I am going to now misinterpret David Sedaris.  I went to see him after his reading at his book signing and he gave me three pieces of advice, one I can't remember.  One of these pieces of advice was to "make something out of nothing."  His very kind replies to my questions scared me.  Implicit in them was that successful writing requires you to get your shit together yourself.  I remember my reaction to the two books of his I read.  He has a style of writing, conversational, concise like an essay, but with a light touch of the building up to a punchline of jokes.  He is a writer who most closely resembles a comedian, or someone who lightly sprinkles his narrative with the principles of comedy.  This makes him so effervescent and entertaining on the radio or as a tv guest.  When I read his books, I wondered about him, despite writing about his life, he seemed mysterious, or never revealed himself.  Each of his stories would flesh out a piece of his life with a sometimes absurd sense of humor.  In recalling an earlier time in his life, David Sedaris would have objective, somewhat omniscient distance as a narrator.  Early David Sedaris would be examined with a dismissive, self deprecating eye, someone who "tended to exhaust people" or unsuccessfully took up random pursuits like conceptual art or competitive swimming primarily to get attention, to the forgiveness and dismissal of his future self.  He was ostensibly vulnerable in recalling his past missteps, but not vulnerable enough and still mysterious to me as a character.  I didn't feel close to him or like he exposed himself in his stories.  I think maybe making something out of nothing requires creating an anecdote that takes a slice of one's life and makes a certain point to make room for other anecdotes.  The interesting thing about books of essays is that because the essays are about discrete times in someone's life, they may not have an obvious unified purpose to be collected in the same place.  Joan Didion's book of essays Slouching Towards Bethlehem was easy to cull some sort of large profundity, big steak, out of, because the stories were set during one period in her life, divided into encounters with people she met, and meant to be a slightly sloppy microcosm of the meaningful social moment captured at its time.  It was easy for me to see useful import and poignancy or a unifying theme in Joan Didion's writing for that reason, because they came from one time in her life and either reflected on American history such as counterculture in the 60s, motherhood, aging and other things it bothers me to talk about.  Perhaps the unifying theme in two of his books that I read are a similar tone shared in the essays.  Naked tends to be edgier, angrier, with longer sentences, longer, more autobiographical.  Me Talk Pretty One Day has taut, hilarious stories that frequently brought me to tears with their humorous commentary about the absurdities of languages and their rules.  There are glimmers of familial pathos and pain, the meandering path he took to get to a place as a very successful writer, and meaning and poignancy delivered with a lighter touch than his deft skill at telling an anecdote.  I guess I wonder if he is a "deep" writer, an "intimate" writer, if his skill in entertaining people while they're in the bathroom moves him up from the NY Times Bestseller list to that of a reliably great modern writer or even modern classic.  Maybe I'm missing a greater depth in his stories or unifying theme in each book. 

One thing I do know, is that what David Sedaris is presenting makes me want to get closer to him, to know the protagonist.  Personal essays expose one's life to a reader and offer them an opportunity to relate to the writer.. or not.  Observational humor causes the audience to relate to a comedian who is freshly exposing common elements in their lives. Observational humor, particularly narrative humor, forges a warm connection between audience and comedian because it illuminates elements in human lives and provides a window into the comedian's life/how he sees the world.  This is why I love to listen to the albums of Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, George Carlin, Patton Oswalt, whether or not they narrate anecdotes about their lives, just being able to enter into their perspective, the way they see the world, is a warm rapport that doesn't leave me feeling like I don't know the comedian.  Even if they are creating a persona (like Anthony Jeselnik who I don't pay attention to) or editing their stories to only include what audience members respond to, their voice and the way they flesh out and finish their stories provides clues to whatever their point of view might be, even if they are miserable alcoholics or, like George Carlin, way nicer and quieter than their abrasive onscreen character.  There is an honesty in sharing one's observations.  Creating distance while exposing one's life and thoughts with charisma is an uncomfortable juxtaposition.  I only found myself missing Aziz Ansari, pacing my apartment after watching the good comedian, because of emotion or the strangeness of seeing such a real talent in its raw developing stages and possibly missing other parts.  

The promise of meeting David Sedaris after a reading and the possibility that he will talk a fan's ear off further brings the possibility of vulnerability and connection.  I hoped that if I stated my case strongly enough, or drew him out enough, the very tired writer would come over for salmon some time next week... or at least we'd have a good laugh.  Yet, his attempt to have a personal conversation with each fan who wanted him to sign the book was maybe an exercise in politeness and grace.  As well as quirk and observational ability.  I guess I wanted to overshoot and be friends.  Even though a creative talent and a fan that doesn't create anything aren't equals.  Creative talents are allowed to be distant, loony, cold, experiencing things and observing people in the service of their art.  I wanted to be friends with David Sedaris.  So does everyone else.  People's creative talent is obvious to the cold objectivity of an outside observer.  Especially a wise professor or talented writer.  However workaday it may be.  Meaning we aren't special, we are consumers of David Sedaris' gift, people whose only art is life and only production is children or things like raising revenue or supporting a companies' bottom line.  So there is always a power differential.  We aren't equals any more than Rembrandt was with Ferdinand Bol or Gerrit Dou.  Or with Hendrikje Stoefls.  Personal relationships don't come to be as valuable as the art produced and being good at pleasing or befriending an artist doesn't come to mean much.  You are a person in their painting.  I think Sondheim already tackled this in Sundays in the Park With George. 

I wanted to know what brought him to doing drugs, how he felt about his mother, the fact that they cursed in the house (slightly tougher parents than my family), growing up with all those sisters and which he was closest to, whether he could relate to his father, why he wanted to date Hugh so much, what makes them get along, whether he thinks he is now getting the attention he wanted, what he really thinks of his fans, when he started writing, when he got good at it, how he met his friend Alicia, things I wonder.  I always want to ask REALLY intrusive questions.  But, the fact that I feel like they're unanswered (whereas with Joan Didion I mostly wonder whether her daughter was easy, how and whether she learned to cook, the challenges of being a mother, whether she was actually a good one.)  These questions also remain unclear so's to create more books.  His love for and estrangement from his engineer father is obvious in his books.