Why no one should try to write like Hunter S. Thompson

Well, there are quite a few reasons, actually... but the biggest one is that everyone in Western society already knows about drugs.

If you go out into the world and talk to people, they will know what drugs are like, and they will know how it feels to be on them. If they haven't read Trainspotting or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, then they will have seen the movies.

Every time I hear about someone's wild, aimless drug trips, or mind-opening drug trips, or inner peace-giving drug trips, or mystical guru drug trips it just gets so fucking boring it makes me sick.

Also, we are not living in the 1960s or the 1970s, or even the 1980s. Rebelling against the system is not thought-provoking, refreshing, or uncommon. No one sees themselves as part of the system anymore. Everyone is cool and alternative. Everyone takes lots and lots of drugs, or gets the basic idea. Everyone listens to hip, underground music, or watches hip underground films. Everyone tries to get around the rules. Everyone thinks they are above the everyday bullshit. Everyone has an important message for the poor, ignorant people whom they pity for being part of the system. You are not going to open anyone's eyes with this kind of thing. None of this is new or exciting. I wasn't around when it was, but I am around now and I know that it isn't exciting.

I just wanted to make this perfectly clear.

 

what would you suggest to write about?

 

What should us to writer? Sometimes I'm at loss!

 

I agree.

 

That's up to you.

I'm just saying that if you try to write like Hunter S. Thompson, it's probably not going to be fresh or exciting. But this isn't really even my idea!

There's a great article about it here:
http://pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/37553/Column_Column_Get_That_Out_of_Your_Mouth_27
Check it out!

 

There's a degree of irony there, don't ya think?


[font=&quot]

Edit: After reading the article, I think you missed this columnist’s point. It's a very good article, though and has given me a bit to think about. I think he's really trying to put an old mould of flared journalistic criticism to something that’s somewhat unlike anything we've ever experienced before which is difficult because of how fast technology moves or difficult because it's not necessary or difficult because everyone is doing it.

This fellow critiques the folks over at Wired and while I can see his point of view of the basic mag set up, it's when you dig deeper that you find the golden nuggets where technology meets the written word with all the edginess of ancient drug addled minds. Of course I'm saying this as a certified Bruce Sterling fan boi.... *laughs*[/font]

 

Hunter S. Thompson's style of writing called Gonzo journalism is about writing from experience in such a way that makes the reader feel like they are experiencing the same thing as the writer. It is not just about recording drug trips. Anyone who truly understand Gonzo journalism knows that. Get the facts straight, my friend. Of course no one can do it as originally as Hunter buthe opened a new door for alot of writers who have a similar style.

Plus, drug trips are always fun to write about.

 

It's not thought provoking or refreshing because nobody does it anymore, and to disagree with your last point, it is quite uncommon. Everybody (in the United States anyway) is so complacent that they will just sit back and go along with whatever the government dictates.

People don't see themselves as part of the system because they are completely engulfed in the system. Does a woodland squirrel know it's part of the ecology of the forest? My guess is probably not.

If people would start standing up for their rights again, this country could be alot better off.

I agree that writers shouldn't try to write like Hunter S. Thompson because nobody can do it the way he did, and if they try, they will come off seeming like talentless impersonators.

But if they work on original topics in the gonzo style, I don't have a problem with that, and I think it could be a good thing.

 

Hunter S. Thompson's style of writing called Gonzo journalism is about writing from experience in such a way that makes the reader feel like they are experiencing the same thing as the writer. It is not just about recording drug trips.

I doubt that the original poster will even come back to read this, but that was well-put. I know a guy who was inspired by HST, and he writes GREAT stuff, totally hilarious, totally puts you "there" to the point of almost-embarrassment. But he writes more about flirting with every attractive woman he encounters, not drugs, but he certainly pulls the reader right into the great hilarity that ensueth.

 

No I don't. Because I'm not writing about it, I'm just talking... I mean, in that sense that typing over the Internet is more like talking than writing. If I was going to go out and steal someone's idea and write a book about it without saying anything new, then that would be ironic (I guess). But as is, I'm just bringing it up because I get annoyed when people don't want to work on things and gravitate towards styles where they assume they don't have to think about things or actually put any sort of real effort into writing at all.

It's part of the general complacency that was mentioned earlier to just take drugs and then assume that you have something worthwhile to say. It's too easy, and even worse than that it gives people this false sense of participating in something dangerous and rebellious when in fact they are making themselves even more complacent by constantly retreating to their easy out, where they can churn out something about hating the government or going wild or being destructive and then have it feel like it's satire or an intelligent argument.

