Hmm, I think that came out wrong. What I meant to say is that Luke is probably the only reporter more interesting than any of his subjects. For whatever reason, he picks these dead souls wandering on the fringe of American literature, sociology and politics. It's funny when he breaks them down into the fundamental building blocks of matter, like that "sex-positive" hipster awhile back. It's less so when he takes dreary people at face value. I mean, women like this--happy lives, happy childhoods, no conflicts, one big fucking happy face presented to the world--have pretty much destroyed literature for now and all of time. I don't blame kids for melting their brains into a plasma TV with Grand Theft Auto on it: by and large, fucking Pong is more interesting than anything these people have to say, in print or in interviews.

Secondly, conflict--internal, external, displaced, implied--is Luke's thing. He may be as much of a honkey as any descendent of British thieves and pederasts but it's strictly an Asian trait to ascribe merit to the complicated man who struggles with issues compared to the Westerner that believes he's got it all figured out. The love/hate relationship that he has with his subject--which has been going on for, oh, six or eight years now--is what sets him apart from some mindless drone like sexycity, caging drink tickets from the drugged and generally taking up the space that could be better used by importing some Chinese prole willing to work 18 hour days for a bowl of dog food.