Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

His biographers always get it wrong.

I never got into HS. I did watch part of the movie fear and loathing. All I can say is that Johnny Depp was really good, but the film did not hold my interest, because watching and I guess reading about people doing boatloads of drugs is not that interesting.

Ratt wrote: "His biographers always get it wrong."

I have come to believe biographies in general get it wrong. If you like HT, this book will appeal. But, Jan in particular comes across as a fool who over believes. It is still in my house, btw.

Tara wrote: "I never got into HS. I did watch part of the movie fear and loathing. All I can say is that Johnny Depp was really good, but the film did not hold my interest, because watching and I guess reading ..."

Johnny Depp has a big hard on for HT, he sounds like many people spent many fun hours hanging out and drinking w/ him. Maybe I would be more cool w/ it if he was Hunter O'T....

Fear and Loathing was one of the funniest books I have ever read. I was living with Tara in Binghamton, NY, sitting in the reading room, and I started laughing so uncontrollably I fell off of the toilet. I thought the movie was brilliant, but then I love Terry Gilliam movies. The drug use is ancillary, the real story is indeed the quest for the American Dream.

The American Man Dream
The thing I got from all the guys I knew who really enjoyed the book, was that it seemed to be a guy thing. I have read a lot of boy books in my day, but I just never got into this guy. I never got into to Kerourac either. I started Cody's Dream. It was not a narrative that grabbed me.

It is good to laugh hard that is why I like the site cake wrecks and pics of jesus holding a baby dinosaur. : )

Are not all American Dreams patriarchal and patrilineal? I never got Kerouac either. But, it is good to know that I am indeed a guy, at least in part.

Laughing is good. I am going to find a picture of Jesus holding a baby dinosaur right now.

What on earth would possess you to even read, much less OWN, this book?! You haven't read any Thompson, don't seem to have much tolerance for his insanity and assholery (and he was undoubtedly an insane asshole) and...wait: did you just compare Hunter Thompson to Amy fucking Winehouse?

D.M. wrote: "What on earth would possess you to even read, much less OWN, this book?! You haven't read any Thompson, don't seem to have much tolerance for his insanity and assholery (and he was undoubtedly an i..."

D.M. wrote: "What on earth would possess you to even read, much less OWN, this book?! You haven't read any Thompson, don't seem to have much tolerance for his insanity and assholery (and he was undoubtedly an i..."

D.M. wrote: "What on earth would possess you to even read, much less OWN, this book?! You haven't read any Thompson, don't seem to have much tolerance for his insanity and assholery (and he was undoubtedly an i..."

Hi D.M.!
First, I don't own this book, but I suppose it is something you might assume since I complained of "having it". But to your other question, why would I read it, well, how would I know about it without reading it? And, as I do state, I intend to read some of his oeuvre, to better understand the subject.

Anyway, I like your passion and you must be quite a H.T. fan, which is cool w/ me! I can't plead totally innocent to the Amy W. comparison, but my point was more about frittering away one's talents, as described by Mr. Jan.


all the best,

Ruth

Thanks for your evenhanded reply; I was a little afraid I came across as more a jerk than I'd intended.
I hate to admit it, but your Winehouse comparison may not be too far off, but for a different reason. I don't have any respect for Winehouse, as an artist or a person, but she's a classic example of 'don't judge the art by the artist': her personal behaviour was reprehensible, but that shouldn't reflect on what she was capable of creating. And Hunter's another example of that. I find it unfortunate you read about the man before reading one or two of his 'classic' writings, because make no mistake: the man was a total ass. After decades of hero-worshiping Thompson, I can only say I'm glad I never met him, because it'd probably end in a fistfight. He was a jerk like no others, and his fame only made him worse. BUT...at his best he was a superb writer.
So, this rant is mainly about that: by the time you get around to reading his better output (either of the Fear and Loathing books, Curse of Lono if you can find one, or Great Shark Hunt -- if you'd prefer him in short doses -- are what I'd recommend), please PLEASE forget whatever you might know about him as a man. Wenner's wrong about him wasting his talents, but Thompson sure did waste a decent man in himself.

