What is gonzo? How's the practice or concept related to Hunter S. Thompson? Do you consider yourself a gonzo journalist? Would you like to be one? Why or why not?
Gonzo journalism is told from the first-person point of view; in Hunter Thompson’s case, he likes to add his own perspective to the story, which is definitely a peculiar and interesting one. It’s really interesting, because it is the exact opposite of conventional journalism. He just injects so much of what he’s seeing, what he’s hearing, how he feels about the U.S. government and the slime balls that run it. Gonzo journalism also has a real gritty style to it. Every time I read a Hunter Thompson Piece I feel like I learn a handful of new words to describe the sick twisted world we live in. You can tell where he stands on politics, at least in the case of Richard Nixon’s administration in “The Scum Also Rises.” He acknowledges the rats deserting the ship, and watching the fall of the “Nixonian Empire.” What makes it different is that he writes so much about his experience, rather than the experience of everyone around him, during a historically significant event. Rather than writing another story about the trial, he writes about missing his plane, and sleeping through the announcement that Nixon was resigning. He writes about how frantically the reporters were while the scrambled to get the story. He just goes off on these tangents, but it is masterfully done. He keeps it interesting. I feel like he’s drugged out and going on a rant no other writer could validate. The paragraph in “The Scum Also Rises” where he envisions Nixon on a beach, awaiting his fate, is so ridiculous, but so interesting. It’s funny. Journalists are never encouraged to let their personalities shine through, and Hunter S. Thompson made a career out writing about his unique, gun-loving, freedom fighting ideologies. I read online that one of Thompson’s editors first called his work “Gonzo” after he published “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved.” So Thompson has everything to do with this, because he is the blue print for the style. I don’t consider myself a Gonzo journalist, because all I’m practicing is AP style journalism. The closest thing to Gonzo that I have written are the stories I wrote for this class. I would like to write in the Gonzo style. It’s first hand. It’s dramatic. It’s subjective. It’s interesting, and most likely fun/frustrating to write. It just seems very free. It seems like a way to write for yourself. It seems like story-telling wise, it’s just much more interesting, and unique. I would love to try and imitate Mr. Thompson; however I can’t help but feel like no one can truly capture the essence of his writing. The guy has had so many fucked up experiences, which made him the man he was. Whether it was the adult he had an affair with as a teenager, or running for mayor, this man had an interesting life. I think that on a personal level, it would be fun just to see what writing like this would do for me. First-hand accounts of what I’m experiencing where I’m able to write what I’m really thinking. The experience of a 21-year-old guy is different than a 40 year old woman, and I think Gonzo is an approach that really lets that shine through.
I would consider Gonzo journalism the black sheep of journalism- it goes against almost every convention, and has essentially unlimited potential. In an interview I read (and have if anyone is interested) Thompson calls Gonzo "off-the-wall" and credits the term to Bill Cardozo. editor of the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. Cardozo told Thompson that his work was "pure Gonzo and to "forget all the shit" he was writing.
Gonzo journalism is generally characterized by a strong first-person narrative, and uses elaborate descriptions that are humorous. Thompson, and Southern, use fantasies to illustrate their scenes. Thompson is likely the most well known writer who used the Gonzo style. He has no barriers, and describes everything. Interestingly enough, he said in the interview that the Kentucky Derby piece was basically only reprints of his notes, he didn't actually rewrite anything.
I would love to master the Gonzo style! I don't think I am a Gonzo journalist, but it's a fun and liberating way I imagine, to write. Although I never tripped on acid for days or sit in a bathtub drinking whiskey, I definitely think there have been some outrageous moments in my life worth writing about. I also think it provides the most realistic view of the world, because if you're writing in this style, there is nothing to hold you back but yourself. There is even value in the fantasies and exaggerations, as Ben Yagoda pointed out in the introduction to the piece from "The Scum Also Rises."
I've read a few different definitions of Gonzo journalism. The common denominator I found is that gonzo journalism requires the writer to become a part of the story, oppose to just an objective observer. The writer is still observant and uses AP style, but writes about the subject in a non-conventional way. Also, the writer may use satire to emphasize certain truths or points in the story.
Thompson didn't just submerge himself in the story. He became the story itself. He wrote about his personal experiences, but managed to show how his experiences reflected a greater issue. In 'The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Deprave,' he doesn't just write about his subjects, but morphs into one of them, as illustrated in the end of the piece.
I don't know if I'm a gonzo journalist. Maybe I’m a gonzo journalist in training. The things I write often can be connected to larger social issues, but I don’t know if that alone is gonzo journalism. I don’t really morph into my subject the way that Thompson does. Maybe I’m the cousin of gonzo journalism. I’m conzo journalism. Thompson once said, "Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long. You can't be objective about Nixon." I think that’s true. Sometimes you can’t tell the truth in a p.c. way. You have to call a spade a spade. If being a gonzo journalist allows me to directly call people out on their bullshit, sign me up!
