/zine

Interview-Format Article

Purpose

Reshape raw Q&A material — interview transcripts, podcast episodes, AMA threads, lightning talks, customer conversations — into a polished interview-format article that preserves the interviewee's voice while removing filler and re-sequencing for narrative arc.

Scope Boundary

• IN scope: transcript triage, question re-writing, answer trimming, voice preservation, narrative re-sequencing, pull-quote extraction, reader-facing intro and outro.
• OUT of scope: live interviewing technique (delegate to field), podcast production (different domain), video editing (delegate to director), short blurb / quote-card design (delegate to prose or ink).

Core Concepts

Interview Article ≠ Transcript

Raw transcripts are a tax on the reader: filler words, asides, lost threads, and chronological order. Published interviews respect the spoken voice but re-organize for the page.

Three Interview Article Forms

Voice Preservation Rules

The interviewee must read the published version and feel "yes, that's me, just sharper". Rules:

1. Never write words the interviewee didn't say in spirit. Paraphrasing is allowed; fabrication is not.
2. Keep characteristic syntax — sentence fragments, technical jargon, regional expressions — even when they violate "good writing".
3. Trim filler ("um", "you know", "kind of") unless the speaker uses them as a deliberate cadence.
4. Reorder sentences within an answer for clarity, but don't fuse two unrelated answers into one.
5. Send a draft to the interviewee for fact-check + voice-check before publish. Allow 3–5 line edits, not full rewrites.

Question Re-Writing

Spoken questions are often messy. Rewrite for the page:

Keep the question short, specific, and free of compound clauses. A good written question fits one breath.

Answer Trimming

A 60-minute interview often produces 8,000–12,000 words. The article needs ~2,000–3,000. Cut by:

1. Remove verbal filler globally.
2. Drop tangents that don't serve the article's through-line.
3. Compress redundant restatements ("So basically, like I said earlier …").
4. For each answer, keep the surprising / specific / actionable parts; cut the obvious.
5. Consolidate two adjacent answers if they share a topic.

The author's job is to respect the reader's time while honoring the interviewee's contribution.

Re-Sequencing

Chronological order rarely produces the best article. Common re-orderings:

Never re-sequence in a way that distorts meaning. If the interviewee said "X, but only after Y", don't isolate X without Y.

Pull-Quotes

Extract 3–5 pull-quotes (one sentence, 80–160 chars) and surface them in the article:

• Format: oversized type, separated from body, attributed.
• Choice criteria: surprising, repeatable, on-brand for the interviewee, complete on its own.
• Avoid choosing quotes that are unflattering when isolated — context matters.

Author Intro and Outro

Every interview article needs an author frame:

The intro is where the reader decides to keep reading. Treat it as seriously as a hook (see hook-design.md).

Consent and Attribution

Get written consent for: real-name use, photo use, sensitive opinion attribution, employer mention. Tone: respectful and clear.

Footnotes for Technical Claims

Interviewees often state facts that need verification. The article should:

• Include footnotes / inline links for any concrete claim (numbers, project history, public events).
• Use a "[Editor's note: …]" insertion for clarifications, never silent edits.
• Mark uncertain claims with [citation needed] until verified.

Workflow

1. Receive raw material — transcript (Whisper / Otter / Rev), notes, recording.
2. First-pass triage — identify the 5–8 most interesting moments, the through-line theme, and the unusable sections.
3. Choose form — Q&A direct / narrative-with-quotes / roundtable.
4. Re-sequence — best-first / theme-clustered / tension-arc / reverse-chrono.
5. Trim answers — remove filler, consolidate redundancy, cut tangents.
6. Rewrite questions — short, specific, spoken-clutter removed.
7. Extract pull-quotes — 3–5 candidates.
8. Write intro and outro — frame the conversation for the reader.
9. Fact-check — verify dates, numbers, project history; add footnotes / links.
10. Send draft for interviewee review — allow 3–5 line edits; protect against full rewrites.
11. Publish with consent confirmations in place.
12. Distribute — pull-quotes become atomic assets (see content-repurposing.md).

Output Template

interview_article:
  interviewee:
    name: "Real name (with consent)"
    role: "current role and affiliation (with consent)"
    links:
      - { type: x, url: "...", consent: yes }
      - { type: github, url: "...", consent: yes }
      - { type: site, url: "...", consent: no }  # not included
  form: q_and_a_direct
  through_line: "Why our most reliable service had no tests, and what we learned."
  re_sequence_strategy: best_first
  raw_word_count: 11_400
  published_word_count: 2_350
  intro_words: 180
  outro_words: 70
  sections:
    - id: S1
      heading: "The day production didn't break"
      questions:
        - q: "When did you first realize the no-test approach was actually working?"
          a_excerpt: "..."
          a_word_count: 280
    - id: S2
      heading: "..."
  pull_quotes:
    - text: "Tests are a constraint we add for our own benefit, not the system's."
      length_chars: 64
      placement: between_S1_and_S2
  fact_checks:
    - claim: "We ran without unit tests for 4 years"
      status: verified
      source: internal_postmortem_link
  consent:
    real_name: yes
    employer_mention: yes
    photo: no
    pre_publish_review_completed: yes
    interviewee_edits_applied: 3

Anti-Patterns

• Publishing the raw transcript verbatim — disrespects the reader's time and the interviewee's actual ideas.
• Heavy paraphrasing that loses voice — the published interview reads like the author talking, not the interviewee.
• Cutting tangents that contained the most surprising moment because they were "off-topic".
• Re-sequencing that changes meaning ("X, but only after Y" → "X").
• Publishing without pre-publish review — interviewees lose trust permanently.
• Pulling out-of-context quotes for shock value.
• Using the interviewee's identity (name, employer) without explicit consent.
• Skipping fact-checks on numerical claims because "they said it confidently".
• No author intro — the reader has no entry point to the conversation.
• Q&A format with bloated multi-clause questions — kills readability.
• "Lightly edited for clarity" footer when edits were heavy — be honest about the level of editing.

Deliverable Contract

An interview article is complete when:

• Through-line theme is articulated.
• Form is chosen (Q&A direct / narrative-with-quotes / roundtable).
• Raw word count and published word count documented.
• Intro and outro present and within word budgets.
• Pull-quotes extracted (3–5).
• Fact-checks logged for all numerical / historical claims.
• Pre-publish review completed and edits applied.
• Consent confirmed for real name, employer, photo, and contact links.
• Atomic-asset hand-off plan (see content-repurposing.md) drafted.

References

• Errol Morris, A Wilderness of Error — methodology for interview-driven longform.
• Claudia Dreifus, Talk: Conversations with the World's Most Interesting Writers — Q&A interview craft.
• John Brockman, Edge.org interviews — structural conventions for expert-Q&A.
• The Paris Review Art of Fiction / Art of Non-Fiction series — gold standard for narrative-with-quotes.
• Niemen Storyboard — annotated journalism interview articles.
• Sarah Koenig, Serial — sequencing interview material as narrative arc.
• AP Stylebook, Quotations chapter — voice preservation and consent norms.
• IRE (Investigative Reporters & Editors) — fact-checking and source-protection guidelines.
• Reuters Handbook of Journalism — pre-publish review and accuracy standards.