Originally posted by: DigDug
Regarding the book and the "journalistic" assignment:
Because it was nice to be loose and crazy with a good credit card in a time when it was possible to run totally wild in Las Vegas and then get paid for writing a book about it?and it occurs to me that I probably just made it, just under the wire and the deadline.
- Thompson.
Yes, so insightful,
investigative and thought-out.
It is a novel. Understand? A novel that does something that few writers can accomplish; demonstrate its explicit theme in the structure of the narrative. Towards the middle of the book, Thompson describes the innocence and naivety of the 60s revolution and how it grew ugly and turned into cynicism and monstrosities like Charles Manson. This same dynamic is demonstrated in the novel as Thompson and his attorney drive to las vegas with dreams of changing sports journalism, but then lose site of those goals as they do terrible things under the influence of the drugs that they thought enlightening.
As for quoting Thompson, he was very self-effacing & NEVER analyzed his own work, preferring to play down its theoretical significance. That was just his style. It doesn't mean that FaLiLV wasn't a great work, or that it hasn't been misread by the majority of its readers. Most of Thomson's best work was critical of the counterculture, but he was revered as a hippie icon. I think this depressed him a great deal.
And, really, criticizing gonzo journalism because of its inaccuracy misses the point entirely. It purposefully, and explicitly, mixes fiction with journalism in order to get at underlying themes and truths.