I think Gonzo covers a pretty wide range of writing. The way I’ve always seen it is that the most important factor of Gonzo journalism is that it’s something that goes against the mold of classic journalistic style. In other words, you wouldn’t pick up The New York Times and see it on the front page. With Gonzo, pretty much anything goes. It’s written in the first person, and the narrator is often a character in the story, unlike usual journalism. And it’s really, really reliant on the author’s point of view. So, the author’s imagination and perspective play an important role. There doesn’t always have to be a clear line establishing what’s real and what’s exaggerated or imagined.
Most people credit Hunter S. Thompson with really establishing Gonzo journalism as a respectable form of art. He really blended together all of the elements stated above, especially sarcasm and exaggeration or imagination, to paint a larger picture of what he thought was the truth (and generally was).
I would not consider myself a Gonzo journalist. My articles are dry and boring. I feel that I try too hard to just lay out the facts and let the reader decide that my stuff just isn’t interesting to read. Getting into journalism, I was basically so disgusted with every news program on television, I gave myself the choice of going one of two ways – write blatantly and to the point (which was so often missing on these programs), or do what Hunter S. Thompson did and say fuck it all, I’m going to write how I want. A year ago, I would have said I never want to write like Hunter S. Thompson. But the more I think about it, and the more Howie depresses me in Media Ethics, the more I think that there are multiple ways to paint the truth. And laying out all of the facts isn’t the only way – it’s just the most direct. All of those news programs aren’t bad because of the style, they’re bad because they’re all full of shit. So I think I’d definitely like to give an article at some point a more Gonzo-ish approach and see where that takes me.
Gonzo journalism differs from traditional journalism, and even other forms of literary journalism. Gonzo is the most extreme type of journalism, going against practically every traditional rule of journalism, including the ethics of journalism.
In gonzo the writer uses extreme hyperboles to criticize society and culture. Both Terry Southern and Hunter S. Thompson use first person point of view to express their views. In both “Twirling at Ole’ Miss” and “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” both could have been written in traditional forms. Both reporters were sent out to cover an event, yet instead of just reporting the event and getting interviews they explore the event by using exaggerations and extreme hallucinations in their writing to criticize the culture behind the event.
Gonzo journalism can be unreliable and biased. Gonzo journalists deviate from the norm by creating these extreme and made up examples of their point. This can be considered biased because the writer will jump from realtity to their thoughts to extreme absurdity that they invented in their mind. They do these transitions with little transitions, never really letting the reader know what is real and what is fake. Many times it seems that the journalist is trying to show the reader only what he wants the reader the know, never really giving the reader both sides of the story.
I do not consider myself a gonzo journalist. Besides this class, journalism classes force you to stick to the strict regiments of AP style and the SPJ code of ethics. These rules and regulations that we are forced to stick by take away our ability to write how these Gonzo journalists write.
Gonzo journalism is a first-person narrative, and features the reporter’s feelings on the topic more than traditional journalism. Gonzo journalists inject themselves into the story, whereas tradition journalism allegedly relies heavily on objectivity and presentation of unbiased facts.
Hunter S. Thompson is one of the most prominent gonzo journalists, having allowed his personal feelings to creep into his writing. He wrote about things that were essentially true, but he rarely remained objective. He wrote the situation as he saw it, adding his feelings because he thought it to be necessary.
I feel like blogging is a form of gonzo journalism. There are people who “present news” but it’s muddled with their opinions, and is designed to let the reader know exactly how the author thinks. It’s journalism in the broadest sense of the word. I’ve never tried it; the blogs that I’ve done for personal or academic purposes have never really discussed news. I stick to topics I care about like movies, sports, and Britney Spears. So I wouldn’t really consider it gonzo journalism.
I might be open to it, but I like the illusion of objectivity in journalism. As naïve as it may be, I like to hope that at least some journalists really do remain objective and merely present facts, and let the audience/readers do the interpreting.
Hunter S. Thompson is known as the originator of gonzo journalism with his piece, "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved." Gonzo journalism is categorized as using a first person narrative, which is what journalists are taught not to do. Gonzo journalism incorporates the writers feelings, judgments and bias's to create a story filled with what is going in the outside world, and the writers head. It seems to me, that it reaches much deeper down than traditional journalism.
At the moment I don't consider myself a gonzo journalist. I think I have to go through the necessary steps to become a traditional journalist first, and then expand out to gonzo. I certainly would love to be a gonzo journalist, however. It seems to be a liberating way to write, and also make a difference.
Gonzo is a type of journalism that is highly personal, presenting stories in a crazed memoiresque style that used heavy imagery and symbolism in people:s features, usually in a dark or fearful manner. The concept is related to Hunter S. Thompson in many ways.
