palahniuk attempting gonzo journalism

The sort of people who say, "Don't write like Chuck" would say to him, "Don't write like Hunter"?

[QUOTE=inkwell]The sort of people who say, "Don't write like Chuck" would say to him, "Don't write like Hunter"?[/QUOTE]

possibly,but palahniuks social commentary is phenominal and usually dead on; applying his insight to a decadent free format like that of the great hunter s thompson would probably lead into one of most insightful literary views of our generation.

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]possibly,but palahniuks social commentary is phenominal and usually dead on; applying his insight to a decadent free format like that of the great hunter s thompson would probably lead into one of most insightful literary views of our generation.[/QUOTE]

[B]"one of most insightful literary views of our generation."[/B]

Chuck's capable of being that, I think we'd agree.

"Gonzo Journalism" is incapable of being reproduced.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]"Gonzo Journalism" is incapable of being reproduced.[/QUOTE]not neccessarily

gonzo journalism is essentially going into an event with the intent of capturing a moment in time through a satirical account of your own experiences.

the reason why it worked so well for hunter, is due to the fact that he is a product of the decadent hippy era and the chaos that was the early 70's.

we are at a point in history were tensions are high, people are disenchanted with the world of politics. We are spoon fed false chunks of history, assigned mental disorders, given a prescription for almost anything irrelevant.

i feel this is the time to capture the essence of our generation; and the best way to do this is through something as straitforward and blunt as gonzo journalism.

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]not neccessarily

gonzo journalism is essentially going into an event with the intent of capturing a moment in time through a satirical account of your own experiences.[/QUOTE]

Many times Hunter was asked for a definition of Gonzo journalism. His most succinct was, "[I]Gonzo is what I do[/I]."

[QUOTE]the reason why it worked so well for hunter, is due to the fact that he is a product of the decadent hippy era and the chaos that was the early 70's.
we are at a point in history were tensions are high, people are disenchanted with the world of politics. We are spoon fed false chunks of history, assigned mental disorders, given a prescription for almost anything irrelevant.
i feel this is the time to capture the essence of our generation; and the best way to do this is through something as straitforward and blunt as gonzo journalism.[/QUOTE]

[INDENT][I]The only other important thing to be said about [B]Fear and Loathing[/B] at this time is that it was fun to write, and that's rare--for me, at least, because I've always considered writing the most hateful kind of work. I suspect it's a bit like fucking, which is only fun for amateurs. Old whores don't do much giggling.

Nothing is fun when you have to do it--over & over, again & again--or else you'll be evicted, and that gets old. It’s a rare goddamn trip for a locked-in, rent-paying writer to get into a gig that, even in retrospect, was a kinghell, highlife fuckaround from start to finish… and then to actually get paid for writing this kind of maniac gibberish seems genuinely weird; like getting paid for kicking Agnew in the balls.[/I][/INDENT]

Only one, man. Only once even. It got tiring for Hunter himself. He made his own funerary arrangements in 1978... Think about that.

[INDENT][I]In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward-mobile--and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: Not necessarily to Win, but mainly to keep from Losing Completely. We owe that to ourselves and our crippled self-image as something better than a nation of panicked sheep... but we owe it especially to our children, who will have to live with our loss and all its long term consequences. I don't want my son asking me, in 1984, why his friends are calling me a "Good German."[/I][/INDENT]

It may be a tense time in the history of the world. But when has it not been. The worst insult to ourselves would be to fall back like "panicked sheep" on a method of expression that was the soul of one man--an inimitable prophet--when we could, and should, fight on with our own ways that work in our own time. Hunter was original.

If you want to read some awesom gonzo journalism inspired type stuff, do yourself a HUGE favor and go pick up the Transmetropolitan series of comics.
There's like 15 or so of them available in a collected graphic novel-sort of series now.
THEY ARE FANTASTIC. Art, writing, concept, everything. AWESOME.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]"Gonzo Journalism" is incapable of being reproduced.[/QUOTE]
the only reason it wont be reproduced is because by the next time someone rolls down the pike and does reproduce it, it will 1) be argued endlessly that what they are doing isn't gonzo journalism and C) will probably have some new term to describe it, so that it makes whoevers writing that way seem even more the new genius

[QUOTE=aheffel]If you want to read some awesom gonzo journalism inspired type stuff, do yourself a HUGE favor and go pick up the Transmetropolitan series of comics.
There's like 15 or so of them available in a collected graphic novel-sort of series now.
THEY ARE FANTASTIC. Art, writing, concept, everything. AWESOME.[/QUOTE]

what exactly would gonzo journalism inspired art be?

essentially all artwork is your own personalized perception of something.

im not arguing im just curious by what gonzo inspired art is.

