My favorite part of this is the introduction of the now-iconic artist Ralph Steadman.
> Another problem was his habit of sketching people he met in the
various social situations I dragged him into--then giving them the
sketches. The results were always unfortunate. I warned him several
times about letting the subjects see his foul renderings, but for some
perverse reason he kept doing it. Consequently, he was regarded with
fear and loathing by nearly everyone who'd seen or even heard about
his work. He couldn't understand it. "It's sort of a joke," he kept
saying. "Why, in England it's quite normal. People don't take offense.
They understand that I'm just putting them on a bit."
"Fuck England," I said. "This is Middle America. These people regard
what you're doing to them as a brutal, bilious insult. Look what
happened last night. I thought my brother was going to tear your head
off."
Steadman shook his head sadly. "But I liked him. He struck me as a
very decent, straightforward sort."
"Look, Ralph," I said. "Let's not kid ourselves. That was a very
horrible drawing you gave him. It was the face of a monster. It got on
his nerves very badly." I shrugged. "Why in hell do you think we left
the restaurant so fast?"
"I thought it was because of the Mace," he said.
"What Mace?"
He grinned. "When you shot it at the headwaiter, don't you remember?"
"Hell, that was nothing," I said. "I missed him...and we were leaving,
anyway."
"But it got all over us," he said. "The room was full of that damn
gas. Your brother was sneezing was and his wife was crying. My eyes
hurt for two hours. I couldn't see to draw when we got back to the
motel."
"That's right," I said. "The stuff got on her leg, didn't it?"
"She was angry," he said.
---
Funny to consider that Steadman's visual aesthetic is even more identifiable than Hunter S. Thompson. The influence is everywhere!
I wouldn't count on that third book ever happening. It was first announced in 2005, the same year as his death, and I believe Amazon has had a page for it (with cover art) since at least 2006.
Good to hear this! I've had volume 1 sitting by my bed for a few months now but still haven't cracked it open. I'm not really sure why... length, maybe? This might be what I need to start
If someone tried to do poiltical journalism like Hunter S. Thompson today, I'd bet they would probably get hauled in front of congress for a struggle session, a journalistic cashiering from party personalities, and some terrible random luck from the bureaucracy just to make an example.
I wonder what changed about the world where the tradition of writers like Thompson, Hitchens, Vidal, Hemmingway, Menken, Bierce, and others with humour and moral courage just aren't a part of mainstream discourse.
Vice, for one, has basically commodified HST-style journalism. They have a whole show where a guy just tries different drugs [1]
And you can find all sorts of heterodox political and cultural takes in both mainstream news and the blogosphere, as well as the huge continuum of media between them.
The problem isn't that these writers don't exist anymore (or that they're being somehow silenced by congress). The problem is there's no mainstream culture anymore, and therefore there's no place for counterculture to consolidate. Instead we have a bunch of people shouting different things into voids of various sizes.
How is it different? I am a huge Hunter S. Thompson fan but I don't think anything he did was any more important than "writing for young people and doing drugs"
Vice was a business that commercialized writing about drugs and providing a sympathetic lap for the resentful and demoralized. They had one good science writer that the whole scheme hinged on. HST's personal style changed journalism. He brought the techniques of insight from literary fiction to reportage, along with Thomas Wolfe, and the generation that followed.
Journalism was supposed to be objective, gonzo journalism is inherently not. Making the author a character in the story is the opposite of what a good journalist is to do…
Kids taking journalism classes might get to hear about Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72 (through The Boys on the Bus) and I think there’s a little bit more to that than just writing for young people and doing drugs.
There's good writing and there's bad writing. Without getting into specific articles, if "Gonzo Journalism" or "New Journalism" is what it takes to inform some people, that's good journalism. It's like the Daily Show & Colbert Report. An old (2004) study [0] showed that Daily Show & Colbert Report viewers were the more knowledgeable about national and international affairs compared to people who consumed Google news, CNN or Fox News.
Jon Ronson has written several incredible books that all qualify as Gonzo Journalism. The only one I didn't like very much was the one about the adult film industry.
The Psychopath Test
So You've Been Publicly Shamed
Them: Adventures with Extremists
All great books and even better audiobooks that you'll like I think.
You described gonzo journalism, and political journalism, but not gonzo political journalism — which is what the GP poster is saying doesn’t exist any more.
If someone tried to do political journalism like Hunter S. Thompson today, they would struggle to find the same sort of characters, because the Internet has collectively made us much more cautious about and accountable for how we interact with others.
Present literary journalistic techniques critique through insinuation and juxtaposition. HST just had to go places and let people talk.
HST once gave his press badge on the Muskie campaign train in Florida to a random miscreant he met while out drinking[0], who then the next day went on to terrorize everyone on the train, ordering things at the press bar like a "triple Gin Buck without the Buck", manhandling reporters and the campaign cheerleader girls. At a whistle-stop speech, he stood in the front, heckled Muskie, grabbing his leg and yelling for more gin. He did a lot more than just "go to places and let people talk.". I think a lot of his genius for reporting came from how he involved himself in the lives of those he wrote about, combined with a rare knack for words and dedication to the craft of writing.
[0] Described by HST as "I listened for a moment and recognized the Neal Cassady speed-booze-acid rap - a wild combination of menace, madness, genius, and fragmented coherence that wreaks havoc on the mind of any listener... so I knew we had no choice but to take this man along with us... he had that rare weird electricity about him - that extremely wild & heavy presence that you only see in a person who has abandoned all hope of ever behaving 'normally'."
Never has there been a more vast and diverse set of weirdos in America and they have never been easier to find. Talk to me about "cautious" and "accountable" after you've been to a Furry convention, a gathering of the Juggalos, a Burner event, a Phish show and a couple sex parties.
Totally agree. Hunter S. Thompson would just be a substack writer with a small following.
Conversely, I am sure there are many substack writers with a small following who would be just as big as Thompson if they were born at a different time.
Not only has media changed but the entire relationship of society with media has changed.
I would compare it to Adele being the only artist in the last 15 years to be on the best-selling album chart and probably wouldn't be there at all if she was 10 years older.
Easier to find, but probably harder to talk to. I think it's not a coincidence that several of the subcultures you list above involve dressing in costumes. I'm sure part of that is immersing oneself in the culture, but there's also an element of anonymity that people value. At least some of this is a result of Thompson's influence on the culture.
These people will talk your ear off. One of the hallmarks of modern counterculture is inclusion, which is in stark contrast to the HST era where there was a much greater risk to being part of many countercultures, and so much more fear of outsiders.
As far an anonymity, I think people pick a particular blend that works for them and their career and family. But most people I know are pretty forward about their stranger/kinkier/less legal interests, at least on an interpersonal level.
It's a mixed bag. Everything you do IRL gets photographed and uploaded by your friends without your consent for future potential employers to scour through, Twitter becoming the whole world's HR department, your name, address and employer readily available with a Google search, etc.
I basically don't post too many opinions unless I'm on an alt account, and I'm considering tor for that going forward.
There's a give and take here. As more people are bold about how they express themselves, companies inevitably become more accepting of different types of expression. I've seen a massive shift from the 80's to today in what's acceptable for different types of jobs. There is always some risk for being on the edge of that trend, and we should be grateful to those who take those risks for making it easier for the rest of us.
I recently came across Michael Hastings, whom I hadn't heard of before (living in Europe), but alas he passed away quite early. This sort of journalism seems to be a rare thing, but also not dead by a long shot.
I feel like Robert Evans is a pretty close replacement, albeit an updated version for the 21st century.
For his book “A Brief History on Vice” he talks about the drugs that shaped our early culture, and then tried those drugs while trying to remain as authentic to the traditional uses as he possibly could.
Brandon Buckingham is a modern day Hunter S. Thompson. There are probably hundreds of other YouTubers doing similar things but we haven't heard about them yet because they are at the beginning of their career and Hunter is past the end.
You should read up on the journal this was published in. Seems like there wasn't much temperament for this kind of political journalism back then either.
Always a fun read. I wind up revisiting it every year when the derby comes around (last month). The timing felt random here until I came across the other HN thread discussing Ralph Steadman and beer
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36307276
Funny to see how things on the front page all fit together.
>Most of them manage to avoid vomitting on their own clothes, but they never miss
their shoes."
Classic, a very good read. I would never have thought the Kentucky Derby was such a crazy time. I thought it was people sipping Mint Julups watching the race. Seems the race is just a minor distraction to the real action.
>I thought it was people sipping Mint Julups watching the race. Seems the race is just a minor distraction to the real action.
