Oral History Program Gordon T. Allred Interviewed by Pam Wilson 06 December 1972 i Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Gordon T. Allred Interviewed by Pam Wilson 06 December 1972 Copyright © 2012 by Weber State University, Stewart Library ii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. Archival copies are placed in University Archives. The Stewart Library also houses the original recording so researchers can gain a sense of the interviewee's voice and intonations. Project Description The Weber State College/University Student Projects have been created by students working with several different professors on the Weber State campus. The topics are varied and based on the student's interest or task for a specific assignment. These oral history assignments were created to help Weber State students learn the value and importance of recording public history and to benefit the expansion of the Weber State oral history collections. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Stewart Library of Weber State University. No part of the manuscript may be published without the written permission of the University Librarian. Requests for permission to publish should be addressed to the Administration Office, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, 84408. The request should include identification of the specific item and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Allred, Gordon, an oral history by Pam Wilson, 06 December 1972, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. iii Abstract: The following is a summary paper on interviews with different Western writers conducted on December 6, 1972, by Pam Wilson. SUMMARY PAPER ON WESTERN WRITERS The subject which I chose to explore through the Oral History Program was one in which I had considerable personal interest. The idea of interviewing writers came to me almost simultaneously as we discussed possible topics last summer during the workshop. Writing had been my emphasis as an English major, so naturally I had a great love for a study of writing in regards to this program. The project itself had to do with the personalities and attitudes of the writers themselves. Rather than an information- oriented project, mine was a personoriented project, which, nonetheless brought forth considerable information. Each writer was questioned along similar lines about their attitudes, feelings, experiences, and opinions about three areas: (1) their own personal development as a writer, (2) the development of other writers, and (3) the world at large. The questions were designed to be the kind which allows the interviewee to go into as much detail as he desires, and the questions I used were formulated and improved as I perceived their strengths and weaknesses. In attempting to analyze the project, the greatest benefit I derived from it was an understanding of people, how to talk with them, rather than to them, and how to perceive their feeling and thoughts as they are speaking. Last summer after learning and discussing the techniques of a successful interview, I experimented with friends. Friends, much the same as interviewees, require in conversation someone who can, 1 who wants to, and who does listen. In observing discussions between people at various gatherings, it is surprising how few people listen--most of them are merely planning what they are going to say next. I admit that I have not been strong in this area in the past. Indeed, I have been one of those who drifts off away from the words of the speaking person, or who plans hurriedly a quick reply before he ever knows what to reply to. This project has changed that aspect of my personality, giving me a greater awareness of others, their needs and their feelings. Further analysis of the project would include the mention of my conclusion that there is an incredible difference between writers, although in many areas they seem to agree, at the same time. Each of them developed in a different manner; each has his own style and his own philosophy in regard to writing. Yet, they all agree that writing comes through intensive effort and persistence. Also, each one indicated a great need for empathy on the part of the writer, a quality which I think many people would not place such great emphasis on. Finally then, the project was one of enjoyment for me. I was able to learn about people, but also writing, and in addition, obtained a feeling for the task of writers, their frustrations as well as their hopes. A critique of any kind requires an objective analysis. A critique of oneself requires considerable objectivity, and at the same time, honesty in determining the positive and negative results. In critiquing my project I find many weaknesses, but I also find strengths. A look at the positive and negative aspects will reveal these. To begin, I think the most positive thing in the project was the interviewees themselves. All of them were more than willing to talk, to submit to questioning, and 2 to donate their interviews to the college. Having designed the questions as openended and rather general, I was overjoyed to observe their uninhibited (or almost uninhibited) responses to them. In addition, those interviewed were all intelligent, enthusiastic people, extremely knowledgeable and competent in their field. From them I was able to obtain quite explicit information, without a great deal of rambling, although once in a while this became a problem temporarily. The best thing about the interviews themselves was the long response of the interviewee to one of my own short, general questions. An examination of the negative aspects reveals a lack of knowledge on my part in regard to those I interviewed. Had I had a better knowledge of them personally, I would have been able to zero in on specific areas or issues immediately, rather than come around to them by accident as the interview progressed. However, in spite of that handicap, the interviewees many times came around to revealing things of importance anyway. Another area I had difficulty with was the effect the tape had on the interviewee in regard to his willingness to divulge personal information of a negative nature. Even though the tape recorder was out of sight, more than once the interviewee remarked that he just couldn't say such things on tape. I assume from this then, that the tapes caused them to consider a bit more carefully what they were saying and how they were saying. This of course, would have an effect on the accuracy and completeness of detail, and even of attitude in the interviews. 3 Whenever this particular problem occurred, after one or two tries to bring them forward and out of their shells, I gave up. Perhaps this was a weakness on my part, although I still felt that withholding information was their privilege. Therefore, I did not press them, and maybe I should have. Looking at the specific interviews, the worst was surely the first. Hoping for an hour interview, I did not plan for all the conversation and activity that went on prior to the actual taping. Mr. Perrins was very anxious to show me what he had written, and I was anxious to see it, but all the time our time was slipping away, and I ended up rushing him through the interview, making it impossible for him to explore any question or go into any depth concerning it. This could have been one of the best interviews, but my lack of planning lessened its success. The second interview 1 conducted was one I was very pleased with. Mrs. Larimore was easy to interview, and went into a lot of detail without unnecessary pushing. The unfortunate thing about her interview was that at one point I stopped the tape recorder and thereafter, the sound was very muffled for some reason. In the transcript, the interview halts suddenly, because of the inaudible words. The interview of Dr. Allred was perhaps the best, due for the most part to his own relaxed state and his dynamic personality and ability to express himself. He expanded upon many of the questions in much greater depth than others I interviewed. 4 Mrs. Knowles's interview was very good, but due to the fact that she adheres to an extremely busy and hectic schedule, she rushed the interview slightly, thereby not going into the depth she might have if she had been freer in regard to time. My final interview, that of Olive Burt, was one of ideal circumstances. Seventy-eight years old, Mrs. Burt had unlimited time, and with great intelligence and recall, turned out an excellent interview. In this interview I was able to steer the questioning into other areas not related specifically to writing, and she explored them with enthusiasm. Perhaps an additional reason for the success of this interview is that her age and accordingly her experience enabled her to expound on a greater number of subjects and incidences with a more refined perspective. Thus, the interviews were anything but flawless. Many unexpected problems popped up, requiring immediate action, and the action was not always ideal. Still, all in all, the project was, I think, a success. The five interviews do present a well-defined picture of writing as a profession or otherwise. To the listener of the tapes, or the reader of the interviews, the project can and will contribute considerable knowledge and understanding. 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brooks, Cleanth and Warren, Robert Penn. Modern Rhetoric. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.), 1961. Brooks, Van Wyck. The Writer in America. (New York: E.P. Dutton), 1953. Hall, Donald. The Modern Stylists. (New York: The Free Press), 1968. Perrin, Laurence. tcry and Structure. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.), 1966. 6