Joe Gould

Posted on by

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”

Posted on by

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.

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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.

Invisible Child

Posted on by
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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”

Posted on by

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.