The Hunter S. Thompson Question -

[ScamL Likely]

Now, I've never read any of his books, but Null talking about how e-celeb dramawhores like Ethan Ralph, Dick Masterson, and others (I forget who else he mentioned, but Mersh from ROTC is a similar sped who fits the bill too) idolize him made me wonder why all these attention-whoring mongs have such a fascination with the man. I vaguely know about Hunter S. Thompson's style and the basic premise of his most famous works but it's still somewhat strange that all of these grifting internet nobodies with delusions of grandeur and pseudo intellectual aspirations think so highly of the man. Was he just as much of a sped as his fans are, or do they latch onto him because his writing made them feel like they could be as well-respected as him for being edgy drugged-up and/or booze-addled fuckups who think of themselves as consummate truthtellers?

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

Yes.

 

[Fromtheblackdepths]

Hunter S Thompson was a legitimately crazy mofo comparing him to those chucklefucks is an insult.

 

[ScamL Likely]

Hunter S Thompson was a legitimately crazy mofo comparing him to those chucklefucks is an insult.

I don't know if they're like him or not, but they've all talked about him so reverently that it seems like they wish they could be him.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The general gist of Hunter S. Thompson is that he 'revolutionized' journalism by making his content a non-fiction narrative by placing himself into the events he's reporting on and giving a blow-by-blow rundown of what he experienced, as in he just wrote in a journal about his day and published it. He was also something of a psychonaut drugfiend who was always indulging in experimental drugs.

 

[Regenbogen]

digibro looks like hunter s thompson in the karen farms rap

 

[SiccDicc]

The general gist of Hunter S. Thompson is that he 'revolutionized' journalism by making his content a non-fiction narrative by placing himself into the events he's reporting on and giving a blow-by-blow rundown of what he experienced, as in he just wrote in a journal about his day and published it. He was also something of a psychonaut drugfiend who was always indulging in experimental drugs.

And loved blowing shit up.

 

[The Shadow]

It's kinda the same way hipsters idolize Charles Bukowski. They live vicariously through them and think that by adopting some aspect of their persona they can be as cool and influential.

 

[Troonos]

People who idolize Hunter S. Thompson are the same boring pseudointellectual retards who think The Big Lebowski and Fight Club are the greatest films of all time, who think Kevin Smith is talented, and who use the "Requiem For a Dream" theme song in their YouTube videos.

 

[malt ipecac]

Hunter S. Thompson was a tremendously entertaining and original writer and I'd encourage you to check out some of his writing, which stands up well on its own. He's one of a tiny number in the pantheon of modern American celebrities who made it primarily through true and honest writing, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying his work.

There's a difference, I think, between reading and enjoying his work and trying to model your identity after him (let alone publicly comparing yourself to him). Troonos is correct in listing The Big Lebowski and Fight Club as other films that "I am very smart" types like to praise loudly, and it's unfortunate that liking certain writers/movies/etc. gets you lumped in with those dweebs.

Maybe a good analogy for what I'm getting at is that you can like Star Wars (or at least, you could before Disney bought it) while maintaining a job and regular bathing habits and not cosplaying as obese Han Solo.

Here are a couple classics you might enjoy:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/

http://brianb.freeshell.org/a/kddd.pdf

 

[Stilgar of Troon]

Thompson probably trashcanned a greater amount of meaningful material before lunch than the speds mentioned in the OP will ever produce in their lifetimes. He was a compelling writer and more importantly, a man who unapologetically stood behind what he wrote; he'd be having a field day if he was alive to experience Twitter. He's not worthy of idolisation; no man is but he certainly had admirable qualities.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

He was a legitimately good and interesting writer, whose style was ahead of its time a bit and deeply also countercultural. He was also fucking insane and did insane shit, and that helped your average Joe with rebellious leanings live vicariously through his writings.
As far as he goes, he’s worth talking about if only for how large an impact he had, but the people who idolize him seem to forget that he was also original. Sure, there were others who did things kind of like him, but they didn’t become household names like Hunter did. He was certainly a product of his time, and mix that with how ‘out-there’ he was and you get a very interesting man.
But again, hipsters ruin everything.
There’s nothing wrong with a baby’s-first-cult-classic, it’s a classic for a reason, but the hipsters tend to have only read or watched Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and maybe Hell’s Angels and then stay with that. Like said before in the thread, it’s like a guy thinking he’s super into cult cinema because he watched Fight Club and The Big Lebowski. All good things, but they haven’t even made it to The Electric Koolaid Acid Test yet, if that means anything.

 

[User names must be unique]

I disagree with null rather they're acting like those dumb cartoon characters like Ed from Ed, Edd and eddy or Kel from Kenan and kel. occasionally they'd say or do something incredibly smart as a joke for the audience.

That's what they're aiming for, a sort of nonchalant genius. Too smart to constrain themselves to common or logical sense, an outsider who appears a fool but hides a deeper wisdom.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

He was a literary rockstar who could walk the walk as well as talk the talk - he went on the campaign trail, he rode with the Hell’s Angels, he ran for election, he did every drug under the sun and he went out on his own terms.

Despite being a mad bastard, he was also an intelligent writer. Unlike so many “journalists” today, his political views were based on actual thought, and he could be fiercely critical of both sides and articulate exactly why. He absolutely loathed Nixon, but equally recognised that the counterculture wasn’t achieving anything.

