Category Archives: Joseph Mitchell
Joseph Mitchell
Jospeh Mitchell incorporates an exquisite style when he goes about writing. Reading Street Life, I enjoyed the easily-readable style he fuses with the thought that he pursues when writing. The constant use of repetition allows the information to be processed easier. Employing first-person often has bad repercussions, but the way he tangled it with his subconscious thoughts that felt as if I were reading my own mind and it was extremely effective. It was a great way to ease the reader into NYC street life: by connecting himself with the words (which I feel is extremely hard to accomplish for most writers) he is able to show and not tell the writer what he will be writing.
In contrast, I felt that the NY Times CITY LORE feature in movies was not as effective. Understanding that this was a movie feature for what was to come of Mitchell and Gould and the attached reading from Mitchell was the workings of a chapter from a memoir he never finished, I could not really measure them against one another, but I feel like the style of the writer is not quite there. I was completely against the quote to start the article after reading the nutgraf because I thought that it was too broad for the angle the writer may have been pursuing. The article felt scattered (I may have to re-read again).
I agree that Mitchell’s profiles are “highlife-lowlife” pieces. The use of Joe Gould as an interesting complex person in his feature really does break the rules of non fiction.
Joe Gould
I believe the term “high-life low-life” fits Joe Gould very well. He was definitely a “low-life” in that he was homeless, lived off of handouts and his diet consisted mainly of ketchup. Many people would probably look down at him as a vagrant at first glance. Despite this, Gould’s life was anything but low. Coming from a well-to-do family in the outskirts of Boston and being Harvard educated, Gould had intelligence and a unique few of the world. His eccentricities and aversion to money and physically possessions makes him more of a “high-life”. He sees the world in a different way than most would. Life for him was not about monetary values, but about experience.
Mitchell portrayed him in this “high-life low-life” way, showing us what Gould valued in his life other than money. Despite being homeless, Gould kept company with some of New York’s most successful and famous people, going to upscale parties quite frequently, adding to his “high-life” qualities. To those attending these parties and seeing him for the first time, he may seem a “low-life” when he begins reciting poems in “seagull” and flapping his arms about. Mitchell wrote that those at the party often came to enjoy Gould’s company by the end of the day. The story of Joe Gould shows us the value and life he had as a human being, not as a homeless man without a dime to his name.
Joseph Mitchell
What do you think of New Yorker editor Harold Ross’s calling Joseph Mitchell’s profiles: “highlife-lowlife” pieces?
I think that this is an accurate way to describe Mitchell’s works. When profiling Joseph Gould he does mention that Gould studied at Harvard, but I feel like he sees him in a different class as his own. In Ross’s article about Mitchell, he questions the authenticity of his writing stating that “it’s clear Mitchell did make things up,” in some of his profiles. Although Mitchell comes from a higher class in society, he does take an interest in investigating those who pertain to a lower standard of living. This can be seen from the profile on Joe Gould. However, I found myself wondering if these events in Mitchell’s writing are true, because some of them seemed strange and extremely illogical. I questioned a lot of Gould’s project- the “oral history,” and upon realizing that Gould’s secret was that this was all indeed false, I realized that Mitchell and him both ended up fabricating events and situations in order to make their writing more interesting. It’s ironic to see that both Mitchell and Gould originate from a higher class life, yet Mitchell chooses to stay in it, and Gould does not. They were both similar in that they were only trying to write good works, but did not use true material to do so. Gould chooses to live a bohemian life, although he comes from a Harvard University education, but rejects that to live more freely. Mitchell stays in his educated, high class life, but along the way encounters Gould and sees an extreme form of exaggerating the reality in order to intrigue someone. With that being said, I definitely agree with Ross calling Mitchell’s profiles, “highlife-lowlife peices.”
Joe Gould’s Secret
What do you think of New Yorker editor Harold Ross’s calling Joseph Mitchell’s profiles: “highlife-lowlife” pieces?
I agree very much so with New York editor Harold Ross’s calling Joseph Mitchell’s profiles “highlife-lowlife” pieces. Joseph Mitchell would make his way around the city dapperly dressed in designer attire. He looked higher up in social class yet he never wanted to interview anyone that looked this way. Harold Ross writes, “The only people he didn’t care to listen to; were society woman, industrial leaders, distinguished authors, ministers, explorers, moving picture actors, and any actress under the age of thirty-five.” Mitchell was only interested in interviewing lower class, “low-life” types that had fascinating stories, whether he was elaborating them or not.
