Miniter's Notebook

As always, Dalrymple is bursting with interesting things to say. But the interviewer makes that all too typical mistake of simply having a list of questions and going on ruthlessly to the next one. It is as if the editor believes that an interview is simply a series of command performances, with the question employed solely as a set of key words to cue the interview subject. Of course, this is how many television interviews are done—and, yes, I do blame cable (partly) for the dumbing down what 1980s liberals used to call "the national conversation." It is too bad that this young editor does not listen to the best of talk radio, in which questions are followed up and a discussion emerges. Read the interview and ask yourself how many interesting follow-up questions that you might have asked. (The other cardinal error the interviewer commits: he inserts himself into questions, e.g., "I have long thought..." without first establishing that his opinion should carry any weight with the reader. If he has any expertise, then his thoughts and experiences might well be worthwhile. If he simply someone who has lived life, that is no distinction. After all, that is something he has in common with all of his readers—and many of them have probably lived more of it.) Television is not the sole culprit. Listening to people talk to each other these days, you often hear one person talk about himself while another responds by relaying a similar life experience of his own. More elevated conversation occurs when one person explores the well-developed thoughts of another. And, yes, I mean thoughts, not feelings or experiences. So is the art of conversation dying? Let's talk about it.