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

Okay, but maybe you should sober up first. I really like to read newspapers, but I would be afraid that you would touch me.

I'm saying this as a potential customer.

 

You shouldn't try and appeal to the readers, I don't try to write whats exciting I write about whats right, and the truth. Who gives a fuck what you or other people like. Everybody should write what they feel. But at the same time don't copy people or try to stick yourself in the 60's. Write about how you feel in the now.

 

In my piece "Summer of Love", I touched on a drug experience in some detail.
(see http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=293757&f=26).
However the telling of that experience was integrated into the other significant things that happened to me at the time. I also tried to make it humorous, although my sense of humor is sometimes lost on others.

Relating a psychedelic experience, like relating a sexual experience, is an intimate thing. It takes some writing skill to present it to a reader in a way that is truthful and also not trivial or boring. Hemingway said, "Write what you know", but doing that still requires skill.

I would appreciate some meaningful feedback on "Summer of Love", or on "Ghost River". A hundred people read these pieces and no one says a thing. But be kind.

 

spot on

 

thanks mang

 

I like HST a lot. I also like Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool Aid Acid Test. I agree that few people who do a lot of drugs can cogently talk about it in writing, but to say it's not worth writing about, well I don't know if I agree.

 

It's defenetly worth writing about. I think it's interesting and fun. Not that; that matters. Like I said, who cares what people find entertaining.

 

History repeats itself in slightly different ways.

 

Also see my piece "Mushroom" on the Writers Forum thread if you haven't had enough drug stories yet. Another attempt to speak about the unspeakable...
See http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=298746&f=26.

 

Nobody should write in the same style as Hunter S. Thompson because it'll look like a cheap rip off, but somebody who looks deeper into situations and sees more should definitely do journalism. If Hunter's style was ''reality plus, with an added twist'', take away the twist and you get a very efficient form of journalism which is rarely seen in media today as it is. But.. Hunter was on the threshold of something big which has partially been exposed with ZeitGeist; but Hunter stumbled across he though was conclusive hard evidence behind the bombings of 9/11, regarding explosives being wired in from the infrastructure. He was also writing a column for ESPN regarding gay call boys in the White House. He was working on two pieces which were extremely significant to his journalist career; and suspisciously he 'shot himself'. Bullshit. Research the net for all the extremely likely conspiracy theories, but initially think about the kind of man Hunter was and the stories he was working on before he allegedly pulled the trigger. Fair enough if whoever was behind it tried to pass it off as a heart attack or something unpreventable, or even if Hunter had nothing to live for, but suicide is the last thing anyone would expect a man who's just found evidence he'd feel the urge to get out in the World to commit suicide. He wasn't exactly a man to keep quiet. He'd voice his opinion and this probably would of been the most important part of his career.
After all, on the night before his death he spoke to Paul William Roberts with the words ''they're gonna make it look like suicide. i know how these bastards think''.
I disagree with this thread because if Hunter's forthcoming accounts were published, we could be gong through almighty changes in mind now, and for that reason I think we need as many Hunter S Thompson's (minus the self destruction) as we can fucking get.

 

What's the point in writing if you're not going to write what you want.

 

I have to admit, though you may very well be describing me, this is very true.

 

What about Gonzo writing of a different topic aside from drugs? Perhaps the expierence of living in America at our own present time, and the issues involved with living in such a time as this where the economy is in crisis and tensions between nations running rampant. What are normal people, normal Americans, doing with there lives nowadays? How do they get by in this economy? What becomes of those people you never hear about, but see everyday of your life? These are just a few questions that could help to give rise to a new, great journalist.

I personally think this generation is a boring one, mainly due to lack of people taking the risks and movements they had taken in earlier years. We need more innovation and inspiration from people willing to take the personal journalistic approach that Thompson took. I doubt however, I will get my wish.

 

Well let's face it, as time has progressed and the face of Earth is persistently getting more modern with technology increasing all the time -it's getting much more tricky to take the risks that have been made in previous years.

Anyone thinking Gonzo journalism is purely subject to drugs should research the topic.

 

I don't think the OP was talking about gonzo journalism, just about the drug aspect.

And of course some old hippie is going to think this generation is boring-- it's called andropause, and it effects males at this stage in their life. It means that things don't seem as vibrant and alive as they once were... not because of any change in the actual things, but in the body's ability to produce certain chemicals.

If you had bothered to notice, the hippies achieved almost nothing... having sex and taking drugs in the name of freedom is stupid beyond belief. It's basically the equivalent of some teenage girl today dressing like a slut because Britney does it-- ie: just falling in with the latest fads. The masses will do anything for the 'cool' of it... don't pretend that the hippies were any different.

If you are talking about protests, well... that still happens, but it's lost the novelty factor that the hippies had on their side. So instead of some big sensationalist event involving the youth of the world turning against the establishment, you have some angry, uninformed kids who are just going along with what they think is right because, well, everyone always knows that the establishment is bad.

Maybe you're talking about militant movements? I guess that's what made the 60s so exciting... the violence and the guns.

 

misterrain--

Boy, did you open up a can of worms?! You've brought up several good points. In the sixties there was a contemporary Marxist philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, who wrote a book entitled "One Dimensional Man" and in it he writes that contemporary capitalist society has the ability to digest all legitimate forms of protest by commercializing them, and it has. Its all now a fashion statement.

Second, make any drug you want illegal and how much difference has it ever made? Anybody at what ever age is going to do what they're going to do whether they're fifteen or fifty, whether they're in the U.S. or where ever.

Third, drug stories are just not in your interest, but I'm sure there's something out there that is. And you're right, Thompson contributed to the time that was the late Twentieth Century. He was part of it's fabric, its character, it's soul.

Peace, Love and Rock n Roll--

Tymar

 

You can make anything fresh, so the point is moot.

Why not tell us not to write stories about monsters, or girls in distress?

 

That's stupid and completely wrong. There are tons of people who are conforming and lately that number is increasing due to the rise of ultra-conservative Christianity and sleaze rock in the 2000's.

 

i have nothing to add here except positive vibes!

 

Heywood Floyd. Comparing hippies to the masses following the media (in this instance, Britney Spears) - is not only shallow minded but complete bollocks. Maybe that's through lack of experience, research or understanding - I don't know, but you surely do display the stereotypical view on them. The age of hippies. How's about seeing new realities through psychedelic inebriation; looking deeper into the World around to get an understanding of what's actually going on; expanding conciousness and moving forward with fresh perspectives, as opposed to fuckin' 'taking drugs and having sex in the name of freedom'. How's about attention to relation with nature and others, as well as communication with the individual's central nervous system and sense of awareness, space and time, creative thought and true euphoria? How's about caring for the Planet we inhabit instead of taking it for fucking granted like most seem to in the age of today, who are not giving a thought because they're too occupied with issues that society dumps on them? How's about MAKING CONNECTIONS?!
How you can lump hippies and the Britney Spears wannabes into the same group is beyond me, there's far too many contradictions there.