Drunken Rainy Rooftop Madness (an experiment in Gonzo journalism)

My general habit is not to post negative stuff about someone else's work unless I can also find something helpful to say. I know I feel lousy if I write something and everyone jumps on it with both feet.

So, Inbloom, your piece may not be Hunter Thompson, but it's okay, it's an honest attempt to write about a fun event in a meaningful way. I would say keep writing and improving, but you'll need a thick skin because there are always people who will dump on you because they have nothing better to do.

 

I don't. Critisism helps people inprove through out history. Making fun of people doesn't, but critisism does. That's all i did.

 

No... 'pathetic' implies weakness. Weakness is being afraid to be honest with someone because you're worried about their feelings. Weakness is not trashing something that needs to be trashed. Weakness is backing down and giving encouragement when you should be giving criticism. Weakness is siding with the majority for the sake of fitting in. Weakness is not saying what you think because you're afraid that someone will think you're a dick.

Being critical shows that you are capable of producing an insightful reaction (no matter if it's constructive or destructive)-- simply saying 'it's crap' won't do, but saying 'it's crap' and then giving a reason will only help the writer get better.

Being demanding just means you're not the kind of person who would tell people that what they just wrote is good when it's actually total shit.

So really, 'pathetic' is not the right word in this case. Maybe 'mean' or 'jerky', but not pathetic.

 

Or they'll dump on you because you wrote a bad, pretentious story that comes off as arrogant for its appropriation of a style that you didn't even take the time to understand.

 

I dunno about that. I think it can be rather hard for many to word criticism in a constructive rather than destructive manner.

 

That's not my point. My point is that constructive or destructive criticism are better than applauding crap.

 

thankyou heywood floyd

 

I don't disagree, but I think you have to rate each item within it's own means. You can't hold that the article doesn't have any political commentary against it if it's not meant to have any political commentary.

 

You have too much to say man, that didn't have anything to do with what he said. Stop trying to sound smart when your just embarassing yourself.

 

... wow.
You might wanna slow your roll a bit, bud. You can be a bit hasty with things you don't understand it seems.
I was talking in reference to the bulk of complaints against this piece.

 

This may be off topic, but instead of trashing each other, why don't you guys go over to http://thesealfishery.com and trash somebody who really needs to be trashed. See my correspondence here at activism/the environment/endangered species and ecosystems/seal hunt, for example.

 

True. But how can you justify calling something 'gonzo journalism' when it doesn't contain anything politically or socially relevant? I mean, HST wasn't just a druggie, he was also capable of producing insightful commentary regarding cutting edge social issues (Las Vegas exemplifies the darkest and seediest expression/corruption of the American dream). His work is also full of cynicism and at the same time an almost spiritual yearning for something stranger or more exciting than those inspid ideals outlined by the designers of the American dream. Then again, that was the 70s.

If you want to write gonzo journalism at least be aware of the world you're living in, the themes that govern its progress, the consciousness of its people, etc... those themes have definitely evolved since the 70s.