Gonzo

I've been thinking about the film I saw last Friday, "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson." Although I enjoyed watching it, something was bothering me about it and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. But after talking a little about it with friends, and after reading this short piece last night in New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/48517/) about it and him, I think I know what it is.

The thesis of that bio was that Thompson let his own myth supercede him and eventually destroy him. I think that's generally true. Most people I've met who say they are fans of his are really fans of Duke, not Thompson. He himself said that he felt he was "in the way" of his own writing. But despite the film's recognition of the destructive influence of Hunter's myth, it still chose to FOCUS on that myth, rather than him as a man or him as a writer. It showed us Hunter as a Public Figure. That's why, as someone pointed out to me, they left out the Air Force, the Rum Diary, Puerto Rico and South America, the "major, personality-forming parts of his life." These were the times that shaped him as a writer. Inventing gonzo writing was a major achievement...or a piece of dumb luck, as I'm sure he'd admit...but interesting and important either way. But I think what is missed is that BEFORE gonzo, he was an incredible writer. The gonzo stuff is hilarious and biting, but truthfully, I am far more often awed at the pieces of straight journalism he wrote.The insight, the detail, and the rhythm of his words are unequalled in anything I've ever read.

So I think what was most disappointing about that film was that it did sort of leave Hunter out of it. His political influence was great at that time...but it neglected to point out why he even got interested in politics in the first place. It sort of touches on it with the Freak Power campaign but it made it sound less serious than I think it was for him based on what I've read. I think when people are focusing on the Myth of Hunter, they are missing out on understanding some really essential characteristics, namely, that he was really and truly a believer in freedom and in people's ability to make change for the better. Something I've read that he said often was that "politics is the art of controlling your environment." But then so much went wrong to show him that they really didn't have that control...they came close in Aspen, but no cigar. And then Vietnam, and Nixon, and McGovern, and so many failures to achieve what he saw as the vast possibilities of what this country could offer. So I think a far more important aspect of his life that could have been focused on in the film, rather than the Myth, rather than how many drinks and drugs he could gobble and still stand straight, is the sincere disappointment in his writing, and his constant struggle to understand and articulate What Went Wrong. For a long time I didn't understand that speech at the turning point in Fear and Loathing about the wave. In the middle of this drug-addled spree, here was this rare introspective moment that always jarred me. Now having read so much that he's written, especially his letters from that time, I think I understand it as much as anyone can who didn't live through it. That, to me, is a much more edifying thing to focus on, something we can learn from him. He was disappointed and dissatisfied with what was going on, and he, more than almost anyone I can think of, constantly lived his life trying to change it and come to grips with it and ultimately, just live on his own terms. I admire that so much about him, and I wish the bios would talk more about that.

Today's his birthday. Let's all have a toast tonight during our Friday revelry to the Good Doctor.

criteria

New criteria for being close friends with me:

The ability to, with unfettered passion, listen to the same song on repeat for the better part of the day.