50 Years of Fear and Loathing

[MRM]

It is right and proper, on this day, to pay homage to and remember Hunter S. Thompson's Magnum Opus, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Second only to The Great Gatsby as the Great American Novel, its genesis occurred fifty years ago. Read and remember. If you have the brain cells remaining and the inclination to do so.


“Where can we get hold of a Vincent Black Shadow?”

“What’s that?”

“A fantastic bike,” I said. “The new model is something like two thousand cubic inches, developing 200 brake horsepower at 4000 revolutions per minute on a magnesium frame with two styrofoam seats and a total curb weight of exactly 200 pounds.”

“That sounds about right for this gig,” he said.

https://quillette.com/2021/03/21/fifty-years-of-fear-and-loathing/


“Where’s the ether?” said my attorney. “This mescaline isn’t working.”

[ramonesfreak]

April 22, 1958
57 Perry Street
New York City

Dear Hume,

You ask advice: ah, what a very human and very dangerous thing to do! For to give advice to a man who asks what to do with his life implies something very close to egomania. To presume to point a man to the right and ultimate goal— to point with a trembling finger in the RIGHT direction is something only a fool would take upon himself.

I am not a fool, but I respect your sincerity in asking my advice. I ask you though, in listening to what I say, to remember that all advice can only be a product of the man who gives it. What is truth to one may be disaster to another. I do not see life through your eyes, nor you through mine. If I were to attempt to give you specific advice, it would be too much like the blind leading the blind.

“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles … ” (Shakespeare)

And indeed, that IS the question: whether to float with the tide, or to swim for a goal. It is a choice we must all make consciously or unconsciously at one time in our lives. So few people understand this! Think of any decision you’ve ever made which had a bearing on your future: I may be wrong, but I don’t see how it could have been anything but a choice however indirect— between the two things I’ve mentioned: the floating or the swimming.

But why not float if you have no goal? That is another question. It is unquestionably better to enjoy the floating than to swim in uncertainty. So how does a man find a goal? Not a castle in the stars, but a real and tangible thing. How can a man be sure he’s not after the “big rock candy mountain,” the enticing sugar-candy goal that has little taste and no substance?

The answer— and, in a sense, the tragedy of life— is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you. Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes. This goes on and on. Every reaction is a learning process; every significant experience alters your perspective.

So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day? How could we ever hope to accomplish anything other than galloping neurosis?

The answer, then, must not deal with goals at all, or not with tangible goals, anyway. It would take reams of paper to develop this subject to fulfillment. God only knows how many books have been written on “the meaning of man” and that sort of thing, and god only knows how many people have pondered the subject. (I use the term “god only knows” purely as an expression.) There’s very little sense in my trying to give it up to you in the proverbial nutshell, because I’m the first to admit my absolute lack of qualifications for reducing the meaning of life to one or two paragraphs.

I’m going to steer clear of the word “existentialism,” but you might keep it in mind as a key of sorts. You might also try something called Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre, and another little thing called Existentialism: From Dostoyevsky to Sartre. These are merely suggestions. If you’re genuinely satisfied with what you are and what you’re doing, then give those books a wide berth. (Let sleeping dogs lie.) But back to the answer. As I said, to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.

But don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean that we can’t BE firemen, bankers, or doctors— but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal. In every man, heredity and environment have combined to produce a creature of certain abilities and desires— including a deeply ingrained need to function in such a way that his life will be MEANINGFUL. A man has to BE something; he has to matter.

As I see it then, the formula runs something like this: a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES. In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires).

In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he KNOWS he will enjoy. The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man MUST function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of life— the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.

Let’s assume that you think you have a choice of eight paths to follow (all pre-defined paths, of course). And let’s assume that you can’t see any real purpose in any of the eight. THEN— and here is the essence of all I’ve said— you MUST FIND A NINTH PATH.

Naturally, it isn’t as easy as it sounds. You’ve lived a relatively narrow life, a vertical rather than a horizontal existence. So it isn’t any too difficult to understand why you seem to feel the way you do. But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.

So if you now number yourself among the disenchanted, then you have no choice but to accept things as they are, or to seriously seek something else. But beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life. But you say, “I don’t know where to look; I don’t know what to look for.”

And there’s the crux. Is it worth giving up what I have to look for something better? I don’t know— is it? Who can make that decision but you? But even by DECIDING TO LOOK, you go a long way toward making the choice.

If I don’t call this to a halt, I’m going to find myself writing a book. I hope it’s not as confusing as it looks at first glance. Keep in mind, of course, that this is MY WAY of looking at things. I happen to think that it’s pretty generally applicable, but you may not. Each of us has to create our own credo— this merely happens to be mine.

If any part of it doesn’t seem to make sense, by all means call it to my attention. I’m not trying to send you out “on the road” in search of Valhalla, but merely pointing out that it is not necessary to accept the choices handed down to you by life as you know it. There is more to it than that— no one HAS to do something he doesn’t want to do for the rest of his life. But then again, if that’s what you wind up doing, by all means convince yourself that you HAD to do it. You’ll have lots of company.

