I listened to this piece several times, deciding, if I just heard on the radio, in passing, in the car, say, I would have been very intrigued - would have marvelled at the iconic personality of the man interviewed, the astonishing moments in word and voice – my interest piqued by the appearance of the son. What a great idea, a Bible salesman. But - I’m told from the intro posted for stations (and me because I read the blurb on prx) – it’s already someone else’s idea – there was a film in the late 60’s by the Maysles – I go on the web and read about the film – I see a clip. It seems amazing. So now – the listener is hungry to know more. The piece isn’t about the film. But it isn’t really profoundly about the guy either. And now the “radio critic on assignment” (for lack of another expression) asks, why interview a subject already documented in a film – even use clips from that film – without doing more with it? The guy is decades older – that could be interesting – has his attitude about what he did change? If it hasn’t, how is that interesting? I see it’s part of a longer series about people working – that gives is a kind of context – but this is a long way of saying: needs composition on some level – disappointing due to opportunity missed.