Bring out the opinion of different scholars on the art of the interview. Do you think they are justified in their opinions?

Different scholars formed different opinions about 'interview'. For instance, V. S. Naipaul felt that some people are wounded by interviews and lose a part of themselves. Lewis Carroll, the creator of Alice in Wonderland, had a horror of the interviewer and he never consented to be interviewed. Rudyard Kipling expressed an even more condemnatory attitude towards the interviewer. His wife, Caroline, writes in her diary for 14 October 1892 that their day was ‘wrecked by two reporters from Boston’. Denis Brian has written. “Almost everything of moment reaches us through one man asking questions of another. Because of this, the interviewer holds a position of unprecedented power and influence.”
I think, they are justified in their respective opinions. Everyone has a different experience and so is their opinion about something. Whatever one opines about anything, is majorly based on his experiences. Another notable fact is that everything has its pros and cons, and so is about an interview. An interview can be a pleasant experience for some and for others, it can be a nightmare. If someone is interviewed on his success or achievements, the interviewee may feel elated, on the other hand, if someone is interviewed about any unfortunate events/ failures/ scams, etc. the interviewee might feel uncomfortable and troubled. Similarly, an extrovert may feel comfortable when interviewed, but an introvert may not.  
It can be rightly concluded that different people opine differently about something.

  • 1
What are you looking for?