I began engaging in postmortem analysis of my interview with Shelby immediately after leaving our recording session. My thoughts going into it had been of possible problems with the technology, either in picking up the audio or saving it properly. Fortunately, there was not catastrophic equipment failure, but I think it threw me off somewhat in the moment. Besides preoccupation with equipment, the purpose of producing audio for a podcast made the conversation feel somewhat stilted in order to avoid interjecting unwanted sounds into the recording. No confirming words, not a lot of back and forth, other than head nodding and such. It did not feel completely natural.
While editing for the audio pod, there were some questions I wished I had asked. I wished, for instance, that I had asked Shelby to describe the sights and sounds of the locations she visited, beyond noting their relations to literary pieces. I also wished I had asked her how they compared to mental images she had beforehand and if the realities changed her memories of the stories.
Looking at the tips given by CNN and CJR was somewhat reassuring. In relation to CNN tips: 1. I did ask mainly open-ended questions; 2. I did not interrupt silences; and 3. I did invite the last word. In relation to CJR tips: 1. I had prepared myself by reading Shelby’s story of travel to Edinburg, Scotland and had searched the internet for stories about literary travel; 2. I had prepared a list of questions, which I committed to memory but did not reference during the interview; 3. And again, silences were not averted with pointless interjections. On balance, it was a good learning experience. My performance was probably not great nor was it terrible. I thank Shelby for providing interesting material. And I really liked creating a podcast. I would definitely tackle it again, hopefully more confident with the technology, and doing a little better next time!