I thought that he was the one who first began doing it. He really tore away from conventional journalism, and instead of examining the event he was supposed to cover, he became involved in it, such as when he and Ralph realize at the end of the story that they are worse caricatures than any other person theyve met.
I dont consider myself a Gonzo journalist, but I would like to be. I feel that I get myself in these ridiculous situations, many of which deal with people who are not represented in the culture, and when that happens, my mind races with story ideas. Writing a story in this style appeals to me a hundred times more than going out to write an article for J2 or something, and I think that this kind of journalism is more truthful because of the emotion involved in it. Stories and life have emotion, which Thompson encompasses so greatly. I would to be a gonzo journalist someday, perhaps not in the crazed manner that Thompson has pioneered, but definitely in the sense of the literary journalism our class has explored in this course so far.
Gonzo journalism breaks some of the news of standard journalism, those rules that seemed absolutely concrete in J1. For one, the writer is part of the story not an objective outside voice. Gonzo also features first person narrative. Gonzo journalism mixes fact and fantasy until they are so intertwined that all is passed for fact. By fantasy, I don't mean lies. In Gonzo, perception of reality is subject to each person. Therefore, "one man's reality is another man's fantasy."
Hunter S. Thompson writes in highly emotional and energetic prose. In The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved, Thompson spins vision after vision, blurring fact. Every drink Thopmson comsumes blurs his sight and reality. Instead of sparing the reader from that sickening twirl, Thompson forces us to see it, amping up actually events and making up catastrophe where none actually take place. Strangely, Thompson excludes the most horrible scenes that actually took place, and replaces them with fantastic first-person accounts of things that didn't actually happen.
I don't consider myself a gonzo journalist, but I would like to be one. There is something truthful about Thompsons writing, even the fantasies. People are presented at their very lowest states. Thompson presents himself as a drunken, bipolar fool who should not be in possession of a can of Mace. Still, I like him. Lester Bangs is the Hunter S. Thompson of music writing. Both present themselves as beyond-help-losers addicted to some form of alcohol or drugs. Not afraid to offend, sometimes thats the goal, both writers present raw and truthful windows into human nature. I think being a gonzo journalist takes dedication. But that dedication can clearly become self-destructive.
Gonzo journalism is a subjective style of reporting and writing where the journalist puts themselves in the story. Hunter S. Thompson incorporates his feelings and thoughts in his reporting/writing. He describes the details of the event but also describes what he is going through. He breaks down the wall that usually comes between the reader and the reporter in a piece of news journalism. Thompson uses a lot of sarcasm and humor like when he says, “If the inmates get out of control we'll soak them down with Mace." He also exaggerates details and strongly voices his opinion. There is also profanity which isn’t normally seen in news or feature stories. I don’t think I can consider myself to be a Gonzo journalist because I have never written a piece in that style. I am used to writing formally in my journalism and English classes. I have to follow the “inverted pyramid” and other methods taught in the courses I take. Even in Feature Writing class we were told exactly how to lay out our stories. However, I would like to try to write a piece in the Gonzo style. It feels more personal and edgy to read a story when the writer makes themselves a part of the situations. I really admire Hunter S. Thompson’s work, especially his novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He uses a lot of description and though it may come off crazy, it is exciting to read about.
Gonzo journalism defies all traditional journalism because it is written in a first-person perspective, often including the actual author as a subject as well as their thought process during the "journey." Of course, this is contradictory to the objectivity that aspiring journalists are taught to maintain in all of their reporting–yet somehow, the truth surrounding the Kentucky Derby and the types of people that attend such an event–the characters, the stereotypes–were exposed. As Roberto mentioned, Thompson documents every detail of his senses–what he is witnessing, how he feels, the nature of his environment–and I have always thought the responsibilities of a journalist were to expose a truth. What Thompson reveals are a number of things, but in the larger picture, he shows the disfunction of the human being. At this stage in my life, I would not consider myself a gonzo journalist. I believe that with all of the restrictions in most of my journalism courses, it is highly unlikely to create a first-person perspective piece and have it appreciated for what it is. As I've said earlier, journalism students are drilled about the importance of objectivity. When I write outside of the classroom, it is always in first-person, but I view most of those writings to be rantings. Who knows? I would like to practice the gonzo style more often though, because despite the many notions that a subjective piece cannot tell the truth, I find that writing that way can allow the author to write simply, and portray things exactly how they are.
