Joseph Mitchell’s “Joe Gould’s Secret” is a profile novel that follows the life and career of an everyday man. Mitchell is described as one who is “not easily bored,” intrigued by the simple pleasures in life such as old buildings, churches, hotels, and restaurants to name a few. These traits make it sensible that he would study a character like Gould who is a bit odd yet fascinating. Mitchell’s work is described by Harold Ross as “highlife-lowlife” because it focus on the elite city that is New York and the “lowlife” that is a person who is toothless, needs money from others to survive, and wears “discarded clothes of a man several inches taller and wider.” A highlife profile is one of achievements and success while a lowlife profile is one of mistakes and experiences. Gould’s story tells the world about the beauties of New York with all the “highs and lows,” good and bad. Although the novel was a profile on Gould, it too is a story about Mitchell and provides readers with facts about both people and their relationship. Both men are smart, both are writers, both fabricate the truth, and ironically have the same name. Mitchell made things up in his writing, mixing fact and fiction just as Gould went his whole life speaking about the amazing “Oral History of Our Time” that seemingly never existed other than in his mind. Gould ultimately lives the highlife because every knows him, donates to his fund, or even buys him a drink but he lives the lowlife too in that he needs the support.
Category Archives: Commentary and Critiques
Invisible Child
- I actually prefer that her last name was omitted. When the author reveals the character, I believe that Dasani has some sort of essence to the lack of a last name. We put ourselves in a position where Dasani isn’t “Dasani Campbell,” for example. We hear the first name and the first name only because that is all that needs to be said.
- Character development plays a big role in this profile because it ties very closely with story development. You can’t have the same emotional connection, empathy and sympathy for Dasani and her family without getting to know them first. If the story was 1,000 words, we would barely look at a story such as Dasani’s. The best way to describe it is the difference between one tv show and one movie. If I were to watch one thirty-minute episode of a show without any previous knowledge, it wouldn’t have the same impact than a feature-long movie.
- I believe Elliott did a thorough job documenting the life of Dasani. She goes through her family life and her school life with such thoroughness it is as if Dasani is telling her story to a ghost writer.
- Personally, the only way to fully understand a problem is to be inside the problem in some form. Going to see Dasani and documenting her, without a doubt, has to say something about the homelessness issue in New York. Basically, she showed us the problem without telling us what the problem actually is.
- This ties in with the length criticism. If the story is too short, people would not have cared as much. Similarly, if there were more people added into the story, it would dilute the message Elliott was trying to express.
“Invisible Child”
Andrea Elliott’s “Invisible Child” is a captivating piece that allows readers to get a sense of who Dasani is. She is a girl molded by her surroundings, something Elliott truthfully displays. I disagree with critics who feel that the story was too long because Elliott managed to stay focused in describing her subject. After studying Dasani for 2 years, Elliott accumulated tons of information that is only possible within a longer piece. She carefully selects her words to tell a story and provides an image for her readers.
I don’t think it was necessary for the New York Times to explicitly disclose the amount of time that went into the piece because it was obvious a story of this length was well researched as she also showed a progression of time through events in Dasani’s life.
By leaving out Dasani’s last name, Elliott allows a sense of privacy to her and her family. It is not essential to the whole of the story because readers are still able to understand the struggles she faces. Her first name is so important to the foundation of the story because she was named after a water bottle company that her parents couldn’t afford. Just by her name, readers can understand the scope of her situation. However, by including pictures her identity and face is revealed to the world.
Elliott constructs her story in a way that touches upon larger issues found in America. She focuses on homelessness, poverty, and the education system. She could have included some statistics on the number of homeless people or how many people live in shelters. Overall, I feel Elliott was covering a touchy subject and managed not to cross any lines with Dasani or her family.
Invisible Child Commentary
I believe it was a good decision to withhold Dasani’s last name as well as that of her family for protection purposes. In the story, Dasani spoke about the rivalry between her family members in the projects and the unexpected fights with people that could occur due to her family’s temper as well as her own. I agree with not including Dasani’s last name because of the potential harm it could’ve caused her or her family.
2) I didn’t mind that the story was long because I was so intrigued. I was able to really learn about Dasani, her family, and get a firsthand experience look into what life at a homeless shelter is long. Yes, it may have run long, but I personally would not criticize it because I genuinely enjoyed everything about this story. 3) Again, I believe the time was not disclosed due to safety reasons. There is a certain boundary that has to be kept with such delicate situations. You’re dealing with someones life, not just another report.
4) I feel like this shed a lot of light on how homeless people are treated in New York City. Yes, this may have been an extreme scenario, but who is to say that other homeless people in the city don’t go through this and more ?
5) Not everyone can really go into depth as to what life is for a homeless family the way Andrea Michelle did. I truly enjoyed her piece, and it left me wanting more. I can only hope we get an update piece soon because I truly opened my eyes to the extreme circumstances homeless people are forced to face.
Please comment on these criticisms and add your own criticism or praise.
Dasani response
I don’t think that leaving out the last name was detrimental to the quality of the article. Her first name alone was empowering enough and held enough metaphorical value for the writer to really help the reader understand how unique Dasani is in her circumstances. The last name would absolutely have to be included for a news article but for a feature with the amount of research that was done and the time it took, including a last name is not quite as important as her story and its relevance to a more national scale issue.