It's not gonzo inspired art. It's a fantastic comic series about, basically, a gonzo journalist.
Spider Jeruselem, the main character, is based largely on Hunter S. Thompson.

it wouldn't work
Chuck's work is based around him dealing with the frustrations in life. Fight Club was only written out of angst because no publisher had the balls to print Invisi Monsters.
Hunter's work, from what I can gather, is based around excessive drug use, perhaps because if you can't rise above the bullshit and mediocrity in life, you can still plummet below it with some groovy narcotics.

You get an angsty dude and get him started on drugs and the angst goes away, the dude chills out. Chuck would lose his edge. Like the teenage catburglar retiring after finding pot.

[QUOTE=lokigod]it wouldn't work
Chuck's work is based around him dealing with the frustrations in life. Fight Club was only written out of angst because no publisher had the balls to print Invisi Monsters.
Hunter's work, from what I can gather, is based around excessive drug use, perhaps because if you can't rise above the bullshit and mediocrity in life, you can still plummet below it with some groovy narcotics.

You get an angsty dude and get him started on drugs and the angst goes away, the dude chills out. Chuck would lose his edge. Like the teenage catburglar retiring after finding pot.[/QUOTE]

completely missed the point of hunter, and possibly of palahniuk

ill just hit up the hunter thing,

hunters gift to the world is blunt honest documentation of the decadence that was the 1960s-1970's the drugs were a large part of the time so they were part of his storys.

this is exactly what i was trying to stir up in the genius or druggy thread.

noting against you but have you read anything by hunter or just seen fear and loathing which honestly focus's on the drug scenes too much, the book deals with the drugs but the drugs are just as relevant as the color of the car (what i mean is they were there but it wasnt like OH SHIT HUNTERS DOING DRUGS, they were mostly used to show how deranged normal day to day stuff in vegas is.. unlike were the buffalo roam(alot more respectful interpretation of hunter).

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]completely missed the point of hunter, and possibly of palahniuk

ill just hit up the hunter thing,

hunters gift to the world is blunt honest documentation of the decadence that was the 1960s-1970's the drugs were a large part of the time so they were part of his storys.

this is exactly what i was trying to stir up in the genius or druggy thread.

noting against you but have you read anything by hunter or just seen fear and loathing which honestly focus's on the drug scenes too much, the book deals with the drugs but the drugs are just as relevant as the color of the car (what i mean is they were there but it wasnt like OH SHIT HUNTERS DOING DRUGS, they were mostly used to show how deranged normal day to day stuff in vegas is.. unlike were the buffalo roam(alot more respectful interpretation of hunter).[/QUOTE]
Sure, they both were into heavy social critisism. this is obvious, so i didn't state it.
I was looking into their motivations for doing what they do. the 'why' is often the most important question in understanding people

I don't know too much of Hunter's writing motivation so sure, it's possible i've misanalysed him. To answer your Q, I read F&L like 5 times before I bought the dvd from overseas, as it wasn't available here in aus. haven't gotten my hands on any of his other books yet which i'm certain is my loss.

to answer your original question, again, chuck is a great writer, he seems to have had a bizarre and often frustrating life which has indirectly affected his books.
hunter, isn't so much into the fiction. he lived a zany and drug-fueled life which was a lot more direct in influencing his books. ie, why dream up stories when you can document your own spectacular existence?
they both seem to come from opposite ends of the writing gamut. i'm of the opinion if their styles were to meet they would cancel each other out and fizzle

but in the eternal words of larry flynt, "opinions are like assholes...

[QUOTE=lokigod]Sure, they both were into heavy social critisism. this is obvious, so i didn't state it.
I was looking into their motivations for doing what they do. the 'why' is often the most important question in understanding people

I don't know too much of Hunter's writing motivation so sure, it's possible i've misanalysed him. To answer your Q, I read F&L like 5 times before I bought the dvd from overseas, as it wasn't available here in aus. haven't gotten my hands on any of his other books yet which i'm certain is my loss.

to answer your original question, again, chuck is a great writer, he seems to have had a bizarre and often frustrating life which has indirectly affected his books.
hunter, isn't so much into the fiction. he lived a zany and drug-fueled life which was a lot more direct in influencing his books. ie, why dream up stories when you can document your own spectacular existence?
they both seem to come from opposite ends of the writing gamut. i'm of the opinion if their styles were to meet they would cancel each other out and fizzle

but in the eternal words of larry flynt, "opinions are like assholes...[/QUOTE]

ok i respect your opinion alot more, i didnt mean to jump down your throat, but i got the idea that you were saying hunters only real claim to fame is being a druggy,
In my personal opinion hunters claim to fame is capturing the feeling/mindset/essence of the late 60's to mid 70's.

and yes i do think they are coming from opposite sides of the spectrum, my original idea wasnt a hunter themed book written by palahniuk but more like a gonzo styled palahniuk book(chucks introspective perception on the world around him, told through blunt honest nonfiction).It doesnt need to be politics, politics & sports were hunters game.

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]ok i respect your opinion alot more, i didnt mean to jump down your throat, but i got the idea that you were saying hunters only real claim to fame is being a druggy,
In my personal opinion hunters claim to fame is capturing the feeling/mindset/essence of the late 60's to mid 70's.

and yes i do think they are coming from opposite sides of the spectrum, my original idea wasnt a hunter themed book written by palahniuk but more like a gonzo styled palahniuk book(chucks introspective perception on the world around him, told through blunt honest nonfiction).It doesnt need to be politics, politics & sports were hunters game.[/QUOTE]
jump down my throat all you want dude
it's the occasional stimulating mini-debate like this that keeps me logging on here
...and being a former dealer i need to hear the word 'no' more

your idea is cool and would be a great concept and a part of me would love to see it tried and done
but a bigger part of me just doesn't have the faith

out of curiosity, what subjects would you see chuck touching on with his nonfiction? social ideals, mainstream trends, the latest cliches?

[QUOTE=lokigod]
out of curiosity, what subjects would you see chuck touching on with his nonfiction? social ideals, mainstream trends, the latest cliches?[/QUOTE]

man i honestly didnt think about that yet.

social ideals and hypocracy would be key, but in a way that avoids politics.

This is a great topic so I’ll chime in.

I've read very little about this technique. But whether it can be reproduced I don't see why not if your reporting from subjective experience that loosely follows a particular focus. This [URL=http://wv.essortment.com/whatisgonzoj_rqjo.htm]article[/URL] compared gonzo to method acting. Numerous actors have practiced method acting, the idea of completely being the subject of what you represent (some argue you can’t do it), being a hundred percent emotionally invested.

From what I’ve read I don't necessarily think gonzo journalism and drugs are inextricably linked. I think they were a a dominant part of Hunter's era, and the subject manner and timeframe he reported, so by the definition of this technique, indulging in drugs would be a natural byproduct.

I don't think Chuck is of such. His stories are purposefully elaborated in light of fictive narrative. He says most of his stories derive from real life events, but admits he elaborates on details, adding color with his imagination. I believe Hunter tried staying true to his personal visual experience, although distorted from drug use; he was still presenting his stories as close to truth as possible. Chuck's first love is journalism, but his stories aren’t based off actual personal experience, many are elaborated second hand accounts.

how is Adaptation gonzo journalism?

can sombeody explain this to me!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Because it's a satire of writing/making a film?

[QUOTE]how is Adaptation gonzo journalism?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=snuffy]can sombeody explain this to me!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?[/QUOTE]
snuff, I'm not sure I get what you mean. Adaptation the movie? Or adaptation of real life events into fiction? Ummmmmm.... if you think of it, every form of communication, or media is an adaptation taken from experience. So I don't know what your quoting or asking really. If you mean adaptation from real life, which is what I think chuck does, then it isn't [I]gonzo[/I], in my opinion.

EDIT:
ok, i see, you're quoting the first post.

He's talking about the film.

[QUOTE=snuffy]how is Adaptation gonzo journalism?[/QUOTE]

fear and loathing was hunter going in to write about a DA meeting/dune buggy race, no real story was there so the story took a life of its own and turned into his experiences while attempting to write the storys...and in turn capturing the decadent feel of las vegas in the late 60;s early 70's

adaptation was charlie kaughman going in to write about flowers, no real story was there, so the story took of a life of its own and turned into the miserable life of a struggling writer, a pretentious new york journalist, & a man trying to make sence of the world...

in turn capturing the 40 something lost souls, midlife crisis complex

one of the key factors in gonzo journalism was the intent of the project drastically shifts, and the story is then told through the writers own experiences in the akward bizzar world surrounding the subject.

Stumbled on this article.

And to stay on topic, I don't think chuck's work has any direct parallel to Hunter's. The question of Gonzo being replicated still relies on whether you see it as a form of writing or a dynamic of one man.

[URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13788-2004Aug18.html]Halftime for Gonzo[/URL]

[I]"The American nation is in the worst condition I can remember in my lifetime, and our prospects for the immediate future are even worse. I am surprised and embarrassed to be a part of the first American generation to leave the country in far worse shape than it was when we first came into it. Our highway system is crumbling, our police are dishonest, our children are poor, our vaunted Social Security, once the envy of the world, has been looted and neglected and destroyed by the same gang of ignorant, greed-crazed bastards who brought us Vietnam, Afghanistan, the disastrous Gaza Strip, and ignominious defeat all over the world." [/I]

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]And to stay on topic, I don't think chuck's work has any direct parallel to Hunter's. The question of Gonzo being replicated still relies on whether you see it as a form of writing or a dynamic of one man.[/QUOTE]

What I tried to say before--but was vetoed--is just that: "Gonzo" was, as you say (though potentially), the "dynamic of one man". Still, let's not get into an endless & non-fruit-bearing squabble over semantics (although "disagreement" is what this thread has limped about on from its inception, "disagreement" over the meaning of "Gonzo"). And I'm mainly responding to the thread-starter, but still to Ethan and Karb and the others, et al. The main point of this thread was (originally) whether Palahniuk could be an interesting or--daresay--worthwhile journalist working in a subjective vein, more or less. Answer: yes. Matter of fact (and this is coming from a person that gives little to Palahniuk and takes a hell of a lot less...), he was and is a decent journalist. I ought to have--and it's too late now--read back over this short thread so I'd know how to phrase this with or without sounding "arrogant", Phlegmatics, but you did know Palahniuk was a journalist, right? (I've [I]still[/I] not forgotten that one, Phlegmatics, calling me "arrogant" in the other HST thread... and I don't necessarily deny it, especially in the original context in which you tossed the word at me, but there's a difference between arrogance and self-assurance, however thin sometimes, and speaking of I'm glad to see you've dropped the HST-avatar as it was kind of disconcerting when making argument/discussion posts over and under it--I, myself though, am still stuck with the moniker.) Yeah, man. He was/is a journalist. And I'd say--though others undoubtedly disagree--that [B]Fugitives and Refugees[/B] is about as "Gonzo"-esque (see how I dodged that yet still was sort of inclusive to the idea?) as he can get. And he carried it off well. So now on to a few more points and the chips can fall where they may: either (more of) a discussion, dull silence, or... well, whatever.

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]completely missed the point of hunter, and possibly of palahniuk

ill just hit up the hunter thing,

hunters gift to the world is blunt honest documentation of the decadence that was the 1960s-1970's the drugs were a large part of the time so they were part of his storys.

this is exactly what i was trying to stir up in the genius or druggy thread.

noting against you but have you read anything by hunter or just seen fear and loathing which honestly focus's on the drug scenes too much, the book deals with the drugs but the drugs are just as relevant as the color of the car (what i mean is they were there but it wasnt like OH SHIT HUNTERS DOING DRUGS, they were mostly used to show how deranged normal day to day stuff in vegas is.. unlike were the buffalo roam(alot more respectful interpretation of hunter).[/QUOTE]

Okay, so you took Lokigod to task. But don't forget, Hunter loved the film. He hated [B]Where the Buffalo Roam[/B]. Not that he was right, but still. He called--and I really dug this--[B]Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas[/B], the film, "a lonely trumpet call over a lost battlefield." Sweet, eh?

[QUOTE=phlegmatics]fear and loathing was hunter going in to write about a DA meeting/dune buggy race, no real story was there so the story took a life of its own and turned into his experiences while attempting to write the storys...and in turn capturing the decadent feel of las vegas in the late 60;s early 70's...

one of the key factors in gonzo journalism was the intent of the project drastically shifts, and the story is then told through the writers own experiences in the akward bizzar world surrounding the subject.[/QUOTE]

Actually, [B]Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas[/B] was a lot more than that (and yeah, I know, you had limited space and time and I'm sure you didn't mean that THAT was [I]all[/I] it was...). Hunter had been--for years--trying to write a book about the "Death of the American Dream". He got into politics as a means to (a) make money as a journalist, and ( also to get material to write this book, which he saw as being intrinsically tied to politics (which is why most everything he wrote was more political than social, but again, we're splitting hairs on the same head...). He stumbled into writing [B]Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas[/B] as a more or less accident that enabled him to pen a piece that he felt represented the "Death of the American Dream" better than anything he'd tried out of all those years of trying in other ways. Later, of course, he kept on the political arena because he felt it was still where the "American Dream" (in a way of becoming less a nightmare) could still be judged. Take the first book, [B]Hell's Angels[/B]--pure social critique. Then [B]Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas[/B] (socio-political, leaning more to the social) and [B]Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72[/B] (politico-social, leaning more to the political). And then look at what--for the MOST part--he wrote until he died: derivations on the same idea. But yeah, all that is about as here-or-there as defining "Gonzo". I have a point... somewhere...

Ah. What--in today's world--could/would be the best representative of what was "Gonzo" journalism? I'd say: socio-political writing that is--like we've agreed--subjective. And it's out there. The mention I made of [B]Fugitives and Refugees[/B], it wasn't a toss-off. In it, Palahniuk is writing about portions of society in & around Portland that are there but not necessarily "on the surface" (but... sort of are), and the weirdness of some of his subjects raise the flag of politics as an inevitable. That, I guess, is what Hunter was always lucky (and at times intentionally) good at doing, bringing a story to paper that spoke on several levels to more than just the generation that read it first. He tapped into the true "American Dream"--dead or alive or dragging itself along nevertheless--and wrote about it. The worst sin (accidental or not) is to try to emulate Thompson's style. It doesn't hurt, though, to try to understand it. If you haven't, check out [B]The Gonzo Letters[/B] (all volumes, especially the second) for a view of how the man--not the myth, and not "Raoul Duke"--by hard work and pure accident found his oil well.

Sorry to have come back here to babble and such. And by the way, that new avatar, Phlegmatics, is damn near MORE disconcerting than the HST-one. Just in many different ways...

Finally, do you do any journalistic-type endeavors towards this day & age that might be interesting to pass on? If so, let me know.

Phlemgatics is wrong, not horribly wrong but misinformed about the idea of gonzo journalism

Essentially "Gonzo Journalism" cant be defined or labeled, mostly due to the fact that Thompson himself couldnt even define it himself....so how do you emulate or adapt a style that has no real method/definition?

I do however feel that we are near a point in our generation that needs to be recorded. We are the prescription drug/terrified of being labeled racist/blind to the world of politics generation(how much do you know your self? other than some things against bush?). We are guided by a man who was elected due to name recognition alone, and we are more concerned with what happens on reality television than we are in the lives of others.

So this is the prime opportunity to make the defining story of our generation

[QUOTE=Unhygenix]Phlemgatics is wrong, not horribly wrong but misinformed about the idea of gonzo journalism

Essentially "Gonzo Journalism" cant be defined or labeled, mostly due to the fact that Thompson himself couldnt even define it himself....so how do you emulate or adapt a style that has no real method/definition?

I do however feel that we are near a point in our generation that needs to be recorded. We are the prescription drug/terrified of being labeled racist/blind to the world of politics generation(how much do you know your self? other than some things against bush?). We are guided by a man who was elected due to name recognition alone, and we are more concerned with what happens on reality television than we are in the lives of others.

So this is the prime opportunity to make the defining story of our generation[/QUOTE]

Yep; I agree. Now let's see about 5000 words on something. [I]Anything[/I]. Start...

Or I will.