I've always thought that George Plimpton was the poor man's Gore Vidal, but after watching this little interview with Plimpton I think that Plimpton is instead Gore Vidal without the mammoth self-regard. Doesn't make Gore Vidal the lesser writer, of course, but I think I'd rather have gone for drinks with George Plimpton than with Vidal. The latter is still possible, but given Vidal's current Vonnegutian state of repeating himself over and over again I think any meeting would be disappointing.

The interviewer in the little piece linked to above is not extremely, but noticeably, awkward, and this reminded me of what makes the interviewers that I like really good. You never want to feel that an interviewer is uncomfortable; you want them to be honest when they are at a loss, but you expect a certain decorum and more importantly capability at all times. This is what, in my opinion, makes the Charlie Rose show so consistently fun to watch and this is the kind of interviewer Tavis Smiley has grown into over the years. Here's Charlie Rose's interview w/Plimpton (skip to about 7 or 8 minutes in). If the role of the interviewer is the ideal stand-in interlocutor for oneself--she's read up on the recent work and life of the subject etc. and is not overawed by speaking with the subject--then I pick Charlie or Tavis. (I should point out that on political issues Charlie Rose often falls short, whereas Tavis Smiley is somewhat better.)