The Heart is Now Lonely a Hunter: Dr. Hunter S. Thompson 1937-2005

Shandy Casteel

That Hunter S. Thompson's death is apparently self-inflicted is expectantly unexpected, a sad and disappointing end to not only a breathing American literature objet d'art, but of a life.

Like so much of his writing, Hunter S. Thompson's life veered the treacherous curves of the American landscape with a reckless aplomb, churning up the cultural asphalt and leaving behind only scattered remnants of the American Dream that so much of his work sought. He was a Red America nightmare, locked-and-loaded, armed-and-dangerous, a tempest of debauchery, an excavator of the murky political landscape, a wordy foot soldier who shed his armor (but not his armaments) and fled into the breach, striking the very heart of the bombastic swine corrupting our government while simultaneously letting loose a salvo across the bow of the mainstream press still echoing today.

Those reverberations first found me in college during my freshman year in the early 90s as I tore through the university's library and its darkened stacks, yanking New Journalism tomes off the shelf and digging my greedy nails into their covers, drinking the contents as if I had stumbled thirsty out of an unenlightened desert and come face-to-face with a water canon. I was floored. Could journalism really be like this? Could you take the subject by the balls and squeeze until the truth bubbled to the top? Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote and Joan Didion I had read in high school, plying through their masterworks, but somehow Hunter Thompson's genius had generally remained slightly outside my periphery. Until a single sentence: "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold."

Turning back was not an option after that, not from Gonzo, not from this brazenly hedonistic truth teller who lit up the language with rolling and thunderous joy. That Gonzo was an extraordinarily attuned term is an understatement, picked from a letter written to him, Thompson found an idea that embodied everything he was and would become. Under this banner the good Doctor wielded a scalpel and gutted the journalist canon like he had been partially reborn as a marauding Mark Twain with the limbs of Menken and the voracious gluttony of Hemingway. Equipped with a cabinet full of liquor and "mobile police narcotics lab," Thompson crafted a mutated volume of cultural muckraking extolling the savagery of a trip taken into a fiery epicenter of the American Dream. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas fuses novel and reportage, forming an abrasively genuine and authentic testament teaming with more truth in its drug-infested trumped-up realities than an entire year of newspapers and magazines. Thompson had created something exceedingly lurid and depraved that inexplicably billowed with hysterical optimism.

When I finished Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas a whole new language opened up to me, a dialect of truth molded by a would-be novelist turned reporter, who tossed fact and fiction into the ethos and whatever stuck, stuck. Did it really matter which bits were factual, and which had been gleaned from hazily medicated memories? What difference did it make what was real, Thompson had uncloaked the machine and tossed himself under the bus, helping slow the whole vehicle down, and still managed to come out alright. He was the progeny of Upton Sinclair and the Beats, spreading blistering sermons from the kill zone of an insidiously darkened age, the time of Vietnam, of Nixon, of betrayed hope. Thompson's anger burned like a laser shot, hitting its trajectories on cue, slicing open the establishment as never before.

His earliest works, Hell's Angels, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72 constitute a burst of sonic literature that has endured the slithering test of time. That he was influential is not debatable. His books are part of the Modern Library, he has been portrayed in film by Bill Murray and Johnny Depp, and his work is still required reading in journalism classes across the nation. I see Hunter S. Thompson's footprint everywhere, in the bitter irony of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in the burgeoning political blog movement and most dreadfully in the soulless talking head punditry of modern media that has neither the stomach or talent to seek answers and impart truths. That Thompson sought answers and conveyed truth in his work is a marked achievement often crushed under the weight of his own persona and reputation.

The gun-slinging, drunk and dope-addled harbinger-of-sorrows image that Thompson himself assisted in forming became a caricature that belittled the sincere heft of what he had to say, but he continued the good fight, never betraying the idealism that so many of his contemporaries had ditched for publisher lunches and cocktail parties. Although the antics had grown to be the attraction, Thompson continued firing missives into the ether. Through the past few decades his pieces and collections meandered with hit-and-miss lunges at Bush, Clinton and lately another Bush, as well as his eternal hatred of Richard Nixon, even in death. Over the last several years, his pieces for Rolling Stone and his column for have brimmed with paranoia and humor, sadness and anger. What the later pieces lacked was immediacy, the hunt he so often vaunted into with gusto was now viewed afar; he was perched up high and straining through the binoculars to discern the shapes of the hunters and the hunted. The talent, though, never waned. The twisted turn of phrase and searing insight would never falter.

That Hunter S. Thompson's death is apparently self-inflicted is expectantly unexpected, a sad and disappointing end to not only a breathing American literature objet d'art, but of a life. Unscrupulous morality zealots, who have made a pastime of trying to bury the Sixties, can now gleefully hammer another nail into the decade's coffin, although the good Doctor himself had pronounced the same patient dead more than three decades ago saying, "with the right kind of eyes, you can almost see the high-water mark -- that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." Well, with the right kind of eyes anybody can almost see the line drawn in the sand, a line that spoke volumes to the polity of this nation, and a man who wanted to smack some sense into it.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.