GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=RandomThug]"The Rum Diary" is a work of fiction. Its a good read.[/QUOTE]

I know--the first part, not the second. But I was referring to making a career in fiction. And the Rum Diary never caught on.

But I think you're missing *my* point. I'm not saying Thompson either went after governments or that he should have. I'm saying that he was a cynical nihilist--long before he evolved his image, shortly after his first book came out, Thompson was giving radio interviews that showed a very different persona in expressive means, but one that really felt the world had nothing to offer. To him, even back then, change was impossible. So he wasn't brave, as I think someone here was implying. He wasn't out to take risks against giants. He was simply taking a paycheck for an attitude expressed in one of the most interesting prose styles of his period. I'm just sorry he couldn't work it into a career in fiction, but that would have taken a lot more effort.

You seemed to imply that he did go after governments but in an amateurish and unsuccessful manner. Anyway, I think that his work has much more value for what it is than if it had served as a political manifesto or a thesis on how rock n roll could solve America's problems - he obviously thought so too if you read his Sheriff candidacy platform in The Great Shark Hunt.
I suppose we disagree in that I think expressing an attitude is making a point, and that expressing a nihilistic attitude is no less brave than making a constructive point. Also, to judge a nihilist on the bravery of his challenging the corrupt is to demean him by taking him out of context and not recognise his values.

[QUOTE=frogus23]You seemed to imply that he did go after governments but in an amateurish and unsuccessful manner.[/quote]

That wasn't my intention. Quite the opposite. I was trying to respond to this comment: "Maybe I'm wrong on this, I never followed his life all that closely, but it seemed as though he wasn't afraid to do what it was he wanted. Wasn't afraid to say what he wanted to say either." I'm under the impression from all I've read of Thompson's that he was very canny in avoiding controversy. He left the political big guns alone, and greased himself a nice, easy path through life.

I suppose we disagree in that I think expressing an attitude is making a point, and that expressing a nihilistic attitude is no less brave than making a constructive point. Also, to judge a nihilist on the bravery of his proposals for the future is to demean him by taking him out of context and not recognise his values.

By what standards would you propose we evaluate the contributions of a nihilist? By the lack of contributions they make, their inherent nullity? If that's the case, then a person suffering from autism contributes just as much, and deserves equal praise.

I propose we judge a nihilist by the extremety of his destruction of values in the world. What could a nihilist create which would be worthwhile on his terms? Uncertainty.

But I was obviously a bit wrong in labelling Dr. Thompson a nihilist - although I think that he had no respect for any values other than absurdity, and that hardly counts, as it is a glorification of the absence or contradiction of other values....

His anathema was hypocrisy, would you agree? The hypocrisy he hated was people, especially politicians, but he had plenty of contempt for other civilians too, unknowingly or unthinkingly trampling on the values which they professed to believe in, or not having the strength to admit their real values to the world.
What he respected was irony and absurdity, which is very nearly the same thing as hypocrisy. He would trample on his own values, destroy himself, lie casually and act like a fraud...but in a knowing manner that very marginally marked him as an ironical satirist rather than a hypocrite.

An example from a quotations site:

"If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."

Thompson made himself in the image of a professional who had to lie for the sake of his professionality. He may have been a nihilist in that he did not believe much in truth or lies, and he certainly didn't believe in professionalism, but he hated hypocrisy in the form of journalists reporting lies because they were ignorant of who journalists are supposed to serve. So he satirised sleazeball professional journalists hypocrisy by becoming one.

Am I making sense?

Although he may not have believed in anything (hence a nihilist of sorts) he did hate hypocrisy and ignorance, and being an ironist, we can judge him by the grace with which he resembled his enemy and the subtlety with which he became a living reductio ad absurdem of the ways of those he hated.

[QUOTE=frogus23]Although he may not have believed in anything (hence a nihilist of sorts)[/quote]

Very much a nihilist. And I agree, he hated hypocrisy. He reminds me at times of Juvenal, the Roman satirist, for his wonderful, outraged humor. Except that Juvenal had a core of moral outrage to find ever-new targets and a sense of conviction. Thompson seemed to me stuck in a rut after a while.

he did hate hypocrisy and ignorance, and being an ironist, we can judge him by the grace with which he resembled his enemy and the subtlety with which he became a living reductio ad absurdem of the ways of those he hated.

Which brings us right back to the issue of style--and there, we are in complete agreement. I think in the end he will be judged an important influence, a great stylist, and a minor literary figure because of his lack of depth. Just my prediction, for what it's worth, which, in the best existential tradition, is no more than anything else, ergo, nothing.

The style off his life, the content of what he says are the important bits IMO. His prose style was cool, and no doubt influential, but not what I will remember him for.

This morning I heard on public aradio that his final wishes were to have his ashes shot from a cannon.. Sounds like the same ole guy.

jopperm2 wrote:This morning I heard on public aradio that his final wishes were to have his ashes shot from a cannon.. Sounds like the same ole guy.

I was about to post about this

Here is what was posted at another forum I frequent:

One of the people in my comedy group who also moonlights as a circus clown and magician got an e-mail today about the rental of a cannon for a funeral.

"Yeah, it's for that guy that wrote Fear and Loathing, I think. Apparently he died this weekend."

"You mean Hunter S. Thompson??"

"Yeah, that sounds right!"

He had no idea who he was. He's referring the family's lawyer to a friend of his that has a cannon. If you're an avid Thompson reader, you've probably already heard of this.

Just thought I'd share.

What I want to know is, is that even legal? It's illegal to even scatter ashes in Florida.