My opposition to Interviews lies in the fact that offhand answers have little value or grace of expression, and that such oral give and take helps to perpetuate the decline of the English language.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I never liked the idea of giving interviews. One says many things, but when they are published, they become shortened, condensed. The ideas lose their meaning.
I just don't want to give out interviews. I just hate them. Inevitably, I ended up hurting some people or leaving some names out or getting quoted out of context.
I'm loath to do interviews. What comes out is generally not what I meant or thought I was saying or thought they were asking.
You don't talk to a linguist without having what you say taken down and used in evidence against you at some point in time.
Doing interviews can sometimes mess up my head. It makes me feel dirty. It's frustrating how the press recycles a quote to death.
For example, Americans seem reluctant to take on Shakespeare because you don't think you're very good at it - which is rubbish. You're missing out here.
So interviews are a valuable tool, but under certain circumstances they'd be more valuable than others.
I used to be mouthy. It was all to do with being a northerner and from Manchester, which was suddenly a big deal when I was in my 20s. When I read some of the interviews I did back then, I cringe.
I'm so reluctant to do newspaper interviews because it's so misleading how they interpret what you say.
I prefer doing interviews where people don't have to interpret what you say. I'm going to be real honest.