The Comma, the Period, the Horror
Post means post-production, or the phase of an interview when its time to fix any problems that may have come up during the interview and turn the conversation into something concise and coherent. Many times, if you’re lucky, this isn’t necessary. Most interviewees stay on point and can compartmentalize thoughts within their answers, so their argument is both logical and chronological. This means the discussion tracks an order of importance path; from introducing the listener to the interviewee, to the meat of the discussion, to a more light-hearted conclusion. It’s a standard interview arc and one listeners have come to expect, mostly because it works.
But when an interviewee rarely uses punctuation, editing the conversation into a listenable final product can be a nightmare. There are people who can talk for long minutes at a time and never take a breath. Sometimes, talking without a break is less malicious than psychological. Some people are never asked to give their opinion or are never allowed to finish once they start. So they are delighted to talk and because it may be rare to have someone actually listening, they may not know the cues of polite society that should tell them it’s time to pause and allow dialogue.
I suspect though that some interviewees have learned to do this purposely and as a strategy (1) to prevent the interviewer from immediately challenging the interviewee’s suppositions, (2) in an attempt to shift power in the conversation to the interviewee, or (3) to purposely make editing difficult.
When an interviewee talks without letting the interviewer ask follow up questions, they are trying to push an agenda. They are forcing out talking points that represent an ideology which has no tolerance for examination. Or they are trying to plant something in the listener’s mind with such force that they hope an interviewer’s questions won’t uproot it. That’s hard to deal with but not impossible. The best way, if you’re not up against the clock, is to simply say you have X number of questions and you want to get them all asked before you finish. You’ve put the interviewee on notice that no matter how long they talk, they know every question is going to get asked no matter how long they try to delay you asking them. If you are up against the clock, you either take control of the interview or end it.
And this can lead to shifting power which can be a tougher problem, because then, it’s not about the content of the conversation as much as it’s about the dynamic between the interviewer and the interviewee. But an aggressive interviewee can be dealt with in a couple ways. An interviewer can butt heads with them once as a way to show them they are not going to dominate the conversation but then choose not to escalate confrontation beyond that. If the interviewee chooses to escalate, the interviewer lets them while remaining calm, knowing it is they who will come off looking like an ass. Otherwise, an interviewer may try to reign in a confrontational interviewee with a long pause after a tirade, or they may come back with a dispassionately asked follow up question devoid of any emotional energy. Using the interviewee’s name is also another method of bringing the discussion back to a balanced interaction. The key is for the interviewer to not let themselves be drawn into the interviewee’s own unique form of crazy.
But no matter why run-on answers happen, they can cause real technical problems. Namely, someone who isn’t using punctuation doesn’t have natural breaks in their speech, or if they do, they may not always line up with logical breaks. Natural breaks are places where people take a breath or where their inflection falls such that editing that point to another point where it later rises makes for an almost unnoticeable transition. Logical breaks are where someone carries a complete thought to its conclusion. The thing is they don’t always happen at the same time and are a lot less likely to happen without punctuation.
Ideally, editing is where a natural break coincides with a logical break. But now imagine two lanes of traffic, both moving in the same direction but at different speeds. Trying to shoot an arrow across both lanes without hitting something is almost impossible and that’s what editing an interview with someone speaking in run-on sentences is like. It can make for a jerky sounding interview and no producer or audience wants to listen to that. From an aesthetic point of view, unfortunately, smooth sounding bullshit sounds a lot better than choppy sounding truth.
But no self respecting editor will give a message they believe is being manipulated a pass. They will use every tool in the effects tab to smooth, to separate, to equalize and to make each word of a circular breather stand on its own, not lean on those around it like a phalanx of bullies trying to bums rush the listener.