Fear and Loathing is overrated

I know this thread is kind of old but I feel the need to comment; the drug use in fear and loathing is a metaphor and Thompson has been quoted as saying that if anyone did the amount of drugs Gonzo and Duke did for real they would probably be dead.

The backround of fear and loathing adds a lot of enjoyment to the novel/movie: Thompson and Acosta, the 60's, 70's, Leary and the hippie movement along with the Salazar piece.

Fear and loathing is based on real events but the events took place years apart and are fictionalized for story purposes as Depp has been quoted as saying he has read correspondences between Thompson and Acosta and events are actually much worse than listed in the story/movie. To quote Thompson in the DVD commentary of the movie "we acted like a bunch of creeps"

If you read his collections of letters Thompson wrote fear and loathing while (relatively) sober and had a specific purpose in mind but ultimately failed in his purpose. Thompson being a true libertarian sold out in his own way, he never intended to live past about 30 and his suicide is really no surprise at all.

 

And what was that purpose?

I always assumed it was to document the craziness of the times and thought he pulled it off wonderfully.

 

Gonzo journalism. He failed because his need to embellish overcame him. If you read an autobiography on Thompson he was always a powerful character, even when he was a kid. You can find many quotes of him pretty much subtly saying that he sold out and phoned in a lot of his writing.

The result was entertaining so I don't fault him at all. I can only imagine what he would have produced if he really applied himself to his writing however!

 

But Gonzo journalism is all about truth through means other than "objective" fact..
I would argue that embellishing is a cornerstone of the style. Or at least, can be the cornerstone of a Gonzo journalist's style.

 

that is how it evolved but Thompson meant for it to be "cockroach on the wall" type journalism. Even if embellished it was supposed to be written immediately after the events not months or years afterwards.

Kind of like how Kerouacs on the road wasn't supposed to be edited but was.

 

Ah, I got you. Yeah, that definitely could have made a difference.

 

I like HST books, I have an original first print hardback copy of Fear and Loathing from the early 70's or whenever it was printed. It's not the best book of all time, but it is funny and has some things in it that are a social commentary of the 60's and early 70's, if you know enough about that time period to get the subtle references..anyway to each their own..

 

I read 20 pages and haven't picked it up since, I wish I would have tried to read the book before watching the movie.

 

I'm glad I watched the movie first. I wouldn't have liked it if I read the book first.

 

Incredibly overrated.

It was the book to read... for ages 16-19, lol'd.

 

The idea of fear and loathing wasn't to promote drug use. Hunter has been quoted in saying that. He wrote it based on an actual experience he had with a friend. Hammed it up in a few places, and added attempted to attach a literal narration to it all..while on a whole manner of drugs. The point of the book is to make the point of the book debatable best I can figure. But the fact that IS there, is nobody really wrote them like that before this one. Hunter S Thompson's style of writing cannot be under rated. It is priceless and one of kind, and will never again be duplicated in his own personal style...as he is dead.

I haven't heard anyone ranting about its 'goodness' in awhile. How do you figure its over rated? Did you just find it boring or something?

 

I can only assume that anyone who doesn't like, or "get" the good doctor's book, wasn't part of the drug scene in the 60s and 70s.

 

It is one of those works that people are put off of because of the obnoxious fans. Sure there are a lot of young people that get into Thompson because of the drugging but there is a depth there that gets ignored.

You have to view the little details and realize the drug use is a metaphor. Though you also have to beware the psuedo-writers and journalist that view Thompson as the second coming of Jesus. He was good at what he did but he wasn't that good of a writer, so much wasted potential.

I think a lot of old stuff gets ignored or misinterpreted by the new generation because they are unable to view things with the eyes of the past. Context; sometimes you have to assume a pov that isn't your own to enjoy certain things.

 

It was over 20 years ago when I read the famous blurb of HST's inventory of drugs on the back of a paperback I found at a cheap campus used book sale. The film was hardly a gleam in the eyes of Gilliam, who just only finished BARON MUNCHAUSEN. But I thought the following lines about the depravity of a man on an ether bender was a hysterical juxtaposition to the vast drug inventory. The book delivered its promise of rampant drug use and humor through the eyes of a post modern diatribe, and even succeeded (if you really read it with an open mind, and had experiences with post modern/surrealistic writing or hallucinogens) in, to paraphrase other posters, using his use/abuse of drugs as a metaphor for the American Dream, and how that failed experiment also mirrored the failure of the 60's movements of world peace. The movie did capture all of this as well if seeing it 'with the right set of eyes', not necessarily drug addled ones either. But the book was the true vision. Albeit possessing some shortcomings as well, still a great book.

 

Saying that Fear and Loathing is about drugs is like saying that Slaughter House 5 is about meat lockers. Yes there are drugs in the story, but that is not the point. The plot of the story is the chase for the American Dream. In this respect the book was brilliantly written and contains many humorous, serious, and insightful ideas. I would describe the book as a fairly intellectual piece of artwork. Anyone who thought it was about drugs can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Right on Emanresu... My reply was not meant to glamorize the drug use in the book, though integral to the premise, plot, and theme, the film was about America (and even the whole world) and it's failed hopes, not about the drugs. Hope this clarifies a little.

 

I thought the same thing, when i watched the movie..Its a very hard book to read or movie to watch.. I had to watch it about 5-6 times but i couldnt take more than 20mins, until i watched the whole thing one day..a very twisted movie..

 

There is more depth to it then people give it credit for.

Read ; The Proud Highway: Saga of a Desperate Southern Gentleman and then give Fear and Loathing another try. It's a good book and helps give Fear and Loathing a little back story and helps to explain a lot of what might have seemed like pure irrelevancy at first.

 

Surprised no one has responded to the thread in a while, but I just wanted to chime back in to say that those early Doonesbury portrayals of Duke was my childhood introduction to HST as well. Thanks for reminding me drumminmama.