Ruth wrote: "D.M. wrote: "What on earth would possess you to even read, much less OWN, this book?! You haven't read any Thompson, don't seem to have much tolerance for his insanity and assholery (and he was und..."

You say you don't care if HS is a genius but you obviously do care that he lived such a wasteful life. You haven't read any of his books! So what is the point of a review? Perhaps you are trying to tell us more about yourself than about the subject. HS was certainly a flawed and troubled man but he was loved and revered by many partly because despite those flaws he was able to produce works of genius. I remember exactly the moment someone passed me a copy of 'The great shark hunt' and said "you should read this". The drugs and antics are what attracts some readers for sure but I think what I came away with was a realization that "politics" was played like a sport and HST brought that game to life for me. It opened my eyes and I think many readers feel the same way. I don't think HST's life was a waste at all. He lived a full life and will still be remembered and loved for his creativity and read long after you and I are dead, buried and forgotten.

Oh and which is it? You are against getting wasted or you'd be fine with it if you got the Johnny Jumpstreet treatment at Hunter's expense?

It seems people are really invested in HST being impervious to critique by anyone who would bother reading him. this seems particularly weak position. Is HST some type of nihilist because he can see through the political bullshit/games? is his nihilism expressed in his excessive partying?

If HST brings people a different understanding of the operating of mainstream US culture- that is great. I believe there are also other ways -other texts that bring the reader to a similar critique of state power/police power, etc

the works of Audrey Lourde or bell hooks would also provide a radical critique of the US mainstream or state power or patriarchy. These texts are not the wicked fun partying narrative that HST offers up. They probably would not appeal to the disaffected white guys the way HST does.

There is always Marx or Freud or Foucault for those who want to keep it white and man. Again, not the rollicking party on offer by HST

I know that Ruth is able to read texts quite rapidly and there for has time to waste on authors that I cannot get through because of my slow reading and my desire to read other authors. Ruth's capacity allows her to get through a variety of texts and to comment on them first hand.

Protecting or defending HST from honest critique by an honest reader would seem to be contrary to what HST himself seemed to be doing in his works--critiquing an oppressive conformist culture, enamored with state/police/oligarchic power.

James wrote: "You say you don't care if HS is a genius but you obviously do care that he lived such a wasteful life. You haven't read any of his books! So what is the point of a review? Perhaps you are trying t..."

Hi James!
I have to say I am surprised by the many (well, two) dudes rushing to defend HST to the point where you seem actually angry that I am not a fan. And just to clarify, my focus here is on the artist, not the art.

I think it is great that you and others are so passionate about HST. My opinion doesn't diminish your experience, if your point of view was expanded, great.

And, I have delved into one or two other HST books, will update here, feel free to weigh in if you want,

all the best,
Ruth

Hello ruth, I just had to say i cant wait to see what you have to say after you have read some HST works, as aposed to what you (i believe it was you) so accurately called jan wenner, that being an enabler and a man who rode the coat tails of an amazing author. Try hells angels or the great shark hunt to see if nothing else a better representation of HST body of work, and the workings of his one of a kind mind. Me being new to this site, and typing on a iPhone because i got/get so excited to talk HST and to be honest most things literature, i hope you forgive my short reads list(thats on this site so far) and typos. I do look forward to seeing what you consider good reading and hope to pick something new from your reviews.....matt