It's an 8 hour day with about 10 minutes of racing. Lots of different experiences to be had. The big party is in the infield. The people in the stands might sit and drink mint julips, but theres still lots going on, the biggest is usually watching the horses get ready at the paddock.
It used to be getting in the gate would get you access to the entire grounds, except the private suites. So you could pay for the infield and go sit in seats in the stands no one was using, and people with paid seats could still join the fun in the infield (there's tunnels under the track). This was the first year they blocked access between the stands and the infield (access was limited to those with seats in a corporate tent). I didn't go this year, but I imagine it changed the atmosphere quite a bit. It's also getting more expensive, just for the infield, drawing a different crowd. Things really changed after 9/11 when Chirchill Downs experimented with how much they could limit people bringing in. That didn't really have an effect on what alcohol got past security, but made it a lot harder to bring in snacks, etc. So you had to buy their food, making it for a more expensive day and discuraging some people from coming. And they've been slowly making it more and more expensive every year. Today, you can't even bring a good camera in without a special permit. It's really changed the environment from a cheap, fun day to someplace you go to spend a lot of money.
CDI is a slots company who happens to own some race tracks anymore. In around 2018 once they started with the "historical racing terminals" (slots), they shifted from caring about racing to the fat margins of slots-- an $8k slot machine with 10yr lifespan is more favorable to ongoing purses and horse industry expenses. Handle has been decreasing everywhere for years, so of course they will focus on gaming, instead.
They list "Live and historical wagering" as a line item-- comingling revenue to hide that parimutuel wagering continues to tank/shift towards their preferred/higher margin gaming business. Appendix of their 10-K shows $66MM revenue for all live/simulcast racing in 2022, vs $375MM for historical racing and $755MM for gaming.
If they don't get slot approval from the state legislatures, they just sell the property to be redeveloped, like Hollywood/Arlington/Calder.
The more WASP-y an event is, the more likely it's an excuse to get smashed. For example: Princeton reunions, the Head of the Charles Regatta, country club member/guest tournaments, any polo match ever.
Also, there's the whole "infield" party, that's different than the people in the stands.... and I had to just look it up, but 80K people can get in. [1]
That was certainly true of the infield party 10 years ago, the last time I was there. The corporate tents in the infield were a boozy time, but not out of control that I ever saw. I can't speak to the stands outside the track. The musical acts they got were what you would expect, but it's the only time I ever got to watch a concert from backstage.
I went to the Preakness once while passing through Baltimore many years ago. That race also has the center of the track full of people. There was talk you could just haul your own cooler to the infield. (And the famous video of people running across port-a-pottys). I was general admission on the grandstand side. Its an fun mix of people.
Its sometimes kind of remarkable with a general admission ticket it can be hard to find a vantage point to watch the race.
I also found the Preakness kind of crazy. Perhaps the most crazy part of it was that it's in a really sketch part of Baltimore (Pimlico), and there's a whole cordon of police from the light rail station to the track making sure that nobody drunkenly gets lost or worse on the way to and from.
When I went to the Kentucky Derby, I was surprised by how few people were drinking Mint Juleps and how many were drinking cases of Bud Light. It was a particularly hot year, so not sure if this is normal, but I saw at least a dozen people carted off by the EMS golf carts hours before the Kentucky Derby was run.
I've been to a bunch of events, including the Indy 500, Times Square for NYE, and Mardi Gras in New Orleans, and by far people were more sloppy drunk at the Kentucky Derby.
Times Square has banned alcohol on NYE for at least the last decade, and the state of Indiana blocks all Sunday alcohol sales, so I expect those two events to be a little more toned down.
You can buy alcohol on Sunday in Indiana as long as it's 12pm or later [0]. And you can bring your own alcohol to the Indy 500 as long as it's not in glass [1].
A real mint julep, which I had the pleasure of drinking in New Orleans, is bruised fresh peppermint on the bottom, crushed ice, filled up with premium bourbon, and a dash of peach liqueur. No water and no sugar.
What a weird thing to say. This is about the Kentucky Derby, the mint julep is synonymous with the derby. And while that is possibly how they’re done in New Orleans, it’s absolutely not how it is done in Louisville.
While that sounds like a nice summer drink, it's not a mint julep.
Liqueurs can also be fairly approximated as "sugar and a little water" with flavoring. So, not all that different.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_julep - Mint julep is a mixed alcoholic drink, or cocktail, consisting primarily of bourbon, sugar, water, crushed or shaved ice, and fresh mint.
