1, How did you decide where to focus as you were considering Pete’s life? You do include a timeline at the end of the book, but you don’t include details of his childhood, for instance. Did you come to the project knowing what you wanted to say or was that informed by your research?

First, I find that figuring out the story is –surprise–the most difficult part. I love doing research, so the problem is when to stop. With LISTEN, I already knew quite a bit about Pete’s life. What I wanted was to find a way to draw in readers who might not have heard of him, but without writing a strict biography. Anita Silvey’s book and Susanna Reich’s book both cover his life in more detail. I wanted to do something else, both because it’s how I write and because I didn’t want to step on their toes (though there are more books coming about Pete, as there should be).
I didn’t know what I wanted to say when I began; I never do. I researched more deeply. Every morning in the shower (I kid you not) I waited for something to appear and help me move forward. A sentence. A tone. A voice. For me, that’s crucial.

2. I read somewhere that Listen is a celebration of Pete Seeger’s life, and it very much reads that way. Was that your intention?

Yes. I first thought of it as a song for Pete, but I’m not a songwriter. Then I thought of it as a tribute. But it’s also a book about him, his life, and what he accomplished. His politics, his activities, his courage, his music. I’m so happy the song titles are in blue, like a hyperlink, encouraging readers to maybe go and listen to the songs, learn the words, and sing with others.

3. How do you manage to find the core or heart of a person’s story, and how does that inform what you choose to tell?

As mentioned above, that’s the hard part. I think of it as finding a voice, a place from which to approach someone else’s life. It’s like playing a god of sorts, of course. Selecting bits and pieces to shape a story arc without subverting, being dishonest, or misrepresenting who that person was. With Pete, he really didn’t seem to have a dark side, so no dishonesty necessary. (It’s something to think about when writing a biography: will you still love your subject after having him or her occupy your mind constantly for so many months or years?)

So when I found “Listen. There was nobody like Pete Seeger” somewhere in the back of my deteriorating brain, I was very happy. It seemed to be a way to invite readers to sit and hear a story about a remarkable person, and it informed everything else I wrote. It had authority. And then the “listen” switches to “and sing” at the end, which was Pete’s message.

I think I did the same thing with “Monsieur Marceau.” Once I got “Look at this man” for a first line, the rest was easier. It directed my attention. If people looked, what would they see?

4. How hard is it to let go of all those wonderful bits that don’t fit? What are some of the things you wish you’d been able to tell your readers about Pete but you just couldn’t get them into the book. (Though, of course, you did include an extensive author’s note and timeline. Was that a way around that?)

Yes to the question about the author’s note and timeline. I really wanted to write about the Peekskill concert, which is so important in American history, but nobody knows about it any more. It was a terrible, even brutal, incident, rife with racism and anti-communist hysteria. But it didn’t fit into Pete’s story, particularly for this telling.

I also would have loved to write more about Toshi, who made Pete’s life possible. But again, that would have switched attention from the narrative.
It’s always hard to let go. After all the research (months), it comes down to putting it all away and just writing a good tale. Which is a lot harder than the research.

5. You don’t really get into the historical or political context of some of the events of Pete’s life.The House Un-American Activities Committee, for example. You talk about his being blacklisted, but you don’t go into the bigger picture. I’m wondering about that choice. Was there an impulse to say more? How much did your editor have to do with that?

My brilliant editor, Neal Porter, encouraged me to include the Holocaust section of “Monsieur Marceau,” even when I questioned it. For Marceau, it was a central event, so of course I couldn’t leave it out, but how could I tell it? When it came to Pete’s story, I was more confident, and I figured if I managed to address the Holocaust I could write about HUAC. Also, my goal is always to cut, cut, cut and make the manuscript as tight as possible. To tantalize, maybe, and leave readers curious.

HUAC and its nefarious activities is another area that I’m afraid people know very little about these days, and as Trump continues to chip at our democracy (more than chip, really), I would have liked to include more. But I think I told enough, and certainly I wrote about how it affected Pete’s life over the next years. Because I wasn’t writing a history, per se, I felt comfortable with that decision. Also, to have gone off on a tangent about the blacklist, significant as it was and is, would have made for a much longer book.
In the notes, I include a link to Pete’s entire testimony. I hope older readers will track it down and read it. It’s absolutely chilling to see how these elected representatives browbeat a very good man and tried to ruin his life. They succeeded with others, but not with Pete.
On my website, I also have a link to the testimony. ledaschubert.com

6. You must have been thrilled to have Raul Colon illustrate the book. As a writer who doesn’t illustrate her own books, were there spots where you wanted to direct him to a particular image? How much input did you have in the process once you turned in the text.

I had no input other than to discuss the choice of Mr. Colon with Neal. I was thrilled. LISTEN is my ninth book, and one thing a picture book writer learns is that once the manuscript is submitted, it’s not the writer’s any more. It’s in the very capable hands of the editor, art director, and illustrator. I’ve been very very lucky so far, and I trust those folks to know what they’re doing. I think Raul Colon did a great job; I particularly love the pages that echo WPA art and are so appropriate to the times when Pete and Woody traveled the country.

7. Listen is so different from your other picture book biography, Monsieur Marceau. Can you talk a bit about how that was for you as an author? What guided your approach in each book?

I don’t see them as that different, I guess. The subjects are different, but more alike than not. Each was a performer, each was the best at what he did, each had a complicated life and used his art to illuminate what it means to be human. Each hoped to enlarge the listener/watcher. Pete was, of course, much more of an activist.

I had to do much more research for Marceau, since I knew almost nothing about his life. Only his performances. I was completely astonished to learn that he was Jewish and that he rescued children during the Holocaust. Who knew?

The book I probably did the most research for was BALLET OF THE ELEPHANTS, also nonfiction, since it involved so many people and one magnificent elephant (about whom I also read). Balanchine, Stravinsky, Vera Zorina, John Ringling North, circus history, St. Petersburg (Russia) and so much more. Took forever and had a very different problem: whose story was I telling? When I realized I was really writing about an event, things fell into place. Plus it was my first nonfiction and I had very little idea what I was doing.

8. Do you have a favorite picture book biography that you looked at and thought, I want mine to be like that!

There are so many. But I can’t imitate, though I’d love to. My recent favorite is by Patricia MacLachlan and Hadley Hooper. Matisse. It’s absolutely brilliant–goes to the core of an artist in a unique way.
I’m no longer seeing as many books as I used to (when I got everything from publishers for review for my old job). But there are now so many great pb bios. Wonderful.

9. Did you have an audience in mind as you were writing Listen? What conversations, if any, do you hope it will generate?

I knew I was writing for children, of course, but I hoped the book would inspire adults as well and lead readers to action in two major ways.
1) Sing. Sing in groups. Hang up the cell phone, get off facebook, and pull the old guitar out of the closet. Invite friends over and learn some songs. Harmonize. Because singing together will lift hearts and benefit mental health as well as lead to more singing and finally, perhaps, to even more.
2) Understand that one person can have a tremendous effect on the world. Pete really made a difference. Children can too. How? That’s what I hope they discuss. Look what Pete did for the Hudson River!

10. Do you have a favorite Pete Seeger song?

“The Water is Wide” is the most beautiful song I know, and I love the way Pete sang it. He actually found it as an old ballad and reworked it. I’ve asked musician friends what the most beautiful song they know is, and it’s almost always this one.