I wonder if the New York Times has considered having multiple writers do its weekly interview for the Sunday New York Times Magazine. Deborah Solomon has proven herself quite the polymath (at least superficially), but surely there is something to be gained from using an interviewer with a little more knowledge on the topic, or a little less vitriol in the heart? At the very least, how about someone able to fill an entire page without resorting to personal questions?

In some ways, Solomon’s style is comparable to British journalism, but I think the problem is she does not know how to turn down the confrontation when interviewing people who don’t really warrant such harshness. For instance, her interview of diplomat John Bolton is no less argumentative than her other pieces, but its context makes this more acceptable. The interview also displays her intelligence (especially when she asks “Why are you assuming that the leadership of Iran shares the philosophy of suicide bombers?”), though it does eventually throw in some filler questions.

But when interviewing “The O.C.” creator Josh Schwartz, I have to wonder why she remains so in-your-face. After an alright discussion of his new show “Gossip Girl”, she runs out of relevant questions and resorts (again) to filler:

You were, at 26, the youngest person to create and produce a network drama when “The O.C.” went on the air. Do you feel guilty about all that success? I have to.

How do you assuage your guilty conscience? I go on the Internet and look for mean things that have been written about the shows that I work on.

How does that make you feel? Satisfied.

Why not just give away wads of money or do good deeds instead? There’s that, too. My girlfriend is definitely a big proponent of that. I’m more into self-flagellation.

Do you give money to any charitable organizations? I do. I give a lot back to U.S.C.

Your alma mater. And to my high school, the Wheeler School, creating scholarships for kids.

What kind of kids? For needy kids, or for gossip girls? Not for the gossip girls. For the kids who otherwise can’t afford it.

Given the tone of this interview, and her archive of interviews in general, it is difficult to pass off that ending “For needy kids, or for gossip girls?” question as a joke. From Schwartz’s response, it seems like he had some trouble with it as well. If it was not a joke, then I’m speechless. Did Solomon really suggest that Schwartz should give away his money, and then chide him when she learned he does? (Furthermore, does she not seem really sarcastic when she says “Your alma mater”?)

Of course, as we saw with John Bolton, Solomon isn’t all bad. Her Marjane Satrapi piece comes to mind, although I enjoyed Satrapi’s responses more than Solomon’s questions. (And it reminds me of Solomon’s interview of author Pierre Bayard, in that Solomon just wasn’t getting the point.) Also surprisingly good was her interview of professor Patty Limerick for last week’s film issue.

There is a sort of formula to this. The interviews tend to be much better when Solomon discusses past work rather than quickly diving into personal questions after three questions. And maybe Ed’s right. Maybe it’s all Bill Keller’s fault.

And now, your moment of Zen:

As poet laureate, don’t you think you should be better acquainted with European poetry?

Think of all the European poetry I could have read if we hadn’t spent all this time on this interview.

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>