FANZINE: Proxy makes your self-sampling more explicit. Do you have an overall climax in sight?

PS: No. But Proxy was designed, in large part, to draw out specific degenerative repetitions. That's exactly why the books aren't in chronological order. The last three books are presented as going backwards and the first two books are, sort-of, the index. The introduction is made of excerpts from newer unpublished material constantly concerned with how most of the sex joints and expectations are gone or dying fucking badly. But it's not a narrative, you know?

FANZINE: Was its two-column newspaper-style layout intentional?

PS: Probably not. It might be something that both Jim Goad––when he published Total Abuse––and James Williamson from Creation had in mind, though. I'm far more interested in the text being like a book than a newspaper. I'm responsible for the layouts of Pure and Parasite, but not the books. The images are mine, though. I don't try to comment on newspaper and media hypocrisy, I'm just largely unable to get away from it.

FANZINE: In Comfort & Critique you write, "I'm absolutely sick of the differences between intention and interpretation. I want to create an art that is ideally shored. One that can't be misunderstood any longer. Not by the powers that want to see me jailed or by the fucking mice that pretend I'm doing something socially significant." How do you intend to make this happen?

PS: The work can only be done as writing. Where one sentence explains the one before it. Full length books. I've seen the questions I bark out used out of context and sold as something else, something less. I want to make sure the answers are rigorously considered and that can only be done by writing books, not creating advertising. I don't have a blog or a e-commerce website.

FANZINE: What is it about the question and answer format and interrogation that lends itself to your project? And often, there's often a noticeable disjunction between the question and the response.

PS: There's some disjoint in the careful wording of the questions themselves. The way the questioner tells the answerer how to think isn't subtle but still, almost always, almost naturally, accepted. Of course, there is my own internal dialogue at work, often enough, that finds focus and excitement in the way others pose and answer highly personal, as well as grossly impersonal, questions. That search for so-called brutal truth that is vain and badly done. The way cops and artists come off exactly like street corner faggots asking toothless hustlers if they're cold without coats. The way that it can keep getting worse. The idea that others may know what's best for you. May want to protect you and need to explain that to you. There's quite a few reasons.

FANZINE: When did you meet Jamie Gillis?

PS: I met him in SF about six years ago, I guess. David Aaron Clark suggested it, originally. Jamie, as I see him, is exactly the rare sort-of person who understands the Q & A dynamic. He looks to me as if he genuinely wants to understand why these people, himself especially, do these things, these acts. Or want to see them. He asks legitimate questions and can't be blamed for the bad answers of the participants. Or the low expectations of his audience. I do absolutely think he'd like to get more than type.