Sean had me Netflix Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for him. As soon as I brought it home from the mailbox, he pulled it up on his laptop.
Afterwards he handed me the disc and said, "Very good movie. I might watch it again here in a bit."
"Unfortunately, I've never used drugs, so I don't know if those scenes were accurate," he went on. "But I love his voice...his writing style."
I finished watching a supremely enjoyable episode of Detective Conan, and then I looked the infamous Mr. Thompson up on Wikipedia. I found out who he was two years ago, and I really had no inclination to research him further, but Sean's interest piqued my interest. Plus, I wanted to "prove" that Thompson did in fact die with his grandchild in the house and his wife on the phone.
Now I just feel tired.
My husband is a very intelligent man, and I don't doubt that Thompson's writing is interesting and funny. But I still balk at the idea of glorifying a man who lived and died the way he did.
I've never read a word the man wrote. Part of me feels like I should. Part of me really doesn't want to, feels that doing so would violate my core beliefs. And then the first part comes back and says, well, isn't life about paradigm shifts, learning, growing, accepting, changing, and coming back to yourself to find your core evolved and reaffirmed?
I don't know why the quest for knowledge can be so tiresome. But this isn't new. I've always found the idea of pursuing knowledge I don't want to care about tedious. Is this the point where the enlightened soul pushes on? What happens to the person who just closes the book?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
the online journal of heather meadows
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(301)
-
▼
January
(35)
- Dream-Chloe drives a Yaris
- My impression of Augusta-area school systems
- Badass
- Tough
- Sigh
- Creativity...gone!
- Brooke's bridal shower
- Super
- Cell phone fun
- Who makes University Hospital's TV ads?
- Gunner = squee!
- Re: Detective Conan 147
- Kung fu truisms
- Regardless, it was a good concert
- Running scared
- Associations
- Pet Peeve: Return Receipts
- Why I Love Brooke, Reason #91859672
- I'm dealing
- Not being the best should not equate soul-crushing...
- I subscribe to the "let's not make it look crappy"...
- Creamy Old Bay Scallops
- I need a recipe card holder!
- Due to illness, I have not had a normal menstrual ...
- Funny
- Still awake
- Woo, grouchy (TMI alert)
- Four years
- I hate Bellsouth's "there's no reason" ad
- Why am I still awake?
- Moral of many an episode of Detective Conan
- Winging my way south
- That didn't seem very...professional?
- Photos
- 2006
-
▼
January
(35)
5 comments:
I don't agree with the man's lifestyle, either, but I think he had a very effective, "in your face" kind of writing style. I think one reason he ended up so popular was because of the shock value in his words. I've read a few things of his, and even though I don't agree with the life he led, like I said, I really find his literature --and yes, I call it literature-- just as full of experimentation as his life. I feel that the shock is both intended, and yet not boastful, but more of a "That's it, folks, that's exactly what it's like; crazy, eh?!" I think it's good stuff, personally.
I see Hunter S. Thompson's writings as a completely separate entity from the man, plain and simple. Maybe that would make it easier for you, if you ever chose to read any of it?
There was an episode of Growing Pains where Kevin discovered that his favorite rock singer was a complete douchebag.
Alan Thicke gave him one of those father-son talks he was so good at, and the moral was, essentially, you don't have to like the person to like their art.
I always thought that was a pretty good way of looking at things.
But it seems to me that Thompson's art would have been impossible had he not lived the way he did, and so to like his art is to give tacit approval to his lifestyle. I guess that's my conundrum.
Hmmmm, I see what you're saying, definitely, but I don't agree with your suggestion that "to like his art is to give tacit approval to his lifestyle." Just because I've read a Hunter S. Thompson novel doesn't mean that now I'm going to drop my personal and moral belief that people shouldn't screw up their bodies and minds by doing illegal drugs. ((Hello, there's a REASON people go to school to become pharmacists. I'm not wanting to trust some guy mixing up crap in his bathroom that it's an okay substance to put in my body!!)) I'm also not going to deny myself the discovery and experimentation I so love with literature, and not read something just because the guy who wrote it lived a completely different lifestyle than I do.
I'm sure a lot of his insight and experiences were DEFINITELY front and center in the effectiveness of his getting his point across, but I see Hunter S. Thompson the man, and Hunter S. Thompson's writing as two completely separate things, personally.
You know what I think it is? I think it just makes me angry that assholes get to be "brilliant", while good people are just good people, remembered by family and friends and no one else despite their goodness. The exceptions to this rule--Mother Teresa is the only one I can think of right now--are vastly outnumbered.
Does being "hardcore", living on the edge, being "bad" automatically make you more insightful? Does being a caring, considerate, loving person automatically make you boring?
Why are artists always tortured? Why are so many of them jerks? If they weren't jerks, would people still like their art?
We need some strong-minded, opinionated people who aren't sacks of shit to stand up and say something.
Are you saying Jesus was an asshole?
Really, all I have to say is this: There are always going to be basic "types" of people that groups are going to look for when it comes to inspiration. Hunter S. Thompson is one man's Jesus, plain and simple.
That's the basic problem - and that is what you're facing here - he's a legend, a hero, a god to some kids. He has been elevated above an author or a man - and people love all that he had done simply because they know he did it DIFFERENT and DIFFERENT is cool.
It's going to keep happening generation after generation, with one hero to the next. The newer generations need something heavier, something harder, something more in line with what they need to feel in order to either rebel against what they feel is wrong in society or to help them embrace that which they feel is what truly matters.
Hunter S. Thompson was a writer, and in that - all he was was a writer. It doesn't matter how he lived or how he died, he's no different in his creation than anyone else that creates. He just used a different medium and spoke to a different audience.
I'm jaded or tired, but I don't subscribe to the whole "let me find my voice in someone else's voice" idea anymore. If that's what you're looking for, then just ignore what I'm saying - because in my opinion his voice isn't really even worth considering as something realistic.
But taking a glimpse into his mind might help you, as a creator and as a writer, picture things from that fucked up place - a place you'd never willingly go on your own.
At the end of the day, none of it matters. Just because you don't listen to MTV doesn't mean you can't write a powerful song. Just because you never read the literary greats doesn't mean you can't write an epic. And just because you didn't read the rants of some old bastard that was never truly happy doesn't mean that you can't capture that same feeling that we all have from time to time - of hopelessness, of loss, and all of that.
I think the biggest problem is that writers want to look at him as a writer, but they soon realize that there's far too many people out there that instead look at him as a rock star. And he never, ever was one of those.
Post a Comment