really say why, maybe the humor was just too Arizona-centered, but it didn’t speak as well to what was happening on the tour and what Neal is about as other stuff.
And incidentally. The manner in which I was forced to record Neal that night, sticking my mic in his face and pushing in and around people is pretty much the way I had to do things the whole tour. The only thing different about that night was I got to do it with a beer in my hand the whole time.
PAST, and PRESENT.
AND, he’s on tour again preparing for the release of Poetry and Other Poems and promoting the paperback version of The Neal Pollack Anthology of American Literature and the 3CD boxed set of his readings. Tour info can be found right HERE. If you go, be sure to bring plenty of plastic sporks to toss at Pollack in random intervals.