- Posts tagged Writing
- Explore Writing on posterous
desi-pan and paan-chawal
the pen or the star?
just saw an old interview with aamir khan and imran khan on youtube where aamir made a very interesting observation. He said: when he had a debut film QSQT, there was only one channel and not much film coverage in major newspapers (basically no tabloids and gossip rags). A PR person tried to get some journalists interested in interviewing the new stars, but were not very successful. (Little did they know who they would have had the first digs on had they taken the bait!)
Ironically, today, with so many channels, publications and not to forget online media, there is a desperate quest for news - good, bad or ugly. Good journalism has been left far behind, now anybody's uncle's sister's second cousin's daughter ... (u get my drift) is hot news. A starlet with a buxom bust is the hottest thing in town, before she has even done anything to prove herself. Not only are people looking for space-fillers, quantity has overtaken quality.
Reality TV has added another dimension: your next-door neighbour could be the next reality TV star and from then on the next bollywood king. While the playing field has been levelled, there is no sifting to find who is really worthy of the time and attention.
Coming back to the stars, the biggest problem, is the PR machinery. While PR is supposed to signify a public relations team/ person, facilitating a smooth interaction with the person they represent, instead they end up being a method to put up a wall of falsehood around the star. The PR person is either a mouthpiece for the star's inane demands (which they cannot ask for directly) or is a filter through which the star is approached - with the normal problems of Chinese whispers, inaccurate depiction and ego hassles. You have to first pander to the PR person's ego and then pander to that of the star. But before that, you need to be able to access the PR person. In most cases, the PR person is so busy (either taking up too many stars are one time or simply pretending to ignore calls that they are just not up to taking) that you need to go through hell to get one simple 'yes' or 'no' out of them. If the process involves getting approvals/ agreement from the star, one can just forget it ever happening. The PR people can be vindictive, rude, dishonest, unavailable and deeply inefficient. It is possible the stars would never know that their PR people are actually giving them a bad rep and dissing them to the media. Or maybe, the stars know, because that's exactly who they are?
The tables have truly turned. At one point of time, the stars needed the media, and made themselves available to them. Now, apparently, the media needs the stars, and they have to cater to their every inane demand to get a story. Every little wannabe actor, one-movie-old or debuting wants to be on magazine covers. But no one stops to ask themselves - 'what have I done to merit it?' And where is the sanctity of true media and journalism, if the media is willing to stoop to all levels to cater to them? Is the pen mightier than the star, or the other way around?
Here's a another twist in the saga. Stars have now begun to talk to their fans directly. The media and the PR person have been thus circumvented with blogs and twitter. Fans know exactly what their star is doing at any time of the day, what they are thinking/ feeling. What value can media add to a person who is already baring all? The mystery, the art of conversation - taking the time to get to know the reclusive star and drawing them out to bare all, may just fade into oblivion. The changes that we are witnessing show the death of old fashioned celebrity interviews, democracy and independence of the media; and transparency and honesty of the PR person.
writer's blog
when does editing stop and writing begin (or vice versa)?
what's in an apostrophe i say? i mean does it really matter at the end of the day if it is its or it's? It really is an indelible itch to fix these apostrophes, coz they simply seem like such a small big thing! they change the meaning from personable to impersonable, and it seems like the error is glaring at you when you read it - doesn't everyone notice it?
at that stage you really wonder at what stage you stop being a writer (allowed to make such incongruous mistakes) and become an editor (shrivelling up with the anxiety of a missing 'strophe). and does being a better editor make you an equally better writer? OR doesn't being a better writer, make you a better editor?
Unfortunately, I believe none of the above have anything to do with the other. An editor is probably waiting for a story to tell - and after having read so much crap stuff and good stuff by others, is simply too jaded and self-critical to actually write... and a writer is simply so ponderously self-obssessed with a story or the finer nuances, that the judicious clarity to edit - to step away from the work, and actually see it as it is, is quite matter-of-factly, lost. I mean, of course that it s a huge generalisation but that is how it seems to fit just right. Writers write and editors edit. Writers suffer editor's block and editors suffer writer's block.
They say a book or film is as good as its editor. An editor works quietly (or not so quietly - I suppose they must be given to temperamental fits) behind the scenes to make the final product what it is - to make it or break it. I guess that's why so many writers thank their editors in the acknowledgements, and so many directors simply forget to thank their editors in their trophy acceptance speeches! Since there are awards for 'best editing' in movies - why isn't there an award for best book editor? Not that I want one of course, I'm waiting to write that book.
empathy pity and pithy witty - the interview question
what does it take to successfully meet someone and in the space of a few minutes, understand where they are coming from and what makes them tick? who is to stop them from lying through their teeth? i think it is setting up a comfort level - also making them believe that you are a a non-threatening person to deal with. every time i have to do it, i always wonder what it is that makes someone willing to bare information about themselves and their life without giving it a second thought! When I had to switch sides and go to the other side of the table, I suddenly realised, it is just being yourself and if you speak from the heart, it is really tough to get it wrong. very importantly, you should be interviewing a person you are genuinely interested in knowing more about - otherwise it is a superficial q&a.
and it will always, always show when your interview lacks soul and depth. and the voice of the interviewer - how strong can it be? after all, you filter everything through your own consciousness and perceptions - how accurate are they? At the end of the day, reporting accurately is a misnomer - how can you report what is level one of chinese whispers? the correct interpretation of the question -> the correct interpretation of the answer -> the correct translation into words -> the judicious editing -> the correct interpretation by the reader. After so many filters, if the article still reads accurate, then it is actually a job well done.
if you overpower the interviewee and puts words in his/ her mouth, you are no better than a basic tabloid writer. when do you transition from journalist to writer? from empathy to wit and a modicum of charm, you are cajoling the best possible answers for the meatiest story. and twisted with veracity and smart writing. wow - who ever said it's easy? and it doesn't help when you are informed by the interviewee that 'hey - its completely up to the interviewer to make it work, to create a great dialogue... no pressure, of course!'