A "dash" is a very small amount of the liquid. So yes, there is a vanishingly small amount of sugar. It didn't make the drink sweet. There was probably the equivalent of 4 jiggers of bourbon. I forget the name of the glass it was created in, essentially a tall tumbler.
I have, after reading various historical recipes for the mint julep, this fine letter, reviewing the poem recited by higher-end bartenders upon the making of a drink, and so on, settled on my own recipe. I can drink but rarely, so when I do, I try to make an occasion out of it.
The "ice" as fine as snow is particularly difficult. You'll want a triple-stitched bag, one that can take heavy pounding. You will also want dry ice. First, because it makes the water ice more brittle, and the second because it keeps your snow crisp, rather than dissolving into a slush. I suspect that there is a machine better suited to the task but I've not gone that far.
The mint is more subtle than suspected. Many "muddle" the mint, which is to say crush it with a muddler. This does release the mint oils, but it also releases the more vegetable tastes, particularly the chlorophyll, which alters the flavor profile. No, what is better is to slap the mint across the palm of your hand. This, apparently opens the pores of the mint leaves and allows the oils out while keeping the rest in. I also "round" the mint flavor by adding both spearmint and wintergreen.
My other changes are perhaps a little archaic, personal, even radical, but the first two ought ought to improve any julep.
Such "Oral History" articles were quite popular for a time* and the fist time I encountered this article it still had its original title. I'm sad that it was not retained since the url now gives away the punchline.
A distant colleague in work consciously modeled himself on HST, driven I suspect by visual similarities in his build and temperament. It wasn't always very nice. Cynicism can turn nasty very quickly, he had a shallow ego and took as much offense as he caused when contradicted over matters of opinion.
I remember asking him to confirm 4-5 lines in the 8th edition kernel sources from his licensed copy and I had to pay him in the form of a bottle of bourbon.
He had a sad end.
My point is that: you can't bottle it, imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery it's ugly and stupid. That said, E. Jean Carroll's write up suggests HST was (at the end) a very sad, lonely man too.
A multimedia work about space probes becoming sentient in the distant future to watch immortal humans play football across the continental USA seems about as unimaginable as this piece, to me.
Far more likely that you just have false memories. They are very common and can result in a feeling of complete confidence that an event occurred when it never has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
He’s done labels for Flying Dog beer [1], the cover of Anthony Bourdain’s Appetites [2], and the album cover for Huncho Jack [3]. These are just the ones I’ve encountered in the wild - it’s quick to recognize once you’re familiar.
I once met a band leader that was wild enough to just ask Ralph Steadman to design an album cover and got great illustrations back because apparently Ralph liked the music.
Weird, I run into Steadman's artwork everywhere. Closed on Account of Rabies, which consists of famous people reading Poe stories (Diamanda Galas doing "The Black Cat") had his work on the cover.
> Another problem was his habit of sketching people he met in the various social situations I dragged him into--then giving them the sketches. The results were always unfortunate. I warned him several times about letting the subjects see his foul renderings, but for some perverse reason he kept doing it. Consequently, he was regarded with fear and loathing by nearly everyone who'd seen or even heard about his work. He couldn't understand it. "It's sort of a joke," he kept saying. "Why, in England it's quite normal. People don't take offense. They understand that I'm just putting them on a bit."
"Fuck England," I said. "This is Middle America. These people regard what you're doing to them as a brutal, bilious insult. Look what happened last night. I thought my brother was going to tear your head off."
Steadman shook his head sadly. "But I liked him. He struck me as a very decent, straightforward sort."
"Look, Ralph," I said. "Let's not kid ourselves. That was a very horrible drawing you gave him. It was the face of a monster. It got on his nerves very badly." I shrugged. "Why in hell do you think we left the restaurant so fast?"
"I thought it was because of the Mace," he said.
"What Mace?"
He grinned. "When you shot it at the headwaiter, don't you remember?" "Hell, that was nothing," I said. "I missed him...and we were leaving, anyway."
"But it got all over us," he said. "The room was full of that damn gas. Your brother was sneezing was and his wife was crying. My eyes hurt for two hours. I couldn't see to draw when we got back to the motel."
"That's right," I said. "The stuff got on her leg, didn't it?"
"She was angry," he said.
---
Funny to consider that Steadman's visual aesthetic is even more identifiable than Hunter S. Thompson. The influence is everywhere!