Comments on: Studs Terkel is Dead

By: Handmaiden to the Translational Biomedical Sciences

Handmaiden to the Translational Biomedical Sciences — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:23:03 +0000

As a longtime Chicago radio listener (since the 1970s, to WFMT and WBEZ), I would like to add one cavil about Studs Terkel among all the hagiography: the guy was really very boring to listen to or to read about 90% of the time. He had interesting guests and topics, but when he started talking he was always windy and usually had a hard time making a point. I would guess that a lot of his now-vocal fans never read his books (Division St is the best; Working is a real snooze), and that a lot of people weekly put him on the radio and then go about their business with his raspy drawl on in the background, not listening. Don’t get me wrong, it was a great Chicago tradition, but as long as WFMT keeps on broadcasting the Best of Studs, you can listen to the same shows over and over and probably never notice the difference. Andrew Patner is much better, though he would never admit it himself.

By: Danielle Day

Danielle Day — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:57:39 +0000

As Studs said, “Take it easy…but take it.”

By: jacob

jacob — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:32:06 +0000

Bob McManus: I’m not an oral historian (though I’ve done some oral history), but my sense from my colleagues who are is that Turkel is a hero to them.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:16:27 +0000

I very much enjoyed his book Working. The accounts of all sorts of jobs and how people felt about them was very interesting and enlightening. The way his work fell between journalism, sociology, and history sometimes made it hard to know how to use but always enjoyable and enlightening.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:58:46 +0000

Just getting into his prime, too.

Right now I’m reading about 30s politics, and I’m realizing that only people Terkel’s age, or nearly, can remember that era. My 84-year old neighbor just barely remembered moonshining during Prohibition, and also hated Roosevelt because she’d gone through misery when her husband had been drafted, leaving her with 2 kids.

By: chris y

chris y — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:29:43 +0000

Sad that he didn’t make it to Tuesday. Or not. We’ll see.

We won’t see his like any time soon.

By: cpareader

cpareader — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:19:46 +0000

I am sure he voted early.

By: Antti Nannimus

Antti Nannimus — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:01:19 +0000

Hi,

Even while he lived, Anna Deavere Smith, an American living treasure in her own right, performed a magnificent tribute to Studs Terkel at TED in Feb 2oo5. If you missed it, you could look it up, and you owe it to yourself to see it now.

“Why do I feel so good?”

On a sad day,
Antti

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:26:19 +0000

Somebody at Amazon mentions Alan Lomax as precursor to Ritter.

Anybody around know enough about oral history and interviewing as a craft to discuss Terkel’s standing among his peers, if he has any? Was Terkel even considered a practitioner?

According to Wikipedia, Oral History started being professionalized in the late 60s.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:15:39 +0000

1) It is the loss of an irreplaceable talent.

Yes it is sad.

(Glory of Their Times predates Division Street and I remember it as comparable to Terkel’s best work.)

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:06:03 +0000

Just saw it at the BBC, and headed over here to post, but you got here already Harry. Hard to say that it is sad, when he lived so long, but what achievement.