"... a la Theodore White’s 'The Making of the President' books. Along with unabashed drug taking, hoaxing other reporters, and honing a cultivated but nonetheless genuinely menacing edge, Thompson quickly grasped the fact and advantage of being shunned by press corp heavyweights. 'Thompson’s determined to turn liabilities into assets: 'I’m not gonna do what everyone else is doing. I’m gonna write about what I see, present the unvarnished truth as I understand it'.... That truth still resonates... and is perhaps best summed up in this from Thompson’s 1994 obituary of Richard Nixon in Rolling Stone: 'Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. … You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.'"
The notion that "rotten" is an especially bad word called to mind a passage in the delightful old movie "Design for Living":
"I'm going to jump up and down on your ego. I'm going to criticize you with a baseball bat. I'll tell you every day how bad your stuff is 'til you get something good, and if it's good, I'm going to tell you it's rotten 'til you get something better."
The 2 male artists she's talking to protest and defend their work only to hear her repeat the 1-word criticism "Rotten!" And much later, at the end, after various high jinks that take them apart and get them back together, they ask her "Can you still say 'rotten'?" and she says "Rotten!"
I'm not sure that changing journalism to an outlet for the journalists' feelings about things was a positive achievement. I can read Richard Ben Cramer's book about the 1992 election and understand how each of the candidates came to their positions and what their positions were on how the government should be run. With Hunter S. Thompson;s election coverage I can just enjoy his rant.
Would it be unkind to call Hunter Thompson boring? You can only sell crazy for a limited time before the market is saturated and the product goes out of fashion.
Rotten is an unavoidable transition in evolution. Wicked, on the other hand, is neither a good nor exclusive choice, but is often exercised in semantic play.
Anyway... that book — "What It Takes" — isn't that objective. It purports to know what's inside everyone's head. It's fantastic and it deals in outward facts, but — similar to Tom Wolfe — the author takes liberties going into things he can't really know.
I graduated from high school in 1975, determined to study journalism in college.
A year later, after several classes extolling the virtues of "New Journalism," I found HST and read FALOTCT, FALILV, Hell's Angels and a good chunk of his magazine articles.
We shared a birthday. He was my favorite.
Then, his new stuff sucked.
Decades later, I read two biographies of HST. He was one jammed up dude. Those books took all the fun out of HST for me.
If you admire someone-- and you wanna continue to do so-- don't read their biographies.
(And I'm convinced that the people who tried to make movies about him never read his books or did acid.)
I remember his campaign book. It was excellent. It delved into the nuts and bolts of the McGovern campaign, and how they succeeded. It was excellent shoe-leather cover that made the rest of the press corp look like idiots.
It's a pity he let his addictions and fame derail him. He could have been one of the great reporters.
Thompson had a talent for over-the-top invective and a tendency to use catchphrases. He was one of the first to prioritize opinion over reportage in his journalism, which of course all modern journalists indulge in. He was lazy, too, content to semi-retire on the profits from his early successful books. The drugs and alcohol ensured that the later books weren't up to the same standard, and by then his novelty had worn off. In modern terms he was one of the first trolls-as-journalists, content to shout a profanity at a genteel event just for the LOL's.
Fifty years on, the contrast between the bad Nixon and the good other politicians doesn't seem so great. Johnson and the Kennedys set the standard quite low, and more recent presidents and candidates have lowered it still further.
If Nixon is different, it's a difference of degree, not of kind. And one thing we do seem to have learned is that politicians who boast of their own decency don't always do a very good job (and often aren't very decent either).
I can see that Theodore White did tend to make the winners the heroes of his books. If I remember correctly, though, he did show respect for both candidates. Today's reporters drag one candidate through the mud, and it's not always the right one.
He was a good writer and I enjoyed both Fear and Loathing books - but looking back, I would say he was nothing but a shill for the establishment which hated Nixon as much as he did.
"The final nail in the coffin of the Woodstock generation."
Football Season is Over
No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more that I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. This won't hurt.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
17 comments:
Hunter Thompson would never be accepted today. He also said bad things about Democrats.
I'm not sure that changing journalism to an outlet for the journalists' feelings about things was a positive achievement. I can read Richard Ben Cramer's book about the 1992 election and understand how each of the candidates came to their positions and what their positions were on how the government should be run. With Hunter S. Thompson;s election coverage I can just enjoy his rant.
Would it be unkind to call Hunter Thompson boring? You can only sell crazy for a limited time before the market is saturated and the product goes out of fashion.
Rotten is an unavoidable transition in evolution. Wicked, on the other hand, is neither a good nor exclusive choice, but is often exercised in semantic play.
"I can read Richard Ben Cramer's book about the 1992 election..."
I think you mean the 1988 election.
Anyway... that book — "What It Takes" — isn't that objective. It purports to know what's inside everyone's head. It's fantastic and it deals in outward facts, but — similar to Tom Wolfe — the author takes liberties going into things he can't really know.
Sooooo overrated!
If you liked Thompson, don't read this book.
I graduated from high school in 1975, determined to study journalism in college.
A year later, after several classes extolling the virtues of "New Journalism," I found HST and read FALOTCT, FALILV, Hell's Angels and a good chunk of his magazine articles.
We shared a birthday. He was my favorite.
Then, his new stuff sucked.
Decades later, I read two biographies of HST. He was one jammed up dude. Those books took all the fun out of HST for me.
If you admire someone-- and you wanna continue to do so-- don't read their biographies.
(And I'm convinced that the people who tried to make movies about him never read his books or did acid.)
Expect to see much more along the lines of "the winner isn't a hero" as the red tsunami gets closer.
I remember his campaign book. It was excellent. It delved into the nuts and bolts of the McGovern campaign, and how they succeeded. It was excellent shoe-leather cover that made the rest of the press corp look like idiots.
It's a pity he let his addictions and fame derail him. He could have been one of the great reporters.
Thompson had a talent for over-the-top invective and a tendency to use catchphrases. He was one of the first to prioritize opinion over reportage in his journalism, which of course all modern journalists indulge in. He was lazy, too, content to semi-retire on the profits from his early successful books. The drugs and alcohol ensured that the later books weren't up to the same standard, and by then his novelty had worn off. In modern terms he was one of the first trolls-as-journalists, content to shout a profanity at a genteel event just for the LOL's.
Althouse, agreed - I messed up the years.
All of Hunter Thompson's intellectual contribution to society could be distilled into a 3 minute rant done by Bill Murray.
Fifty years on, the contrast between the bad Nixon and the good other politicians doesn't seem so great. Johnson and the Kennedys set the standard quite low, and more recent presidents and candidates have lowered it still further.
If Nixon is different, it's a difference of degree, not of kind. And one thing we do seem to have learned is that politicians who boast of their own decency don't always do a very good job (and often aren't very decent either).
I can see that Theodore White did tend to make the winners the heroes of his books. If I remember correctly, though, he did show respect for both candidates. Today's reporters drag one candidate through the mud, and it's not always the right one.
He was a good writer and I enjoyed both Fear and Loathing books - but looking back, I would say he was nothing but a shill for the establishment which hated Nixon as much as he did.
Doesn't sound like a hero to me. Sounds like a harbinger of the collapse of the USA.
"The final nail in the coffin of the Woodstock generation."
Football Season is Over
No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more that I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. This won't hurt.
Post a Comment