And Now, A Video Interview

Oh, hey, look: Pajamas Media has put onto YouTube an Interview I did last year with Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit, as if you didn’t know), talking about the blogging, writing science fiction and other assorted topics. Got 20 minutes for it? Sure you do.

You can tell it’s from last year because it’s got the mess of the old office behind me. See? Progress happens!

18 Comments on “And Now, A Video Interview”

  1. I also hated Catcher in the Rye. 3 stupid boring days in the life of a stupid boring boy. It had absolutely no redeeming value, or even literary value.

    The interview was cool. You should do more of them like this.

  2. I liked Catcher in the Rye. Whether one likes it or not, because it is one of the most banned, and defended, books of all time, that alone gives it huge redeeming value.

  3. I wonder why you come across differently in video than in photos to me. I get a smug or condescending vibe from most of your pictures. On video you are pleasant and friendly. It actually affects how I read your blog.

  4. Sorry, I think you just don’t get what ‘Singularity’ means. It’s not about technology per se, it’s about living in a world run by beings to whom we are as dogs and cats are to us. Dogs and cats have their own intelligence, sure, but do they understand globalisation, nuclear war, climate change, or any of the important challenges facing our civilisation? Do they really know what’s going on?

    Currently we can make an AI that’s maybe 5% as smart as we are. What happens when we can make them 150% as smart, and they in turn can make further AIs that are 150% as smart again … and so on?

  5. Interesting. Thanks for posting the interview.

    I sometimes wonder in general about the value added in a video interview as opposed to an audio or podcast interview. In this particular case, except for the brief appearance at the end of the “Star Trek fail” there seems to be little use of the video format. I’ve noticed when I listen to podcasts or interviews on NPR, the lack of video is an advantage because I listen more closely to what is being said and the tones rather than being distracted by video of talking heads, whether on the web or on television.

  6. Jack @ 7 “I sometimes wonder in general about the value added in a video interview as opposed to an audio or podcast interview”

    I would have to disagree with you on this point, at least in this particular case. As someone mentioned in an earlier comment, seeing the “real” Scalzi gives much more insight into John as a person rather than the restricted and perceptually limited view one might develop from text-only based “meanderings” or, as you state, audio only offerings. For me, each time I’ve “seen” a video of John (there are several others on the web), I’ve definitely gotten a better “feel” for the person rather than some disembodied persona that I create from interfacing with him only in a non-video way.

    Sure, there is still room for me to project any personality traits I want, but I feel that the accuracy of my assessment of him as a “real person” is greatly enhanced by using this medium. Having said that, I make no claim that I “know” John (or any other person, really) since every individual is a mass of ever-evolving personality traits and diverse internal qualities that none of us is truly totally privy to.The best we can ever do is to form an informed estimate of who they “seem” to be.

    In closing, I’d like to add my “thanks for this” and a wish for more of the same.

  7. It only took 4 comments before someone complained about Prof. Reynolds’ politics…

    MUST EVERYTHING BE POLITICIZED?!?!!!?!111?!?@?!?eleventy!!?!

    Neither man discussed politics, so why is it relevant?

    Aside from that, it was a very cool interview. It’s obvious that Reynolds is a big fan of your fiction regardless of the fact that you both are on different wavelengths politically.

    I visit WHATEVER because I was referred here initially by Instapundit. I find the political attitude of Scalzi to be MUCH easier to deal with than many of the people commenting.

    Nonetheless, visits to WHATEVER rarely fail to amuse me, so thanks to Scalzi for that.

  8. Awesome interview; one nitpick — 9 steps to world domination seems to me about 8 steps too many. Really, I found it very insightful… the tommyknocker green glow occasionally radiating from John’s eyes wasn’t even disturbing, after the first minute. He comes across as being even cooler in person; adds a warmer tone to his words for me, though, hey, what’s wrong with functional *iccup* alcoholics?

  9. John,

    Did friends really call you at 200 am while drunk to get you to solve an argument? Makes you sooo kewl.

    I have similar in that I work in a library. I can be in another library and people walk up to me and ask questions on where to find stuff. Sort of like having an L branded on my forehead…



  10. I like Scalzi interviews. He always come across as the kind of bookish geek I wish I’d befriended in high school. We’re the same age, grew up in the sci-fi world. He baffles me. How can a such a geek be so damn cool?!

  11. Dirty @15 “How can such a geek be so damn cool?!”

    It’s called not being afraid of being intelligent in spite of all the peer pressure by so many who aren’t. I recently worked with a group of very intelligent high school students on a robotics project (I’m a FIRST mentor). These kids were proud of being geeks and nerds In fact, they inspired me to finally realize (and admit): I WAS ONE, TOO!! I had been in denial since grade school when I had caved in to “the norm”: be cool and be stupid! HA! never again!!

  12. Ah, Lev Grossman’s The Magicians in the background.

    I.e., the fantasy equivalent of Catcher in the Rye. Much better book, but f-ing depressing.

%d bloggers like this: