A proper definition of Gonzo journalism might be as followed: a style of subjective writing whereas the author becomes intimately involved in a emotionally-charged story using first-person narrative. Relative elements of this style might include: intimate first-person narrative, fearlessness (in terms of discussing people, issues), lack of conciseness, humor (but not always), and a general lack of adherence to traditional journalistic rules. Style is favored and highlighted over factual reporting and use of self (writer’s) is crucial.
In a November 1988 interview on “The Letterman Show,” Letterman introduced Hunter S. Thompson as the “most accurate and least factual” writer. By “most accurate” Letterman was referring to Thompson’s keen ability to capture a scene, an event, or a time in a manner out of reach of that of the New York Times’ concise, factual telling. Gonzo journalism, when done well, can perhaps convey “truth” in a situation like anecdotal he-said, she-said quotes and figures cannot. Using Capote’s vertical plunging into writing – the big difference being here that it is the author’s inner thoughts and not the subjects’ – Gonzo journalism capitalizes on mood, emotion, and the opinions of the writer to tell the story. Thompson’s Gonzo journalism focuses on self and, according to “Art of Fact,” “gleefully defenestrated all the traditional rules of journalism: conciseness, sobriety, objectivity, even accuracy, and especially unobtrusiveness.” Thompson revels in the use of “I,” a big no-no in the newspaper world. It is, therefore, a form of nonconformist, “outlaw journalism,” as noted in “on Gonzo.”
In terms of getting at the “truth,” Thompson in “Hell’s Angels” rightfully slams the media for its quickness and eagerness to cover alleged rape and drama in the news: (For a modern example, see the Duke-Lacrosse case):
“Weird as it seems, as this gang of costumed hoodlums converged on Monterey that morning they were on the verge of ‘making it big,’ as the showbiz people say, and they would owe most of their success to a curious rape mania that rides on the shoulder of American journalism like some jeering, masturbating raven.”
Even more to the point of media’s aim to seduce its audience, Thompson states (with a dash of himself), “Here, sweet Jesus, was an image flat guaranteed to boil the public blood and foam the brain of every man with female flesh for kin.”
Use of self is an obvious, but important, element in Gonzo journalism. For example, in “The Scum also Rises,” Thompson uses his own thoughts to convey the overall longing for a “simpler time” and an escape (double meaning) before Nixon’s downfall:
“Ah, this haunting, honky music. … I am running a serious out-of-control fever for that long remembered dream of a tin-roof, hard-rain, belly-to-belly day with a big iron bolt on the door and locked away in a deep warm bed from every connection to the outside world except a $14.95 tin radio wailing tunes like ‘I Smell a Rat’ and ‘The Wild Side of Life.’”
In terms of the differences between Thompson and Ron Rosenbaum, it would seem that Rosenbaum is using self more as a tool for telling the story rather than an excuse to get wild with the story. As Rosenbaum traces his personal fascination with “Skull and Bones,” he intertwines himself and his history as a means of adding an emotional element; however, his brazen examination (expose?) of the “Bones” determines it to be more Gonzo than not. With Thompson, meanwhile, no authority member is safe as he foully outlines the history of Nixon’s demise. Likewise, in “Hell’s Angels,” Thompson’s opinions and points-of-view of the situation become front and center, above all else. Thompson and Rosenbaum, however, share a desire to expose and speak of truth, each using his own style to dig deep into their respective subjects.
Discussion question:
In “Hell’s Angels,” Hunter S. Thompson is constantly lambasting the national media for hyping up and overdramatizing the violent acts of the motorcycle group, claiming that so-called respected outlets (Newsweek, New York Times, etc.) just plain get facts wrong. If the media is guilty of doing so, do you believe that Thompson is guilty of the opposite – glorifying the Hell’s Angels as righteous badasses? (See first paragraph of the “Roll em, boys” excerpt.)
Ginny:
ReplyDeleteI feel like we are always on the same wavelength as far as questions go! :) Thompson blames the media, but he is the media! He is writing a piece that is intended to reach millions in America, so I don't understand his complete bashing of his profession. I also find it interesting that he claims that respected news outlets such as Newsweek, the New York Times, etc.) always get the facts wrong, though they are both objective implementers of the information model.
When reading the excerpts from Thompson's "Hell's Angels," I felt that he was trying to defend these men for some of their heinous crimes. Though I believe in showing different facets of life (such as motorcycle gangs) by using detailed reportage, I do not think that the subjects should appear as "victims" or "misunderstood." When discussing the rape of the two men by members of the gang, Thompson almost made it sound like the women were "asking for it" by being in a bar where they knew tough bikers hung out and by overindulging in alcohol. I think Thompson's portrayal of Hell's Angels further enhanced their image as "badasses." I felt like Thompson stroked their egos the more he described them and the more he detailed their raucous behavior. I think he played into the stereotype/image that was already in existence, taking it to a whole new level of "even bad press is good press" for these "righteous badasses."
I think Hunter S. Thompson would argue that he is above the media and that his writing is somehow more meaningful (just a guess). I don't blame him for his portrayal of the media, as he makes some solid points; however, I do find it hypocritical that he slams the media for overdramaticizing their awfulness when he himself glorifies the Hell's Angels' badassness.
ReplyDelete