I've somewhat seized on his analysis of how time has a way of transforming the formerly pedestrian into art without any change in the work itself. Not that should be taken as an absolute, of course; I like a lot of the Beats but feel someone really ought to have told Burroughs that while an extended drug trip may make interesting reading it's not literature so much as a rap sheet. Yet Harkaways take on what some do and don't consider "literature" at various times puts me in mind of the common Nineteenth Century conceit that respectable people didn't read novels and respectable writers didn't author them. There's something to be said for the writer who creates for the sake of creation, not indifferent to posterity but not obsessed with it either. If the result has and retains that indefinable gravitas that merits the title "literature" it will manifest, and if not the author still has the satisfaction of a good tale well told, as we have in reading it.

Consider it added to the list, though when I'll find time to read anything new I can't say. Good interview with a (seemingly) good author. Thanks.