Author Interview #6 Mitchell Hadley
1 on 1 with Mark Atley
Today is a snow day for me so I thought I’d drop an extra special interview for those TV watchers out there.
Reminders:
This is my opportunity to give back to the writing community.
My values
—Everyone matters.
—Be positive.
—Gratitude in everything.
—Default action is compassion.
—Empathy. Always.
The folks you will hear from in these interviews come from all walks of life, and they may or may not be someone in the writing community you have heard from before, and that’s the wonderful thing about the ability to do this on Substack. It’s free.
Share these interviews on social media. That’s the best way for others to find this series and enjoy the words of wisdom these people will bring to your life.
Subscribe to my Substack or follow me on social media such as BlueSky, Threads, X (Twitter), and Instagram.
Share links. Share posts. Share thoughts.
Remember to always choose positivity over negativity.
If you are inclined, check out my books and drop a review.
On to the interview!
Mitchell Hadley
Who are you and can you tell me a little about your work? What drives you? What do you hope to accomplish?
I write both fiction and non-fiction. My fiction work consists of two novels; I haven't dipped into the short story genre, although I couldn't rule it out. My non-fiction work consists of a collection of essays on classic television, which is complimented by a blog I've maintained for nearly 14 years, writing about various cultural and historical aspects of classic television. I write at the blog in lieu of doing articles for magazines or other publications; it's also where I try out ideas for the essays that were included in my first book and will form the basis for my upcoming book.
My goals are, first and foremost, to stimulate the reader, to give him or her a reason to continue reading, no matter whether it's fiction or non-fiction. To be interesting, in other words. I might achieve that by giving the reader something to think about; my fiction writing tends to be about ideas as much as storytelling, although there still has to be a good story at heart. In the case of my non-fiction writing, I see my role as to inform, to educate (although that can be such a stuffy word), to tell the reader something they might not have known, or might not have considered in a particular way. Above all, I want them, at the end of the day, to feel that what they've read has been a good use of their time.
How do you see your relationship with the reader?
When I'm writing about television, I see my readers as partners. We share an interest in the topic, an interest that's probably more passionate than casual -- otherwise, they probably wouldn't come to my site, at least not initially -- and I want to provide them with something that they'll see as interesting, something they might not have known before. I like to think that we're part of this special club, a club that might not have a lot of members, but we know what we're talking about, and so I have an obligation to do justice to the topic. There's another aspect to education, though, and that's to be interesting enough and informative enough to demonstrate to people who might not be classic TV buffs why they should care, why classic TV is worth reading about -- because it's about passing down an oral history; it tells us about our times and ourselves. With my fiction, it's more straightforward; I don't write to a particular genre. I have a story to tell, something deep within me that I want to express, and maybe they'll want to come along for the ride.
How do you view your characters? What has changed over time, and what has stayed the same? How do you develop complex characters?
I know that a lot of writers talk about how their characters develop minds of their own and take the stories in a different direction. I've never had that experience; I always start out with a clear-cut idea of what function the characters are to serve in the greater story, and while they may "influence" some of the details within the story -- fill in the gaps, so to speak -- the story tends to hew pretty closely to what I wanted it to be in the first place.
Because these novels are about ideas, I feel that it's essential to give the characters enough complexity to make their actions plausible. So in a case where a character is advocating a certain act or idea, I have to work extra hard to be fair to them, even if I disagree with what they're doing. Make sure they're real, and not simply straw men that I've set up simply to knock down. In my first novel, "The Collaborator," there was a character whose beliefs were pretty much the opposite of my own, but I didn't want to tip my hand; as a result, readers told me that they were left in suspense until the end as to whose ideas would prevail. I found that very satisfying.
What is your version of success? Has it changed during your writing journey? How so? What’s different now versus when you started?
It never occurred to me to try and make a living as a writer; it was simply that I had things I wanted to express, stories I wanted to tell, or ideas I wanted to share. So I don't measure success by sales, or money. Of course, I want people to read what I've written, and I need to be better about marketing myself. (And now that I'm retired, I have more time to do that with the next book.) But while I wouldn't put myself in debt, if I didn't make a penny but had satisfied readers, I'd consider that a fair trade.
What type of reader are you? How do you view books you read, and how do they affect you and your writing?
I read both fiction and non-fiction; over the years, I've tended toward fiction that is shorter and tighter than what I used to read. But if I'm working on a non-fiction project, I generally read fiction for pleasure and non-fiction to give me structural or stylistic ideas. If I'm writing fiction, then I read some of the authors I've found most influential in my own thinking -- authors like Don DeLillo, Paul Auster, or Renata Adler, for example. I don't steal their styles -- heaven forbid! -- but they have affected the development of my own style, and I use them as a stimulant, to get my creative juices flowing.
How do you find readers? What works and hasn’t worked for you? What resonates with you when readers share thoughts about your work? And where do you see yourself in the writing community and publishing world?
I wish I knew! I've had more success with my non-fiction writing, when I write about classic television and its relationship to history and pop culture, since that's what my website is about. Those readers are a natural base for my TV history books, and I try to expand it from there by appearing on podcasts, doing interviews (like this one!) and using social media. I've got to do a better job on that, and I'll definitely need to do better when I go back to fiction.
I appreciate it when I get comments from people who tell me they've learned things about television that they didn't know, or compliment me on my writing style; I put a lot of effort into making the topics I write about accessible to readers, and it's great to know I've succeeded. It's harder to get feedback from my novels, although it was a great thrill to run into someone I'd never met before who'd actually bought one of my books -- that may be old hat for more established writers, but it was a kick for me!
