I care too much
Thompson obituary presents narrow view of writer's life
Letter
February 25, 2005
To the Editor:
Re: "A Beast Who Became an Illustrious Fossil," Opinion, Feb. 22
I found C. Travis Atkinson's response to the death of Hunter S. Thompson both sad and highly inappropriate. Atkinson started the article with some "creative vitriol" of his own, referencing the good Doctor's "stoner-class fans" and position as the high priest of drugs. What he neglected to mention was that Hunter not only revolutionized the English language, but was also a top-notch journalist. By inserting his own subjectivity into his works, Thompson broke a long-standing taboo in professional journalism, and thus spawned an entire new literary genre. And while it seems easy to point to drugs as his bread and butter, HST was a highly competent journalist whose observations were anything but "mundane."
Admittedly his words fell off a bit over the past 15 years, however it is irresponsible to highlight that as his legacy on the day after his passing. In the same light Atkinson jumped on the Hunter-bashing bandwagon by bringing up the fact that much of Thompson's own portrayals of events were not "factual accounts." It was HST himself who wrote, "Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."
In the end, it is this very mystery of fact vs. fiction that defined the Duke of Gonzo. He got off on people wondering just how crazy he was. On TV, in biographies and in college newspapers people will continue to question his suicide, which is exactly what the old bastard wanted. Atkinson's piece was a narrow and unfortunate look at the later years of a man who changed the written word and history alike. But then again, I'm just a stoner-class fan.
Bruce Armstrong '06
My Response, e-mailed to Armstrong 10 minutes ago.
Armstrong:
Your letter to the editor was the most execrable, mendacitous lump of horseshit I've ever read. I'd like to come into that hell-hole of a frathouse the next time you're busy with the weekly circle jerk and beat you like a dog with the runs, but apparently you're a fellow Red Sox fan, and so that just wouldn't do. However, I'd still like to give you a little lesson in the proper methods of critically responding to newspaper articles. The next time you decide that something you're reading warrants taking an hour to shit out one of your poorly crafted, self-important diatribes, please go through the following checklist to avoid looking like an even bigger asshole.
5 STEPS TO CRITICAL REFORM:
1) Don't pack a bowl halfway through the article. This way, you give yourself the opportunity to READ THE WHOLE THING, in case the writer happens to address a contrasting theme in the second half of the piece. Often, a sophisticated writer will acknowledge his subject's failings before praising him in order to present a balanced, fair view of theperson whose life is under consideration. See my Daily Sun article of2/25 for an example of this technique.
2) Avoid quoting the article narrowly and out of context. One example of this mistake is seizing on the writer's use of the word "mundane" to sarcastically denigrate his characterization of his subject's entire opus, when in fact the writer only used the word in connection to his subject's output "over the last 15 years."
3) Since, as an admitted stoner-class fan, you suffer from a diminished capacity for reading comprehension, take the article to a responsible adult and have him explain it to you in his own words. That way, you won't mistake a slap at the idiots who think Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is based on actual events for the writer taking a ride on the "Hunter-bashing bandwagon" (nice turn of phrase there, by the way).
4) Try as hard as you can to remember, at all times, that an article that is critical, in part, of one of your heroes is not necessarily a prima facie case of bad writing. Nor, in all likelihood, should you feel personally insulted by it: in all likelihood, the writer couldn't give a fuck what a dumbshit like you thinks.
5) If 1-4 prove impossible, take your bowl, your coke spoon, your stash, and your keyboard, and shove all of them up your mother's ass.
I hope we get a chance to meet each other someday, Armstrong. Perhaps we'll have a few drinks and talk this thing out. But for the Love of God, do try to learn a bit about writing before then - until I opened the paper on Friday, I didn't believe that anyone who's read The Great Shark Hunt could write so poorly. As things stand now, you're nothing but a goddamned disgrace. Eat shit.
Yours,
C. Travis Atkinson
Letter
February 25, 2005
To the Editor:
Re: "A Beast Who Became an Illustrious Fossil," Opinion, Feb. 22
I found C. Travis Atkinson's response to the death of Hunter S. Thompson both sad and highly inappropriate. Atkinson started the article with some "creative vitriol" of his own, referencing the good Doctor's "stoner-class fans" and position as the high priest of drugs. What he neglected to mention was that Hunter not only revolutionized the English language, but was also a top-notch journalist. By inserting his own subjectivity into his works, Thompson broke a long-standing taboo in professional journalism, and thus spawned an entire new literary genre. And while it seems easy to point to drugs as his bread and butter, HST was a highly competent journalist whose observations were anything but "mundane."
Admittedly his words fell off a bit over the past 15 years, however it is irresponsible to highlight that as his legacy on the day after his passing. In the same light Atkinson jumped on the Hunter-bashing bandwagon by bringing up the fact that much of Thompson's own portrayals of events were not "factual accounts." It was HST himself who wrote, "Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."
In the end, it is this very mystery of fact vs. fiction that defined the Duke of Gonzo. He got off on people wondering just how crazy he was. On TV, in biographies and in college newspapers people will continue to question his suicide, which is exactly what the old bastard wanted. Atkinson's piece was a narrow and unfortunate look at the later years of a man who changed the written word and history alike. But then again, I'm just a stoner-class fan.
Bruce Armstrong '06
My Response, e-mailed to Armstrong 10 minutes ago.
Armstrong:
Your letter to the editor was the most execrable, mendacitous lump of horseshit I've ever read. I'd like to come into that hell-hole of a frathouse the next time you're busy with the weekly circle jerk and beat you like a dog with the runs, but apparently you're a fellow Red Sox fan, and so that just wouldn't do. However, I'd still like to give you a little lesson in the proper methods of critically responding to newspaper articles. The next time you decide that something you're reading warrants taking an hour to shit out one of your poorly crafted, self-important diatribes, please go through the following checklist to avoid looking like an even bigger asshole.
5 STEPS TO CRITICAL REFORM:
1) Don't pack a bowl halfway through the article. This way, you give yourself the opportunity to READ THE WHOLE THING, in case the writer happens to address a contrasting theme in the second half of the piece. Often, a sophisticated writer will acknowledge his subject's failings before praising him in order to present a balanced, fair view of theperson whose life is under consideration. See my Daily Sun article of2/25 for an example of this technique.
2) Avoid quoting the article narrowly and out of context. One example of this mistake is seizing on the writer's use of the word "mundane" to sarcastically denigrate his characterization of his subject's entire opus, when in fact the writer only used the word in connection to his subject's output "over the last 15 years."
3) Since, as an admitted stoner-class fan, you suffer from a diminished capacity for reading comprehension, take the article to a responsible adult and have him explain it to you in his own words. That way, you won't mistake a slap at the idiots who think Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is based on actual events for the writer taking a ride on the "Hunter-bashing bandwagon" (nice turn of phrase there, by the way).
4) Try as hard as you can to remember, at all times, that an article that is critical, in part, of one of your heroes is not necessarily a prima facie case of bad writing. Nor, in all likelihood, should you feel personally insulted by it: in all likelihood, the writer couldn't give a fuck what a dumbshit like you thinks.
5) If 1-4 prove impossible, take your bowl, your coke spoon, your stash, and your keyboard, and shove all of them up your mother's ass.
I hope we get a chance to meet each other someday, Armstrong. Perhaps we'll have a few drinks and talk this thing out. But for the Love of God, do try to learn a bit about writing before then - until I opened the paper on Friday, I didn't believe that anyone who's read The Great Shark Hunt could write so poorly. As things stand now, you're nothing but a goddamned disgrace. Eat shit.
Yours,
C. Travis Atkinson
posted by Dr. Chuck | 9:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home