Tara, who are you to say who is an honest reader and an honest critic?. You throw a bunch of heavy hitting names into the ring, without offering any real opinion of your own on the subject and I have to say I'd rather hear Ruth's opinions. Her opinions may be contrary to my own but at least they sound like her's and not like she is trying to impress her friends at the book club. And your argument that I can't disagree with Ruth because by doing so somehow conflicts with what HST wrote about is just plain absurd and kind of a little cuckoo. I am not invested in HST in any way but I am happy to throw in my 10 cents when I think someone has unfairly criticized his work when they openly admit to little knowledge of it themselves. I would feel the same way if someone were to disparage my home country, the UK, merely on the basis of having read a travel guide and without the experience of having actually visited the country. I don't expect everyone to like HST at all but I definitely do take issue with the idea that he made "your standard inadequate male look like a hero". I wish that were true. I admit that Johnny Jumpstreet's level of adoration is a little hard to stomach and it does seem like HST could have shot him in the groin with a 12 guage and he'd still have been an adoring subject but I assure you I'm not that much of a fan. Perhaps what is interesting is that HST personified some kind of masculine rebelliousness, non-conformity and charisma in the mould of Dean and Brando whilst in celebrity terms he was in fact a mere journalist or writer. Perhaps, for this reason HST's work appeals more to men than women? Women can't see the wood for the trees or cannot separate the man from his work. Or maybe not all women, just the standard inadequate ones.

Ruth. I hope you do read some of HST's work and at least come away with a sense of his journalistic skills, his immense gift for story-telling and his imagination and charisma. I think in the way that Dylan opened up new avenues in music, HST did the same in journalism, maybe not to such profound effect but in some small way. This isn't a great book but having read HST's books it's interesting to hear other perspectives and learn maybe what was actually true and what was not. Some of it's so outrageous you don't believe it but apparently there's truth to a lot of it.

Oh ... and Ruth I would be interested to hear a report back if you do get chance to 'waste' some time reading HST. Regards, Jim

Hi James,

I appreciate this dialogue and others' perspectives about this and other books. That is why I participate in this site.

I do think you should relax a bit, no one is attacking you or your opinions, Tara is
free to share her thoughts. Phrases such as "who are you to say..." and "trying to impress your friends" are not needed, you can just make your point.

Tara's use "heavy hitting names" (I like that phrase)--it is appropriate in discussions about books, and, as she said, she has not read the text, therefore would not be able to offer her own opinions on it. (Which seems congruent with your later comment about not judging the country until you visit.) I also am not sure if she is saying exactly what you think she is (that disagreeing with me somehow conflicts with what HST wrote)...

Anyway, here's what I say about old HST and your comments--

One thing to keep in mind is there is HST's own work, and then this book, which is a bio about him. I have written about the biography. I welcome feedback how great HST books are, why you think so, which books are the best, etc., but there seems to be some indignation that I would read it without being already a big fan. That makes no
sense to me, and I can't understand why anyone could rationally think that --if I read a bio of, say William Shakes, I need to read all his plays and sonnets before my opinions on his life are "fair"?

I get HST's contribution to transforming journalism, and his talent for story telling (now having read Hells Angles and the Rum diaries, I do appreciate his writing style).

As far as the issue of gender and why he would appeal to men more than women--I agree there is something about HST's nonconformity that captures the male imagination. The phrase "inadequate male" probably was too glib--it is a kind of shorthand reference to some analysis of Edith Wharton books--the central male character being usually real lame, so I was referring to that rather than calling every man in the world inadequate...which I guess is what you were jabbing back at--
"Women can't see the wood for the trees or cannot separate the man from his work. Or maybe not
all women, just the standard inadequate ones."

This topic makes me think of Ernest Hemingway--I am a huge fan of his writing, but he, like HST had some serious character flaws. He played hard, partied hard, could be very selfish and mean, etc. Anyone could read about his life and say "what an asshole, go to hell Ernest!" I would not find this a problem...I even have strong critique of many (most?)of his female characters, to the point of active dislike of some of them, but I think his work is still amazing and pay homage to his artistic genius.

