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.