As a classic television historian, I see myself as someone respected by my peers; they see me as someone who knows what he's talking (or writing) about, and that they hope I'll continue to write about it. As a novelist, I see myself as someone who has to work harder if I want more people to read what I write.
—Please provide a brief blurb about yourself, and feel free to promote your recent book or work.
My name is Mitchell Hadley. I'm a classic television historian living in Indiana in the United States, and I specialize in mid-century "classic" TV and its relationship to history and popular culture -- how it shapes, and is shaped by, each. My most recent book is "The Electronic Mirror: What Classic TV Tells Us About Who We Were and Who We Are." I write about the topic at the blog itsabouttv.com (It's About TV), which I've been writing for close to 14 years. I've also written two novels, neither of which is about television! "The Collaborator" is about the power struggle in the Roman Catholic Church, and "The Car" is probably best described as an existential mystery.
—Tell me something interesting about yourself that these questions stimulated thought about. And tell me something you want others to know.
My mother was a voracious reader and read to me when I was small, so books have always been part of my life. I wanted to be a writer since I was in high school, and the fact that it was three decades before I got serious about it shows that goals may be delayed, but that doesn't mean they're denied. What do I want others to know, besides that my blog is really good and they should read it daily? I'd say that it's that I've been watching TV virtually my whole life, and it only took me 40 years to realize that television is what I wanted to write about. So I'm a slow learner!
What is the primary drive for you to keep a blog? How did you get started? And what keeps you going? Motivated?
I got started writing "It's About TV" because of my interests in television and history, and because there were too many aspects of television history that people didn't know about and weren't discussing. They didn't know about television's history with live drama and opera, for example. Additionally, people weren't making the link between classic television -- television of the 1950s through the 1970s, if you will -- and what was happening in the world and in popular culture. They didn't know the extent to which television had influenced the culture, and how culture had, in turn, influenced TV. The opportunity, and the ability, to use my writing to inform and educate people appealed to me. And, in fact, I've learned a great deal about it myself; the journey has taken me down many roads and introduced me to many people I never would have met otherwise. What keeps me going? When I run out of things to say, then it will be time to quit. I do believe that, after nearly 14 years, I'm closer to the end of the blog than the beginning, but I don't know how long that will be. Additionally, there's my new book, which I'm hoping to publish this year, and the blog is a great way to promote it and keep it in front of others.
What type of things do you blog about when you say classic television? What makes classic television classic? Although critics say there have been golden ages of television recently, what, in your opinion, have we lost from Television in this day and age?
That's an excellent question. There's a school of thought that when we're talking about television through the 1970s, we're really talking about "vintage" TV; after all, for someone who's 30, "classic" could mean 2000, and that's not the era I'm thinking of. In other words, "classic" means "old." Of course, the word "classic" can also describe quality, something that makes a show rise above the standard, and that's really what I think of when I use the phrase. The term "golden age" is probably overused; there has been a golden age in every decade -- shows that define an era, a generation, or a historical moment. And I think that's part of what we've lost with television today. In the shows I enjoy watching, there's a seriousness and a creativity about the writing, an energy about the acting -- especially in the days of live drama -- and a gravitas about the subjects being discussed. Too many people don't seem interested in that kind of thing today; we have short attention spans that don't allow for a slower and more deliberate pacing; today's culture is cruder, angrier, more polarized, less interested in serious issues. The comedies go for cheap laughs and scoring points rather than clever humor. You can't discuss a serious issue without making it sound like some kind of political commercial. There's no subtlety, things are too explicit -- well, I could go on and on. That doesn't mean that everything over the last 30 years is worthless; far from it. The best episodes of the best show make you really think. They stimulate you, they force you to defend your own opinions about various things, and sometimes you wind up changing your mind. They stay with you long after the show has finished. I just find that happens more in the shows from an earlier era.
Family wise, what have you instilled in others by being a historian? How does family react to your blog and writing interest?
Well, a lot of it has rubbed off on my wife; I've been able to introduce her to many shows that she didn't watch when she was growing up, or she hadn't paid any attention to. She's a shrewd observer of things, and she's been able to point out many things that have inspired my essays. She's also very smart, which makes it a lot of fun to discuss things; we can watch an episode of a legal drama from the 1960s -- The Defenders, for instance, or Judd for the Defense -- and we can spend an hour or so afterward talking about various points that the characters raised, and how those issues have, or haven't, changed since. She's my biggest fan and my best editor and critic. She does get a little tired of me riffing away on a show while she's trying to listen, though, even though I've tried to convince her that I know more than those characters on TV!
Thanks, Mark - I appreciate your doing this, and giving me the time to go on about things.
Mitchell Hadley is the author of three books - two novels and one collection of essays on classic TV. He is currently at work on another collection of essays on how classic television predicted today's brave new world. He also writes about classic TV and its relationship with history and pop culture; His website is www.itsabouttv.com,
Mark Atley is known for writing crime fiction, with his works often characterized by complex characters, engaging dialogue, and narratives that build tension towards explosive climaxes.
Atley's approach to writing often involves creating intricate plots where characters' histories and motives are deeply interwoven, providing readers with both entertainment and a commentary on crime and morality. His work has been featured on platforms like Audible for audiobooks, indicating a broad reach in the crime fiction genre.
Mark Atley also engages with his audience through social media, where he can be followed for updates on new releases and insights into his writing process.
10 bonus points for the Renata Adler reference
Very nice interview. I plan to read some Mitchell Hadley in the near future