Old friends and the art of Gonzo

Cecil C. Sackrider is taking me to task. So is Whetu.

They claim that Fryday has forgotten them. They accuse me of being Jann Wenner, though Reverend Sackrider thinks Mr Wenner is a pornographer and Whetu thinks he is a hamburger.

Mr Wenner is in fact the recently retired founder and executive editor of Rolling Stone magazine, a magazine that capitalized on brilliant columnists such as Hunter S. Thompson, P.J. O’Rourke, and Cameron Crowe, and for a variety of reasons let them go.

My correspondents feel I am doing the same. They consider me to be Jann Wenner: without the toke and the coke.

They are right. I need to have another belt of scotch and give them their space in the sun.

But, not yet.

Let me give this last lingering look at what Fryday conveys.

It conveys shit. At least in conventional journalist quarters.

You see, I finally read (in Rolling Stone) the accessible definition of Gonzo Journalism, a term coined by Hunter S. Thompson to describe his particular, peculiar and proficient form of journalism.

In a word, he described it as subjective.

Subjective means that the story is written from the writer’s point of view—his or her perception and perspective. If they wanted to report the facts, and only the facts, they would be objective.

Many readers would suggest that objective is better. And that is okay. I get that.

But, think about it. Are the facts really that interesting? And are they even facts? I interview someone and quote them. That’s their story. But is that the real story? If they are cutting a ribbon, is that interesting? Are their ceremonial and sanctimonious sentiments more interesting than the stories of the people who made the ribbon or the scissors?

Who wants to know? I do.

So where Gonzo comes in is that the writer injects themselves into the story. And you know what? In doing so, they are representing us—the reader. They are not asking us to agree with them, all they are saying is that if you were there, with them, this is what you may have felt.

There is a story behind a story.

And please do not tell me you think I am wrong in believing that is less interesting as a story.

So, we have editors who say let the subjects tell their own story. Okay. But as Cameron, P.J and in particular Hunter S. told their stories, they are a bloody-sight more interesting than the subjects themselves.

But, I succumb.
Next week, Cecil C. Sackrider has his subjective say. And after that…Whetu, if he is out by then.

-->