“This has been a tremendous way to earn a living. Who wouldn’t enjoy getting paid for being curious? Journalism allows almost anyone to direct questions they would never ask of their own friends at random people; since the ensuing dialogue exists for commercial purposes, both parties accept an acceleration of intimacy. People give emotional responses, but those emotions are projections. The result (when things go well) is a dynamic, adversarial, semi-real conversation. I am at ease with this. If given a choice between interviewing someone and talking to them ‘for real,’ I prefer the former; I don’t like having the social limitations of tact imposed upon my day-to-day interactions and I don’t enjoy talking to most people more than once or twice in my lifetime.” (1-2)
even for those of us who don’t make a tremendous amount of money doing it, it’s a thrill nonetheless. i’ll go back to the point i made during my time at the toronto talk for the anthology of rap (yale)-there’s a difference in the thing(s) that we do for a living, and the things that we do for life. this one also made the list for completist purposes, but unlike the hendrix book, the person who wrote (in pen) in the margins to the care to scribble out what s/he noted. somehow, this seems fitting for a klosterman text. he makes me wanna teleport to new york to see him tonight (thanks, tweeter) and curious about his fiction. fargo rock city is next though, so i’ll have to wait a leetle bit longer….