His writing style is interesting. He’s a bit like Hemingway at times, in that it’s deceptively simple and straightforward. But on closer inspection, every word and turn of phrase is carefully honed for impact. He knew that sometimes you could get the message across more clearly through restraint or simplicity rather than by trying to impress people.

Yes, IMO he does deserve to be recognised as a great writer and shouldn’t be judged by his worshippers. To return to the rock star metaphor, the hacks who idolise him are the equivalent of teenagers in their bedrooms strumming a guitar beneath a poster of their favourite musician.

 

[ScamL Likely]

Looking at all the replies, I guess the idea of being a tryhard e-celeb faggot who wants to be "Thompson-esque" or "gonzo" is vaguely analogous to how postmodernism has become a dirty word even though there are a lot of great books by the early "postmodern" fiction authors from the 40s through the 70s or so. I know postmodern fiction isn't really the same thing as postmodern philosophy, which is what draws most of the flak, but the fiction side of it gets a bum rap in its own right because of later, shittier things that are more well known nowadays due to being more accessible.

I disagree with null rather they're acting like those dumb cartoon characters like Ed from Ed, Edd and eddy or Kel from Kenan and kel. occasionally they'd say or do something incredibly smart as a joke for the audience.

That's what they're aiming for, a sort of nonchalant genius. Too smart to constrain themselves to common or logical sense, an outsider who appears a fool but hides a deeper wisdom.

His point was more that they all have specific instances where they explicitly mention him by name as someone they want to be like or see themselves as being similar to.

 

[albert chan]

I love Hunter S. Thompson, but how come they never mention H.L. Mencken?
He was a lot more of straight shooter even while under the influence of alcohol.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Hunter S. Thompson was okay, but I always liked William S. Burroughs more. The Wild Boys was a crazy and insane book to say the least. The problem with Thompson is his fanbase, or at least the ones who weren't part of the OG counterculture of the 60's and early 70's

People who idolize Hunter S. Thompson are the same boring pseudointellectual retards who think The Big Lebowski and Fight Club are the greatest films of all time, who think Kevin Smith is talented, and who use the "Requiem For a Dream" theme song in their YouTube videos.

Fight Club is a great movie (but not the greatest) and Kevin Smith actually WAS sorta talented as a comedy director before he fried his brain on weed* but Fight Club's not the end all be all and it's a shame that those things got tainted by association and you're not allowed to like them without getting lumped in with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual jackasses.

*-Clerks still holds up today and the rest of the View Askew films work really well as mindless goofball fun sans the Jay & Bob reboot and Chasing Amy.

I honestly think Chasing Amy is the biggest part of why Kevin Smith attracts the fedora crowd as that movie just felt pretentious and self-indulgent while Clerks was a genuine "one in a million" lucky hit and Clerks II works because of the first one. The other films are good fun the same way that Leslie Nielsen spoof movies are. They're not intellectual, but they're not supposed to be and that's alright.

Autistic rambling aside, I'm going to second the notion that part of why Hunter S. Thompson has got a bad rep is because his latter-day fans fail to realize he got as big as he did because what he did was original and groundbreaking at the time.

Hunter S. Thompson's writing was a major gamechanger in the 1960's but it's the kind of thing that seems passe today.

 

[malt ipecac]

I know postmodern fiction isn't really the same thing as postmodern philosophy, which is what draws most of the flak

On the contrary, postmodern fiction vis-à-vis postmodern philosophy is an incoherent construct and I should hope this board will reconsider platforming any such unfounded assertion (for or against) on the monolithic v. delineated nature of postmodernist output by one whose conclusions not only derive neither from lived experience nor study of the extant discursive criticism on the question, but also by neglecting to include Black and Brown voices belies actual objectives isomorphic to the rape of our democratic institutions via misinformation.

 

[Eris!]

Hunter S Thompson is patron saint of the functional alcoholic and drug addict. Every gen X or early-millennial idolizes him because they, too, want to be a drug addicted alcoholic loser who somehow manages to be successful. They aren't, of course, but the fantasy helps them cope with how they fucked their whole life up. Wannabe journalists (strong overlap with alcoholics) idolize him for doing genuine investigative journalism, which no one does nowadays. They imagine themselves riding with the Hells Angels, doing meth to earn their trust, while they sit at their desk and write shitty blogposts no one will read.

Many such cases. Sad!

 

[AirdropShitposts]

They've probably never read Hunter S. Thompson's "mundane" works. They've seen a version of Fear and Loathing and idolize "gonzo journalism" as if it's some kind of method where you get wasted and insightful journalism speaking truth to power happens. (Transmetropolitan is another work that generally subscribes to this version of Thompson.)

Thompson wrote a lot about all kinds of subjects and was also willing to go places and write things in the moment, these dudes who sit around and stream faggotry don't go anywhere or investigate anything. Thompson would go to events and wouldn't say "no" to things so he constantly got into hijinks and wound up places he wasn't supposed to be. Then he'd write about how nuts it was that a fuckup like him could just do [whatever] or get close to [somebody famous] just by hanging around in the right place at the right time. And he didn't hide his on-the-spot editorializing like most bland journalists of the era.

He also wasn't doing the whole "I'm nuts" thing as an act to be edgy and "look how crazy I am", he was pretty nuts in both good ways and bad. He was just into a weird variety of shit and really didn't care if any of it made normie journalist peers uncomfortable. And they're the ones who helped create his reputation as a larger than life figure they wished they could be.