Not to repeat what everyone has already said, but I I agree the most with Vicki's definition for gonzo journalism - it's definitely one of the most extreme forms of journalism. Using a first-person narrative, gonzo journalists like Thompson bring in their own opinions throughout the piece and often have ridiculous and off-putting commentary about whatever they're reporting. Thompson is definitely one of the most well-known gonzo journalists, popularizing it in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." He just so often adds in witty or insulting comments, usually very clever and funny, that invite the reader into a different viewpoint regarding the subject. Do I think I'm a gonzo journalist? Eh. I want to say that journalism professors would push any students toward writing in that sort of style. But would I like to do it? Hell yes. Actually, surprisingly, after I read "Fear and Loathing" a few years ago, I went to the Woodstock Film Festival and reported on it. I found myself writing, at least the first paragraph, to be gonzo-like. I just had gone on this crazy adventure with a fellow reporter to Woodstock and I just felt that gonzo worked well in the context. But then I sort of lost it throughout, realizing that it didn't seem professional with the piece or publication. However, if I had the chance to work for a publication that would allow it or let me at least work within the realms of the style, I'd go for it. I think it's a very ballsy sort of writing, and definitely a very hard writing to get down - but worth the challenge. Plus, it'd be fun.
It's weird to say that Gonzo journalism is a more subjective version of "real" objective journalism, because I agree with Thompson when he says that there is n such thing as pure objective journalism. You can strive for objectivity, but the story you do, and the way you present it is inherently making a point ( I feel like I'm repeating myself from the Orwell post here).
Anyway, I see Thompson's Gonzo journalism as journalism that's completely naked -- unashamed of what it is, what is at the heart of reporting a story.
I don't consider myself a Gonzo journalist, and I don't know if I necessarily want to be one. Gonzo journalism requires complete immersion into the subject to thoroughly dig out all the nasty bits. Call me a coward, but I don't know if I want to go there. On the other hand, I do want to take some time and re-write some of my favorite authors, like Thompson did with Hemingway. What better way to learn how to write?
Gonzo is journalism where the journalist not only tells the story from a first person point of view, but he interjects himself into the story in order to make it more interesting, and in the best cases, a story that gives the reader a truer sense of the story. Hunter S. Thompson is to this day the most prolific Gonzo journalist, in addition to coining the term to his style, an adapted form of New Journalism. At this point, I certainly do not consider myself a Gonzo journalist because I haven't been given the freedom to come close to such a form. The closest I've ever come was our first story for this class, where a personal story shed light on a cultural story. If I was ever given the freedom to attempt this type of journalism, I would certainly jump at the chance though. I consider my strength to be my writing and my humor, not my hard-news technique to finishing a story, and Gonzo certainly highlights those skills.
Gonzo is cool. It's like the stuff that happened at the party that you'd never tell your mom, that you'd only tell your closest friends, and only when you were really, really drunk. The drunk part is essential.
I guess what I mean by that is that Gonzo seeks not to tell what happened, but to uncover demons. To use the party example again--regular journalism is that the party happened, people drank a lot and Hannah fell into the pool. Gonzo is that Hannah's a blithering whore. This passage from Hunter Thompson's piece says it best: "And unlike most of the others in the press box, we didn't give a hoot in hell what was happening on the track. We had come there to watch the real beasts perform."
I don't think Gonzo is characterized by "first-person" or "adding your own perspective." I think Gonzo is characterized by what Professor Good said in class: Exaggeration to attempt to uncover a social or cultural truth, and an attempt to reveal everything ugly and chaotic and fucked up about the country we live in. Clearly in order to do this one must "add their own perspective," but I do think that one could add his or her own perspective to a piece and not be a Gonzo. Cus let's be honest, most people's perspectives suck. And yes, I guess in a way Gonzo is characterized by a certain style of writing which is first person, but again, same point.
Part of Hunter Thompson was probably really good at Gonzo because he was such an alcoholic. Drunks are all about debauchery--they gravitate towards it. He also just has this way of describing things that makes you feel said thing's grime. Like this: a man with "fat slanted eyes and a pimp's smile, blue silk suit and his friends looking like crooked bank tellers on a binge."
And his story about the Derby, well, the actually Derby race took up exactly 3 sentences of the ba-jillion word piece. What took up most of the pages was Thompson's characterization of the violence and madness that lingers below the surface of American life. That and a half-assed attempt to describe what happened through his notes when he got too drunk to remember, when that violence and madness had taken he and Steadman over.
I'm not a Gonzo journalist right now, but I'd say I'm working on it. I'd say I have the capability and the inherent disgust with everything to be one, plus I don't think my perspective sucks (but who really thinks their own perspective sucks?). I remember doing traditional reporting in Albany and wanting to write about so much more than the rallies and ceremonies and budget talks. James and I observed government in action for 6 months and had so many in-depth conversations about how disgusting the people in our Legislature are and how most people who try to participate in government are selfish control freaks who gather groups of unintelligent people to rally for their greed. We did this at bars, naturally.
I'd like to be a Gonzo journalist because I'm a writer, I'm creative and I care about the state and quality of our country. Because I've found this semester that writing is not only active thinking but a good way to start understanding your life, and if you only scratch the surface with your writing then you only scratch the surface of your life. Because Gonzo digs deep into truth, and the concept of being able to do that is what made me passionate about journalism in the first place.
Sorry this post is late, but I had fun writing it.
17 comments:
Gonzo journalism is told from the first-person point of view; in Hunter Thompson’s case, he likes to add his own perspective to the story, which is definitely a peculiar and interesting one. It’s really interesting, because it is the exact opposite of conventional journalism. He just injects so much of what he’s seeing, what he’s hearing, how he feels about the U.S. government and the slime balls that run it.
Gonzo journalism also has a real gritty style to it. Every time I read a Hunter Thompson Piece I feel like I learn a handful of new words to describe the sick twisted world we live in. You can tell where he stands on politics, at least in the case of Richard Nixon’s administration in “The Scum Also Rises.” He acknowledges the rats deserting the ship, and watching the fall of the “Nixonian Empire.” What makes it different is that he writes so much about his experience, rather than the experience of everyone around him, during a historically significant event. Rather than writing another story about the trial, he writes about missing his plane, and sleeping through the announcement that Nixon was resigning. He writes about how frantically the reporters were while the scrambled to get the story. He just goes off on these tangents, but it is masterfully done. He keeps it interesting. I feel like he’s drugged out and going on a rant no other writer could validate. The paragraph in “The Scum Also Rises” where he envisions Nixon on a beach, awaiting his fate, is so ridiculous, but so interesting. It’s funny. Journalists are never encouraged to let their personalities shine through, and Hunter S. Thompson made a career out writing about his unique, gun-loving, freedom fighting ideologies.
I read online that one of Thompson’s editors first called his work “Gonzo” after he published “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved.” So Thompson has everything to do with this, because he is the blue print for the style.
I don’t consider myself a Gonzo journalist, because all I’m practicing is AP style journalism. The closest thing to Gonzo that I have written are the stories I wrote for this class.
I would like to write in the Gonzo style. It’s first hand. It’s dramatic. It’s subjective. It’s interesting, and most likely fun/frustrating to write. It just seems very free. It seems like a way to write for yourself. It seems like story-telling wise, it’s just much more interesting, and unique. I would love to try and imitate Mr. Thompson; however I can’t help but feel like no one can truly capture the essence of his writing. The guy has had so many fucked up experiences, which made him the man he was. Whether it was the adult he had an affair with as a teenager, or running for mayor, this man had an interesting life. I think that on a personal level, it would be fun just to see what writing like this would do for me. First-hand accounts of what I’m experiencing where I’m able to write what I’m really thinking. The experience of a 21-year-old guy is different than a 40 year old woman, and I think Gonzo is an approach that really lets that shine through.
I would consider Gonzo journalism the black sheep of journalism- it goes against almost every convention, and has essentially unlimited potential. In an interview I read (and have if anyone is interested) Thompson calls Gonzo "off-the-wall" and credits the term to Bill Cardozo. editor of the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine. Cardozo told Thompson that his work was "pure Gonzo and to "forget all the shit" he was writing.
Gonzo journalism is generally characterized by a strong first-person narrative, and uses elaborate descriptions that are humorous. Thompson, and Southern, use fantasies to illustrate their scenes. Thompson is likely the most well known writer who used the Gonzo style. He has no barriers, and describes everything. Interestingly enough, he said in the interview that the Kentucky Derby piece was basically only reprints of his notes, he didn't actually rewrite anything.
I would love to master the Gonzo style! I don't think I am a Gonzo journalist, but it's a fun and liberating way I imagine, to write. Although I never tripped on acid for days or sit in a bathtub drinking whiskey, I definitely think there have been some outrageous moments in my life worth writing about. I also think it provides the most realistic view of the world, because if you're writing in this style, there is nothing to hold you back but yourself. There is even value in the fantasies and exaggerations, as Ben Yagoda pointed out in the introduction to the piece from "The Scum Also Rises."
I've read a few different definitions of Gonzo journalism. The common denominator I found is that gonzo journalism requires the writer to become a part of the story, oppose to just an objective observer. The writer is still observant and uses AP style, but writes about the subject in a non-conventional way. Also, the writer may use satire to emphasize certain truths or points in the story.
Thompson didn't just submerge himself in the story. He became the story itself. He wrote about his personal experiences, but managed to show how his experiences reflected a greater issue. In 'The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Deprave,' he doesn't just write about his subjects, but morphs into one of them, as illustrated in the end of the piece.
I don't know if I'm a gonzo journalist. Maybe I’m a gonzo journalist in training. The things I write often can be connected to larger social issues, but I don’t know if that alone is gonzo journalism. I don’t really morph into my subject the way that Thompson does. Maybe I’m the cousin of gonzo journalism. I’m conzo journalism.
Thompson once said, "Objective journalism is one of the main reasons American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long. You can't be objective about Nixon."
I think that’s true. Sometimes you can’t tell the truth in a p.c. way. You have to call a spade a spade. If being a gonzo journalist allows me to directly call people out on their bullshit, sign me up!
I think Gonzo covers a pretty wide range of writing. The way I’ve always seen it is that the most important factor of Gonzo journalism is that it’s something that goes against the mold of classic journalistic style. In other words, you wouldn’t pick up The New York Times and see it on the front page. With Gonzo, pretty much anything goes. It’s written in the first person, and the narrator is often a character in the story, unlike usual journalism. And it’s really, really reliant on the author’s point of view. So, the author’s imagination and perspective play an important role. There doesn’t always have to be a clear line establishing what’s real and what’s exaggerated or imagined.
Most people credit Hunter S. Thompson with really establishing Gonzo journalism as a respectable form of art. He really blended together all of the elements stated above, especially sarcasm and exaggeration or imagination, to paint a larger picture of what he thought was the truth (and generally was).
I would not consider myself a Gonzo journalist. My articles are dry and boring. I feel that I try too hard to just lay out the facts and let the reader decide that my stuff just isn’t interesting to read. Getting into journalism, I was basically so disgusted with every news program on television, I gave myself the choice of going one of two ways – write blatantly and to the point (which was so often missing on these programs), or do what Hunter S. Thompson did and say fuck it all, I’m going to write how I want. A year ago, I would have said I never want to write like Hunter S. Thompson. But the more I think about it, and the more Howie depresses me in Media Ethics, the more I think that there are multiple ways to paint the truth. And laying out all of the facts isn’t the only way – it’s just the most direct. All of those news programs aren’t bad because of the style, they’re bad because they’re all full of shit. So I think I’d definitely like to give an article at some point a more Gonzo-ish approach and see where that takes me.
Gonzo journalism differs from traditional journalism, and even other forms of literary journalism. Gonzo is the most extreme type of journalism, going against practically every traditional rule of journalism, including the ethics of journalism.
In gonzo the writer uses extreme hyperboles to criticize society and culture. Both Terry Southern and Hunter S. Thompson use first person point of view to express their views. In both “Twirling at Ole’ Miss” and “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” both could have been written in traditional forms. Both reporters were sent out to cover an event, yet instead of just reporting the event and getting interviews they explore the event by using exaggerations and extreme hallucinations in their writing to criticize the culture behind the event.
Gonzo journalism can be unreliable and biased. Gonzo journalists deviate from the norm by creating these extreme and made up examples of their point. This can be considered biased because the writer will jump from realtity to their thoughts to extreme absurdity that they invented in their mind. They do these transitions with little transitions, never really letting the reader know what is real and what is fake. Many times it seems that the journalist is trying to show the reader only what he wants the reader the know, never really giving the reader both sides of the story.
I do not consider myself a gonzo journalist. Besides this class, journalism classes force you to stick to the strict regiments of AP style and the SPJ code of ethics. These rules and regulations that we are forced to stick by take away our ability to write how these Gonzo journalists write.
Gonzo journalism is a first-person narrative, and features the reporter’s feelings on the topic more than traditional journalism. Gonzo journalists inject themselves into the story, whereas tradition journalism allegedly relies heavily on objectivity and presentation of unbiased facts.
Hunter S. Thompson is one of the most prominent gonzo journalists, having allowed his personal feelings to creep into his writing. He wrote about things that were essentially true, but he rarely remained objective. He wrote the situation as he saw it, adding his feelings because he thought it to be necessary.
I feel like blogging is a form of gonzo journalism. There are people who “present news” but it’s muddled with their opinions, and is designed to let the reader know exactly how the author thinks. It’s journalism in the broadest sense of the word. I’ve never tried it; the blogs that I’ve done for personal or academic purposes have never really discussed news. I stick to topics I care about like movies, sports, and Britney Spears. So I wouldn’t really consider it gonzo journalism.
I might be open to it, but I like the illusion of objectivity in journalism. As naïve as it may be, I like to hope that at least some journalists really do remain objective and merely present facts, and let the audience/readers do the interpreting.
Hunter S. Thompson is known as the originator of gonzo journalism with his piece, "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved." Gonzo journalism is categorized as using a first person narrative, which is what journalists are taught not to do. Gonzo journalism incorporates the writers feelings, judgments and bias's to create a story filled with what is going in the outside world, and the writers head. It seems to me, that it reaches much deeper down than traditional journalism.
At the moment I don't consider myself a gonzo journalist. I think I have to go through the necessary steps to become a traditional journalist first, and then expand out to gonzo. I certainly would love to be a gonzo journalist, however. It seems to be a liberating way to write, and also make a difference.
Gonzo is a type of journalism that is highly personal, presenting stories in a crazed memoiresque style that used heavy imagery and symbolism in people:s features, usually in a dark or fearful manner. The concept is related to Hunter S. Thompson in many ways.
I thought that he was the one who first began doing it. He really tore away from conventional journalism, and instead of examining the event he was supposed to cover, he became involved in it, such as when he and Ralph realize at the end of the story that they are worse caricatures than any other person theyve met.
I dont consider myself a Gonzo journalist, but I would like to be. I feel that I get myself in these ridiculous situations, many of which deal with people who are not represented in the culture, and when that happens, my mind races with story ideas. Writing a story in this style appeals to me a hundred times more than going out to write an article for J2 or something, and I think that this kind of journalism is more truthful because of the emotion involved in it. Stories and life have emotion, which Thompson encompasses so greatly. I would to be a gonzo journalist someday, perhaps not in the crazed manner that Thompson has pioneered, but definitely in the sense of the literary journalism our class has explored in this course so far.
Gonzo journalism breaks some of the news of standard journalism, those rules that seemed absolutely concrete in J1. For one, the writer is part of the story not an objective outside voice. Gonzo also features first person narrative. Gonzo journalism mixes fact and fantasy until they are so intertwined that all is passed for fact. By fantasy, I don't mean lies. In Gonzo, perception of reality is subject to each person. Therefore, "one man's reality is another man's fantasy."
Hunter S. Thompson writes in highly emotional and energetic prose. In The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved, Thompson spins vision after vision, blurring fact. Every drink Thopmson comsumes blurs his sight and reality. Instead of sparing the reader from that sickening twirl, Thompson forces us to see it, amping up actually events and making up catastrophe where none actually take place. Strangely, Thompson excludes the most horrible scenes that actually took place, and replaces them with fantastic first-person accounts of things that didn't actually happen.
I don't consider myself a gonzo journalist, but I would like to be one. There is something truthful about Thompsons writing, even the fantasies. People are presented at their very lowest states. Thompson presents himself as a drunken, bipolar fool who should not be in possession of a can of Mace. Still, I like him. Lester Bangs is the Hunter S. Thompson of music writing. Both present themselves as beyond-help-losers addicted to some form of alcohol or drugs. Not afraid to offend, sometimes thats the goal, both writers present raw and truthful windows into human nature. I think being a gonzo journalist takes dedication. But that dedication can clearly become self-destructive.
Gonzo journalism is a subjective style of reporting and writing where the journalist puts themselves in the story. Hunter S. Thompson incorporates his feelings and thoughts in his reporting/writing. He describes the details of the event but also describes what he is going through. He breaks down the wall that usually comes between the reader and the reporter in a piece of news journalism. Thompson uses a lot of sarcasm and humor like when he says, “If the inmates get out of control we'll soak them down with Mace." He also exaggerates details and strongly voices his opinion. There is also profanity which isn’t normally seen in news or feature stories. I don’t think I can consider myself to be a Gonzo journalist because I have never written a piece in that style. I am used to writing formally in my journalism and English classes. I have to follow the “inverted pyramid” and other methods taught in the courses I take. Even in Feature Writing class we were told exactly how to lay out our stories. However, I would like to try to write a piece in the Gonzo style. It feels more personal and edgy to read a story when the writer makes themselves a part of the situations. I really admire Hunter S. Thompson’s work, especially his novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He uses a lot of description and though it may come off crazy, it is exciting to read about.
Gonzo journalism defies all traditional journalism because it is written in a first-person perspective, often including the actual author as a subject as well as their thought process during the "journey." Of course, this is contradictory to the objectivity that aspiring journalists are taught to maintain in all of their reporting–yet somehow, the truth surrounding the Kentucky Derby and the types of people that attend such an event–the characters, the stereotypes–were exposed. As Roberto mentioned, Thompson documents every detail of his senses–what he is witnessing, how he feels, the nature of his environment–and I have always thought the responsibilities of a journalist were to expose a truth. What Thompson reveals are a number of things, but in the larger picture, he shows the disfunction of the human being.
At this stage in my life, I would not consider myself a gonzo journalist. I believe that with all of the restrictions in most of my journalism courses, it is highly unlikely to create a first-person perspective piece and have it appreciated for what it is. As I've said earlier, journalism students are drilled about the importance of objectivity. When I write outside of the classroom, it is always in first-person, but I view most of those writings to be rantings. Who knows?
I would like to practice the gonzo style more often though, because despite the many notions that a subjective piece cannot tell the truth, I find that writing that way can allow the author to write simply, and portray things exactly how they are.
Not to repeat what everyone has already said, but I I agree the most with Vicki's definition for gonzo journalism - it's definitely one of the most extreme forms of journalism. Using a first-person narrative, gonzo journalists like Thompson bring in their own opinions throughout the piece and often have ridiculous and off-putting commentary about whatever they're reporting. Thompson is definitely one of the most well-known gonzo journalists, popularizing it in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." He just so often adds in witty or insulting comments, usually very clever and funny, that invite the reader into a different viewpoint regarding the subject.
