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.”