And that’s it for now. Until I hear from you again, I remain,

your friend,
Hunter

[LWJ]

Funny. A college buddy tells me that it was assembled on his kitchen table. His Dad was pals with HST.

Good book. My 19 yr old son loved it. As did his Dad.

[dafischer]

One of my all time favorite reads.

[cockerpunk]

probably my favorite commentary from hunter S thompson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFHRdi5fQ5A

[LakeCleElum]

Read it about a year ago.....Great book.

[JackDidley]

I read it in the 70s. I was pretty waisted in the 70s. Honestly do not remember that much. Ive never seen the movie so I may give that a watch.

[craigster59]

“We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like "I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive...." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas.”

I think after I got to the end of the book I went right back to the first page and read it again.

Circus Circus was never the same again.

[Nostril Cheese]

I once saw a copy with a bullethole and a stamp saying, This book was personally shot by Hunter S. Thompson.

[Jims5543]

I started to watch the movie first, got about 20 minutes in and shut if off thinking it was stupid.

Then I discovered HST, sadly due to his suicide and all the grandeur around his funeral.

My son purchased Hells Angels and read it, I borrowed that from him and liked it. So I grabbed Fear and Loathing and loved that book so much. Then I went back and watched the movie, getting its drift, and loved the movie.

From all the video clips I have watched of HST and allI have read about him, Depp nailed his mannerisms to a T.

Rum Diary is also a decent book and the movie (while leaving out a key character) was well done too.

[Seahawk]

"For a loser, Vegas is the meanest town on earth."

[cockerpunk]

its really bizzare reading some of these comments, from folks i know from PARF about fear and loathing. and while i get this isnt PARF, i don't think its actually possible to separate something like fear and loathing from its politics, because its entire commentary is political.

some of you more conservative posters, what does fear and loathing mean to you, and why do you like it? what is attractive about it?

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

its really bizzare reading some of these comments, from folks i know from PARF about fear and loathing. and while i get this isnt PARF, i don't think its actually possible to separate something like fear and loathing from its politics, because its entire commentary is political.

some of you more conservative posters, what does fear and loathing mean to you, and why do you like it? what is attractive about it?

Because you can't create separation of one part of your life from that of another, you think no one else can either.

Got it.

Not unlike HST, PARF isn't life to saome of us - it's entertainment.

Try it, it might help.

_

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by Norm K

Because you can't create separation of one part of your life from that of another, you think no one else can either.

Got it.

Not unlike HST, PARF isn't life to saome of us - it's entertainment.

Try it, it might help.

_

i mean, i have a hard time separating an obviously political thing from its obvious politics. yup.

so you can just seperate off all the politics and just be entertained by it? how does that work? did you watch the clip i posted? all the jokes (presumably the entertaining parts) are about how mainstream white america doesn't understand anything, and can't understand anything, and still feels hypocritically superior in its judgement. thats the joke. it also has a side of making fun of cops, so thats great for the back the blue types, mocking cops is kinda a running gag throughout the entire book/movie really.

what is funny/entertaining about the above posted cut from fear and loathing for a conservative?

[creaturecat]

surprise!
i was expecting something Cuba-related.

[cassisrot]

50 years! Tempus sure does fugit.

[Geneman]

" my attorney was rubbing budweiser on his chest... to facilitate the tanning process.."

" the ether is what scared me most..... nothing more depraved than a man on an ether binge.."

" soaked the rags in ether and placed them under pedals..."

' we collected drugs ..,. non stop from topanga to watts... "

so much great stuff..... readit when i was 14. changed my life.....

the next best book was "curse of lono.."

[nota]

Originally Posted by Geneman

" my attorney was rubbing budweiser on his chest... to facilitate the tanning process.."

" the ether is what scared me most..... nothing more depraved than a man on an ether binge.."

" soaked the rags in ether and placed them under pedals..."

' we collected drugs ..,. non stop from topanga to watts... "

so much great stuff..... readit when i was 14. changed my life.....

the next best book was "curse of lono.."

pdf of lono

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aed7/5ebf12f659f0153ff70c68ed3427e1d6ff27.pdf?_ga=2.155 935035.1403357897.1616526357-769148853.1616526357

[nota]

for a while hunter had a column in the weekly new times about his adventures in the keys

[tabs]

In 1972 Hunter was on the campaign trail...writing for Rolling Stone..the resulting book was rather good.

After McGovern picked Eagleton for his VP some of the Dem Party big wigs were having dinner in a NYC restaurant when Hunter comes in loudly saying Eagleton was having a fit in the back room...needless to say that created a bit of consternation among the Dem big wigs... Soon after that Eagleton was nixed, and Shriver took his place...

Hunter was on the Muskie campaign train in 72 when he had his famous moment of tears..he might of been the one who asked the question...?