Do I think I'm a gonzo journalist? Eh. I want to say that journalism professors would push any students toward writing in that sort of style. But would I like to do it? Hell yes. Actually, surprisingly, after I read "Fear and Loathing" a few years ago, I went to the Woodstock Film Festival and reported on it. I found myself writing, at least the first paragraph, to be gonzo-like. I just had gone on this crazy adventure with a fellow reporter to Woodstock and I just felt that gonzo worked well in the context. But then I sort of lost it throughout, realizing that it didn't seem professional with the piece or publication.
However, if I had the chance to work for a publication that would allow it or let me at least work within the realms of the style, I'd go for it. I think it's a very ballsy sort of writing, and definitely a very hard writing to get down - but worth the challenge. Plus, it'd be fun.
It's weird to say that Gonzo journalism is a more subjective version of "real" objective journalism, because I agree with Thompson when he says that there is n such thing as pure objective journalism. You can strive for objectivity, but the story you do, and the way you present it is inherently making a point ( I feel like I'm repeating myself from the Orwell post here).
Anyway, I see Thompson's Gonzo journalism as journalism that's completely naked -- unashamed of what it is, what is at the heart of reporting a story.
I don't consider myself a Gonzo journalist, and I don't know if I necessarily want to be one. Gonzo journalism requires complete immersion into the subject to thoroughly dig out all the nasty bits. Call me a coward, but I don't know if I want to go there. On the other hand, I do want to take some time and re-write some of my favorite authors, like Thompson did with Hemingway. What better way to learn how to write?
Gonzo is journalism where the journalist not only tells the story from a first person point of view, but he interjects himself into the story in order to make it more interesting, and in the best cases, a story that gives the reader a truer sense of the story.
Hunter S. Thompson is to this day the most prolific Gonzo journalist, in addition to coining the term to his style, an adapted form of New Journalism.
At this point, I certainly do not consider myself a Gonzo journalist because I haven't been given the freedom to come close to such a form. The closest I've ever come was our first story for this class, where a personal story shed light on a cultural story. If I was ever given the freedom to attempt this type of journalism, I would certainly jump at the chance though. I consider my strength to be my writing and my humor, not my hard-news technique to finishing a story, and Gonzo certainly highlights those skills.
Gonzo is cool. It's like the stuff that happened at the party that you'd never tell your mom, that you'd only tell your closest friends, and only when you were really, really drunk. The drunk part is essential.
I guess what I mean by that is that Gonzo seeks not to tell what happened, but to uncover demons. To use the party example again--regular journalism is that the party happened, people drank a lot and Hannah fell into the pool. Gonzo is that Hannah's a blithering whore. This passage from Hunter Thompson's piece says it best: "And unlike most of the others in the press box, we didn't give a hoot in hell what was happening on the track. We had come there to watch the real beasts perform."
I don't think Gonzo is characterized by "first-person" or "adding your own perspective." I think Gonzo is characterized by what Professor Good said in class: Exaggeration to attempt to uncover a social or cultural truth, and an attempt to reveal everything ugly and chaotic and fucked up about the country we live in. Clearly in order to do this one must "add their own perspective," but I do think that one could add his or her own perspective to a piece and not be a Gonzo. Cus let's be honest, most people's perspectives suck. And yes, I guess in a way Gonzo is characterized by a certain style of writing which is first person, but again, same point.
Part of Hunter Thompson was probably really good at Gonzo because he was such an alcoholic. Drunks are all about debauchery--they gravitate towards it. He also just has this way of describing things that makes you feel said thing's grime. Like this: a man with "fat slanted eyes and a pimp's smile, blue silk suit and his friends looking like crooked bank tellers on a binge."
And his story about the Derby, well, the actually Derby race took up exactly 3 sentences of the ba-jillion word piece. What took up most of the pages was Thompson's characterization of the violence and madness that lingers below the surface of American life. That and a half-assed attempt to describe what happened through his notes when he got too drunk to remember, when that violence and madness had taken he and Steadman over.
I'm not a Gonzo journalist right now, but I'd say I'm working on it. I'd say I have the capability and the inherent disgust with everything to be one, plus I don't think my perspective sucks (but who really thinks their own perspective sucks?). I remember doing traditional reporting in Albany and wanting to write about so much more than the rallies and ceremonies and budget talks. James and I observed government in action for 6 months and had so many in-depth conversations about how disgusting the people in our Legislature are and how most people who try to participate in government are selfish control freaks who gather groups of unintelligent people to rally for their greed. We did this at bars, naturally.
I'd like to be a Gonzo journalist because I'm a writer, I'm creative and I care about the state and quality of our country. Because I've found this semester that writing is not only active thinking but a good way to start understanding your life, and if you only scratch the surface with your writing then you only scratch the surface of your life. Because Gonzo digs deep into truth, and the concept of being able to do that is what made me passionate about journalism in the first place.
Sorry this post is late, but I had fun writing it.
Post a Comment