Joe Gould is a perfect example of a “low-life” profile done by a “high-life” Joseph Mitchell. Gould is an oddball and while seemingly he may seem to be of a higher stature it is merely a facade. Truly Joe Gould relied heavily on the support and charity of others. Possibly this is why he spent so long and filled over one hundred spiral notebooks with an “oral-history” and events in his life that were never even true. Gould having writers block was constantly writing and rewriting this. Mitchell spending much of his time writing about Gould was outraged when he found out that it was a lie and revealed Joe Gould’s “secret”, that this history was false. After writing this Mitchell had writers blocks and never really published anything for the rest of his life. The irony in this is that both Joe and Joe fabricated fascinating stories and could not collect their thoughts in their last pieces of work. Perhaps Mitchell’s reason for having writers block at the end of his life was because he was disturbed by how much of himself he saw in Gould.
Joe Gould
What do you think of New Yorker editor Harold Ross’s calling Joseph Mitchell’s profiles: “highlife-lowlife” pieces?
Well according to Harold Ross he says that Mitchell “made an art out of detailing his subjects’ magical, wandering commentary.” That is the “highlife” Harold is saying. That being said, Joseph Gould over exemplifies the idea of wandering commentary. In the article Street Life by Joseph Mitchell, the whole first page is about how much Joseph Gould is just fascinated with walking around New York. In the article he specifically wrote, “What I really like to do is wander aimlessly in the city.”
While the “lowlife” pieces come from the profile he chooses. Joseph Gould though he came from a prestigious Ivy League University, he is stuck as a nomadic person. His love of traveling around New York, as readers we become sucked into Joseph’s life as well. A guy with not a care in life, “I never get tired of gazing from the back seats of buses at the stone eagles and the stone owls and the stone dolphins and the stone lions’ heads and the stone bulls’ heads and the stone rams’ head…”
Harold Ross hit the nail on the head when he said Mitchell’s a “highlife-lowlife” writer. Harold says “The only people he didn’t care to listen to; were society woman, industrial leaders, distinguished authors, ministers, explorers, moving picture actors, and any actress under the age of thirty-five.” So his highlife writing with lowlife profiling fits the bill.
Highlife-Lowlife: My reaction to Joseph Mitchell’s “Joe Gould’s Secret”
What do you think of New Yorker editor Harold Ross’s calling Joseph Mitchell’s profiles: “highlife-lowlife” pieces?
I can break down the “highlife-lowlife” statement by looking at the highlife part as a representation of the quality of Mitchell’s work, specifically the detailed story-telling that describes the subject’s background, lifestyle, and overall life events.
The lowlife part of the description, represents the fact that Mitchell, presumably, spent time with this individual who drank and lived almost in the streets. Mitchell was a highly skilled writer, and with this particular profile he went against conventional beliefs of what it means to get an education and develop a career in one’s area of study.
To conclude my reflection on the story, and on Harold Ross’s statement, I note that Joe Gould’s profile strikes me as a vivid, entertaining piece of writing that almost resembles a novel, and I think this high level of quality in Mitchell’s writing contrasts with the “lowlife” characteristics of Joe Gould’s life, which, whether real or fictional, is the source of the story.
I certainly agree that “highlife-lowlife” describes Joseph Mitchell’s profiles of Joe Gould.
Gould, at times, seemed like a typical vagrant on the streets of New York–his eccentricity, relying on the support and charity of others, sleeping in flophouses (which seemed like they were some precursor to the city’s shelter system today). In this way, he fit the “lowlife” aspect. But he was definitely “highlife” as well, what with being published in magazines and attending writers’ circles (whether he was welcome there or not.) What’s more, he seemed to enjoy the life he was living, and that’s about as “highlife” as one can get.
I found it very hard to believe, at times, that what I was reading was a (presumably, mostly) true story about a real person. Mitchell’s style made it all seem just like a novel, a mini biography of a fantastical, fictional person. I did notice that the second profile was longer and included many more quotes from Gould himself, long quotes.
I was kind of daunted by Mitchell’s profiles, to be honest. I couldn’t imagine writing something so detailed, so long and involved. Overall, I thought it was very fine work.
Joe Gould
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.
Joe Gould
I love the phrase, “highlife-lowlife,” and I think it best describes Joe Gould. He has some sort of character to him to which he thinks people should consider a man, who is squeezing ketchup onto his place and calling it free food, to be somewhat of a higher statue than the commoner. He carrying himself and clothes himself in a poor manner, drinks every day and has a dynamic change of expressions at times.
He walks into Joseph Mitchell’s office to read mail and to collect money for the Joe Gould Fund, only to probably spend it on more alcohol for himself. He continues to create an image of himself through his words and another image of himself through his actions. He isn’t picking out of the dumpster because he is well known enough for someone to buy him a drink or some food. For that reason, he is living the highlife-lowlife.