On his blog, Scott King shares an interview he did with Scott Pilgrim creator Bryan Lee O’Malley. The interview was conducted last spring, and King says one of the reasons he hadn’t published it before was because “O’Malley seemed annoyed with my questions.”
Some examples:
Scott: Knives seems to change the most out of everyone is this first volume, but she also comes off as one of the most vulnerable characters. Is this simply because she is younger and still trying to figure out who she is or why?
Bryan: It’s because she is younger. You’re answering your own questions.Scott: Did you feel it was risky having a 23 year old date a 17 year old?
Bryan: I don’t know what you’re talking about. Risky personally for me? No. Risky for Scott? No. He did it because he was stalled at a high school level, emotionally, and dating a high schooler made him feel safe and comfortable.Scott: The tone of the story has a very voyeuristic feel to it, was this done intentionally or something that evolved during the creation process?
Bryan: I don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you think movies are voyeuristic? It’s not voyeuristic at all.Scott: I have work with a girl who is from Toronto. I was telling her about how I was emailing the writer of “Scott Pilgrim” questions and she told me that “Scott Pilgrim” is a song by a band called Plumb Tree, is that true?
Bryan: Maybe you could try googling it before asking me that. The band is called Plumtree. I’m a little insulted by your lack of basic research.
Thanks, Dale.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Okay, I could see both sides of this. Yes, the interviewer should have done his homework and you never but a possible answer in your question, because then it just sounds repetitive. But if O’Malley didn’t want to answer the questions, he should have just told the guy to come up with better ones or just declined the interview. Either way it makes King look kinda dumb and O’Malley kinda jerk-ish.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Those questions are just horrible. “The tone of the story has a very voyeuristic feel to it…” It does?
Well wait… is Scott King 7 years old? If that’s the case the interview is very good.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:52 am
what Carroll said
January 26th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Heh, now *I* want to interview Scott, just to see if I can do a decent interview with him that won’t piss him off.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Those questions didn’t seem particularly bad actually. It just seemed like the interviewee was being a jerk.
February 7th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Anyone want to try their luck at asking O’Malley questions themselves?
We’re holding a live online chat with him on Mon., Feb. 19 between 4 and 4 p.m. at
http://bookbuzz.torontopubliclibrary.ca
February 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
That should’ve been between 4 and 5 p.m. Of course.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
The guy gets a movie deal and all of a sudden he’s become this smart ass comic book diva. Hope his star dims soon. He’s just overrated and over hyped.
May 12th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
As if I didn’t think he was mad awesome before, Bryan Lee O’Malley is like 50x cooler now that I’ve read that. Those questions were bullshit and that Scott guy was just obnoxious. And yes, Bryan seemed like kind of a dick, but I would have responded the same way.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
The interviewer asked two questions I would designate as being bad. However, that doesn’t justify O’Malley being a complete dick. I have heard other things about the guy being a bit of a douche. I here he is pretty full of himself…
August 12th, 2010 at 5:45 am
Speaking as a reporter, it sure diminishes any desire I ever have to cross paths with the guy. It seems like the purpose of an interview, if you’re a creator marketing your book, is NOT to set up a situation where future coverage for future books is less likely.