I guess that is it for now!
all the best,
ruth

Wow

Hi Ruth, I appreciate your response but have no intention of 'relaxing'. I'm often described as being laid-back but when I feel called upon to express my opinions, I guess, sometimes I do come across as being 'up-tight'. I'm not, but I do feel strongly about certain things. I'm really not bothered about being attacked, I'm used to it. I don't see why I should try to gild the lily when we are talking about opinions of a book. I disagreed with your critique of the book initially because you used it as a vehicle to attack HST as some kind of stereo-typical inadequate male, with few redeeming qualities. And even if that was not your intention I believe that's how it came across. Now imagine yourself on NPR invited on to critique the works of Hemingway and you are asked to comment on a particular facet of Hemingway's work: how do you think it would go down if you replied you were unable to give an opinion as you'd not actually read Hemingway but had read a pretty mediocre biography of the man? But you gathered from that he was mostly an asshole but you did intend to read some of his work someday. I am not saying that HST compares to Hemingway but I think in order to really be able to critique the man or even a biography of the man you need to at least have read some of his work in some depth. Some people rely on the Enquirer to get their scope on celebrity and the famous. Who is to say whether this book is any better unless you have any personal knowledge of the person. A case in point: I recently read a so-called expose of Barack Obama by Dinesh D'Souza called "The Roots of Obama's Rage". People I knew were rallying around the film "2016" which was based on this book. Romulans were proclaiming "you have to watch it, it's mind blowing, he's gonna destroy America .... blah blah blah ... he has a hidden agenda .... he's evil ... we'll all be under communist rule in five yrs". It was like 'invasion of the body snatchers'.

Anyhow, I discovered the film was based on the book so decided to read the book. I don't know if you've read it but I will assume you haven't just to make my point. The book details Obama's life and the author along the way tries to make the premise that Obama's political ambitions are driven by his hatred of colonialism and he is basically out to destroy America from within to fulfill the dreams of his Kenyan father who was a Marxist. It's a very compelling argument and Dinesh is masterful in his writing but his arguments though forceful are based upon tenuous assumptions and leaps of imagination and a willful distortion of the truth. Advertising for the film was refused by ABC because the advertisers refused to disclose funding for the film. Anyhow, my point is the book was a consummate hatchet job. I researched as many of the claims in the book as I could and found nearly all to be incorrect or to be a total fabrication. But, it was written in such a way as to convince the reader that it was a work of undeniable intellectual mastery. In my opinion Dinesh is a charlatan and no better then a writer for the Enquirer or The Globe. People believe what they want to believe and Gonzo: the life of HST is just the same. Unless you know something about the subject how can you use the book in any way to make any point other than to say 'it's well written' or 'it's style is fatuous'. You are just putting all your faith in one writer or two, or a group of people whose agenda you can't know. It's why we have tabloids. People can form opinions without brain ache and unless they make the effort to read between the lines and look further and to research facts and not believe all the hype and spin and detritus that we get fed on a daily basis then you can be terribly misled - and I include myself in that group wholeheartedly. I've always been a big Dylan fan and I'm embarrassed to think of some of the utter crap I used to believe about him when I was younger. How I bought into the mystique and idolatry. Only after having had many years of reading different sides and hearing many interviews have I been able to really get an 'idea' of who he is as a person and realize it's still just a persona. I don't really 'KNOW' him. But I do know that a lot of what I read over the years was pretty much bullshit. He's still a genius though.

I make no apologies for what I said of Tara's comments. I re-read it and I still feel the same.

regards

Jim

Did you read this book? How about The Great Shark Hunt? Hells Angels? ok...Fear and loathing? HST had an illness and was fading...Did he want to go out like Hemingway...was that it? I don't know, but...hardly like Amy Winehouse (other than the fact that they both suffered from Addiction issues) but what does Tony Bennett know of addiction...or depression for that matter.

Hi,
Your comment is kind of incoherent, but I appreciate your point about Mr. Thompson being at the end of his life. Very good angle, and I re-consider my lack of compassion for the dude.
Tony Bennett is an American treasure!
all the best,
Ruth