Writing Interview-Based Books:
Some Helpful Hints
I love writing interview-based books. That's partly because it's wonderful to hear different opinions and experiences on a subject - often I've learned as much from my interviewees as I ever did from research - and partly because I enjoy being a vehicle to get into print at least a few of the words of people who aren't going to be writing their own books any time soon. I also feel strongly about the words of the people getting out to the people, as it were. The perspective of one or two people can never be as complete as the combined perspectives of so many.
Gathering Information
The first step is a questionnaire. Think carefully about the questions you ask. I find if there's more than 15 on the list, people become intimidated. Assure them that they can skip questions if they like; even partial info is something. Sometimes I'll combine several related questions into one. ("What was your life like when you first started doing X? How old were you? Where was this? Did it go well?") That can be answered as one question and is less intimidating. Also, make sure that your subjects know that they can use a pseudonym. I usually start with "Name:" and then "Name you want to be known by in this book:" as some people aren't public about what they do or believe.
I like to give myself at least a year to gather enough information from enough different people. I use a two-pronged approach: Internet advertising, and non-Internet advertising. It's important to look outside of the Net for your demographic (unless, of course, it's a specifically Internet-based demographic). People who spend most of their lives on the Internet tend to forget how elitist it is, and that there is a significant portion of society that barely reads email, if that. Demographic surveys that limit themselves to the Net also limit themselves to people who have the knowledge and wherewithal to spend serious time there.
It's important to hunt down targets in other places as well. Conferences or other gatherings of folks in that demographic are, of course, the best place of all. If you can't afford to travel there, make a contact who is going and send them with a list of questionnaires and a handful of SASEs (a self-addressed stamped envelope, for the people without email; remember that they exist). Another excellent source is word-of-mouth. Ask your existing subjects to arm-twist their friends or colleagues in that demographic. That's resulted in some good interviews for me, because they've already got a "reference", as it were.
If your subject is a sensitive enough one that you're going to have to do in-person interviews, you're going to have to travel. Don't impose on your subjects. Be courteous, and don't pressure them during interviews to say more than they are willing. Back off if they seem uncomfortable. Also, an interview shouldn't take all day. Let them set the pace; check in with them to make sure that this isn't going on too long.
It's best to get a release form signed before the in-person interview - that's one less release to send out in the mail. (When it's time to send out release forms to your other interviewees, enclose a SASE. That exponentially increases the likelihood that you'll get it back promptly.) Once I get in-person interviews, I type them up into a file and treat them like a questionnaire.
With some groups, it's hard to get people to talk to you if you're not an insider. Sometimes bringing along an insider contact helps. Sometimes it's best just to train your insider contact to do the interviews, assuming you trust them. That's a touchy area, and one that has to be handled sensitively. Some groups like it better if you actually hang around while they're doing what they're doing, so that they can get to know you, and there will be less of that "bug under a microscope" feel to the interview. Either way, bring a gift when you do an in-person interview, to show your appreciation. They're taking time out and inconveniencing themselves in a way that an email interview doesn't, so show that you give a damn.
Putting it All Together
When you've collected a bunch of material, you'll find that much of it isn't going to be useful. Since you're not taking a survey but are looking for well-written material to use, people who answer with three words aren't going to be of much use. That's par for the course. Also, some folks are just better writers than others. I've had to discard anywhere from a third to three-quarters of my questionnaires, depending on demographic, which is why it's important to get as many as possible. Some people will contribute only a line, others reams of material.
Editing useful but poorly-written interviews is an issue that will vary with your audience. If this is for a book aimed at the general market, put a note in your initial questionnaire saying that you will edit for format (spelling, grammar, typos, sentence structure, etc.) but not content. It's better to correct those typos than to let a good point be distracted by them. The only case where it's usually not done is when it's a survey-based college thesis, and your degree is hanging on it; then the author includes them typos and all, and places (sic) before the most egregious ones. However, there's a reason that people's theses don't sell as market books without a rewrite. I go ahead and do the editing, because I want to make these voices heard.
Ideally, your "author voice" should be as neutral as possible. Let the quotes of your interviewees be passionate, or opinionated, or angry, or dogmatic. Bother to use quotes from people on both sides of an opinion, even if you agree with one and strongly disagree with another. Pretending that one side of the argument doesn't exist simply makes you, the author, look bad. If you can't get anyone to talk about one side of an opinion, and you don't have the personal knowledge to do so, at least acknowledge the fact that it exists. Remember that people have given you a gift when they share these things with you. They are trusting you to frame it respectfully. Do their contributions honor, even if you don't like them or what they have to say. That doesn't mean that you have to use everything, but if you have a strong gut reaction, sit on it a while before deleting. Make sure that you're really being as unbiased as possible.
If you're co-authoring an interview-based book (something that I've done before and am actually doing right now as I write this) make sure that you discuss with your co-author which interviews are useful and which aren't. They may have different opinions than you, and might be able to point out something you've overlooked. ("I think that guy is full of it. Do we have to use his stuff?" "He may be full of it, but he's not the only one saying that. People are going to hear that opinion if they investigate this issue. We need to put it in, if only with 'On the other hand, X retorts with...'")
Using Quotes
Practically speaking, this is what I do to keep things organized: I make hardcopies of all my interviews, and I sit down with them and use a highlighter to mark the sections that are well-written and cover a specific point. I make notes next to them as to what section that paragraph should go in. (Seeing them in hardcopy really helps with this, at least for me.) Then I pull the files up on the computer and make new files for different chapters, or sections of the book, or even for different discussed issues in a particular chapter. Then I clip and paste each of the quotes that I've highlighted into the relevant file, and give them each the proper attribution. I put those files into block-quote format - with the margins drawn in a notch on each side. As I write each chapter or section, I pull up the file with the quotes for that issue, and add them in. I will group several together for a "roundtable" effect if they're all discussing the same question with similar or different opinions, or I'll spread them out through the text, defining the various sides of the issue.
Short-sentence quotes can be worked into sentences, e.g. Sondra likes to shop at those markets, but Larry from San Francisco can't stand them: "They suck. People are always trying to rip you off. Watch your wallet!" Don't put more than one of these per paragraph, and it's best if the quote ends the paragraph, leaving the voice ringing in people's ears. Longer quotes should be in block-quote form, with attribution. If you make reference in the paragraph above, you don't have to attribute below:
Sondra, on the other hand, thinks that shopping at fourth-dimensional markets is much better than just going to K-mart:
Frankly, I like being able to see what the fashions are going to be like 300 years from now. I mean, sure, I'm not going to live that long, but it's nice to walk around in your molten-glass coverall with everyone looking at you, and you know that you're way ahead of the lot of them, even if they'll never know that.
Probably the best way to see if you've done a good job is to have a friend read the whole thing aloud. Quote-heavy books have a tendency to be choppy if they're assembled poorly. When read aloud, they should give the mental impression of a documentary with interview blurbs, voice-overs, and suchlike. If that's what your (test) audience is seeing, then you've done your job.
Good Luck!
Interview-based books are a big responsibility. Most people live and die, and their words are not recorded anywhere that they will be read decades or centuries from now. When you write this book, think about the future. If you study the past, think about your own passion to know how things really were, warts and all, not just what the people of that era would want you to think things were like. Write for the folk of the future, who will feel the same way. Give your interviewees that little bit of immortality.