I disagree with the critique that the story ran too long. The writer dissected on one angle of the bigger issue of homelessness and tied it to the different aspects of Dasani’s life, so every part of the story held a different value to the authors angle and the extended perspective strengthens the article. The information is not repetitive and the main idea of the story continues to be the reoccurring theme of all the parts to the story.
Again, like the last name, I think disclosing the time involved and the months following her is information that makes the story go on a tangent. For a more concrete news article, all statistics around the situation are vital, but for a feature article, it’s not necessary when all the other information points to these conclusions.
Focusing on more politics and policies on how homeless people are treated would have broadened the angle that the writer was pursuing, and I thought it was wise that the writer chose not to include more information. Doing so allowed the writer to focus on their angle with more depth and because the angle was specific, the shift in focus in the articles from Dasani to the issue at hand where all empowering and smooth.
The constant shifts in focus were what kept the entire story so engaging. It kept giving readers something else to gather before they were shifted from Dasani to something related to her circumstance. Fort Greene being a gentrification gem to the Auburn family residence, change in community exemplified through different streets being paved differently on Myrtle, Bloomberg “homelessness more enjoyable” to rats in Dasani’s room. This is a style I see a lot with authors I read like Junot Diaz and Dave Eggers, with the constant shifts holding value in how the reader receives the information.
I think that the article had the potential to be a middle ground for understanding larger and more complex issues. The shift of focus gave the reader perspective on how the larger scale issues and decisions effected the smaller scale issue of Dasani’s life. However I don’t think the article was exaggerated and I think the very specific focus helps exemplify the issues going on.
Invisible Children
I think Elliott did an excellent job of profiling Dasani. Her last name was omitted for her protection, as she is not only homeless but a minor. The story was long, but was necessary to fully show the dimensions of this young girl and her family. If Elliott had added in more information on politics and policy, it would take the focus away from Dasani. I believe it did become a caricature of a more complex issue. By focusing solely on one person’s story, the reader is able to get a greater understanding of what goes on in the life of the homeless. By focusing on Dasani, we get a broader picture of what other homeless people’s lives are like. I personally began to think about what talents others may have that aren’t fully used because of the circumstances of homelessness.
Elliot really shone a light into the life of a person who otherwise would have been ignored. As the title of her feature suggests, homeless children are often not thought about in society but are a major part of homelessness. This feature gave us a detailed look into not only the living conditions but the talents and hope of this young girl. It allowed us to see homeless people as just that. Homeless has a large stigma and people who are homeless are generally categorized as that, and not by any talents they may have. It was refreshing to see Elliott show these sides of Dasani and her family instead of focusing on the homelessness.
Invisible Child comments
I very much enjoyed reading the Invisible Child piece.
I don’t think it mattered that Dasani’s last name was omitted; I can’t see how it would have made a difference to the story’s quality to include it. I think that it was better to omit it since she’s very young and already getting a lot of media exposure. Leaving out her last name was one way she could have some privacy.
The story was really long, it’s true, but I think the length was necessary in order to show the full depths of Dasani’s situation. A shorter piece wouldn’t have had time to fully explore how complex Dasani and her family’s lives were and paint an accurate picture of them as human beings doing the best they can to get by–even when “the best” isn’t something legal.
I’m not sure it mattered that the Times didn’t disclose how long the reporting took. I can’t think of any of the code of ethics that would require disclosing the time frame. I felt that reading the story made it clear or at least apparent that Andrea Elliott had followed Dasani for several months, since there’s a pretty obvious progression of time–for example, toward the beginning of the story, we see Dasani start school, and a little later on, a Christmas celebration is described. To me that implies that Elliott was with her for a long time.
I do agree that more time could have been devoted to the treatment of homeless people in New York City, but I also think that the story worked without it. It’s a profile of a girl and her family; had it been a series of profiles of several families or people, it would have been more imperative to include more information about homelessness.
I’m not so sure that Invisible Child was a caricature. I think that had it focused on child homelessness, relying on a single story wouldn’t have been a good idea. However, it was a story devoted to this one child, in this one situation. Certainly, it could be an example that speaks to a larger issue, but since it focused primarily on Dasani’s Homeless Life, it avoided being a caricature.
Invisible Child
I think omitting the last named served to protect the innocence of a young girl and also give some privacy. While the story is very detailed and does give pictures that kind of contradicts it. But the last name was not really necessary to convey the message the author was relaying to the reader.
While the story could have included more facts and statistics about the homeless, I think what it touched on was sufficient. It was a profile and its statistics supported the story.
The story did run long, but because it was an interesting piece it doesn’t feel like that while you’re reading. I was really intrigued by the details and how deep the story was. I felt like I was experiencing this situation with Dasani.
Joe Gould’s Secret by Joseph Mitchell (for class discussion)
What do you think of New Yorker editor Harold Ross’s calling Joseph Mitchell’s profiles: “highlife-lowlife” pieces?
Invisible Child by Andrea Elliott
Readers expressed praise and criticism for the NYT Dasani series by Andrea Elliott.
Comments included: 1) Criticism that her last name was omitted. 2) Story ran too long 3) Times did not disclose the extent to which it was involved –months of following her every move 4) Not enough attention to the policies and politics of how homeless people are treated in New York City 5) Risk of relying on a single story. Did it become a caricature of larger and more complex issues?
Please comment on these criticisms and add your own criticism or praise.