I don't think I did. It's about actually approaching something from a fresh perspective... and about how just plain drug trips make very poor subject matter. It suggests that drugs are old news, and that we should be more concerned with technology.

As for everyone else... we seem to have different definitions of gonzo journalism... I always assumed it was the mixing of fact and fiction to attempt some 'greater objectivity'. The notion that it's simply 'putting people inside of the experience', is far too broad to serve as an actual definition... because all narrative works of fiction are supposed to suspend disbelief and put people into the experience... and so are most movies, and I think you could even say that about music, photographs and paintings as well.

I think the main reason for this rant is the fact that I am honestly convinced that very few people actually have something important or interesting to say. This is due mostly to laziness, I suppose... or the fact that they accept everything that spills out of them as if it were brilliant... especially when they're taking drugs.

As far as I can tell, a lot of people seem to think that Hunter S. Thompson's work was about indulging hedonistic forms of carnality, destruction and irresponsibility... and while this phenomenon should be a concern that deserves attention, I don't think it should be an end in itself. It is a self-absorbed, cynical and ultimately defeatist way of thinking. To actually revere it is a form of lunacy.

 

This is absolutely true.

 

Please don't say that.

 

To the original poster. You're are you saying anything that isn't governed by necessity and known by most intelligent people. If a writer can't create their own style then they aren't successful. They don't need to be told because the world will do it for them.

I don't think writing or not writing about drugs has anything to do with this. Maybe the problem is that many writers try too hard to write like those of old, but the subject matter should make no difference. Don't you have any faith in the extraordinary possibilities of human experience? 6 billion human's experience, in an extraordinary complex world?

Maybe you just need to rethink your position a little to one that is less self righteous. You have a good point, but i think a person can write rebelliously, and in opposition to society, and about drugs, by honouring the true spirit of rebellion and that is to have the outlook of an individual.

 

That is a ridiculous contradiction of terms. Its not thought provoking, refreshing or uncommon because its a rebellion that has been swallowed by pop culture and needs to be renewed. It isn't rebelling against the system. I believe this is the point you're not addressing. You're pointing the cynical finger without understanding the solution, or believing there is a solution. Maybe you just like to think you're above everyone.

 

I don't like thinking that I'm above other people, but I suppose I feel that way sometimes. Still, I would much rather be able to relate to everyone.

But I wasn't being self-righteous at all. Even if I wasn't saying anything new, that wasn't really my concern... I was just trying to point out that writing about drug trips is really boring, which it is. I guess if someone could make it interesting then I would tell them that I was wrong, but I think it will be very hard.

And I really don't think it's a contradiction to say that rebellion isn't interesting. I guess if I said that rebellion was always interesting, then said that rebellion was always really boring, then that would be a contradiction, but I only said the latter.

As for understanding the solution... how self-righteous would I be if I were to say I know the answer and everyone should listen to me because I know how to fix everything?? I'm not going to offer a solution because I don't know it... but I know what annoys me and that's why I wrote what I did.

If you want, you can ignore what I said and keep writing about drug experiences and fucking the system and know that myself and others like me will always think it is boring and probably sensationalistic, or you can agree with me and try to write about something more interesting. It's really up to you.

 

Yeah, i get your opinion. But its just an odd thing to say. Drugs and "fucking the system" are part of many people's lives, extraordinary and unextraordinary, just like lots of subjects that get recycled over and over again, because most subjects have been covered under the sun. What matters is how it is relavent to today, how originally it is written and how it is wrapped up in human experience (the real source of the freshness of the writing).

Anyway, I don't see much rebellion at all in modern writing in this age, probably because there is so little of it. Personally I think there should be more, and relavent to today.

 

Oh well thats my career over. I shall not once more write another word unless tis to 'umble my bones before ya and beg your sanction 'pon my work for fear it may not be a work so enlightening to yer majesties pleshure
or pleasure as yer might say, yer majesty. Beggin umbly your fergivnis fer makin loadsa dosh out a selling books about the drugniss culcha I since-erily was a wonderin if it was ok to write about being human as we all know what that feels like aswell yer majistiness and not wantin to write anything not appoved by yourself I wondered if that wuz okay

 

Ummmm... yes?

 

Actually, no, because I wouldn't understand it. You talk weird.

 

Ah ok then I will go become a man oo stands abaht in tha rain selling newspapers then
outside trainstations