Transcripts For CSPAN2 Peter Richardson Savage Journey 20220809

Thompsons literary formation was largely a San Francisco story and in the those of us at city lights across town it can attest to this. Thompson was a regular at the cafc across the street from city lights and became a regular basis. His life was intertwined with northeast culture and you can see and go from writer to ramparts cortina etheridge, the former owner of costco so hes done a stellar job piecing together the trace elements of thompsons literary influences in a compelling read so were glad he can grace our halls. Peter richardson has written books about thegrateful dead , also rampartsmagazine , and Carey Mcwilliams, the radical author and editor of the nation magazine. Hes going to be joined by none other than david dollars, i cant think of anybody better to be doing the honors. He is the esteemed author of four Popular History books and founder and editor in chief of the law magazine. Former Senior Editor for mother jones magazine. He is a journalist, a columnist who has written for the new yorker, for Rolling Stone and the guardian, much more and his book the season of the witch is legendary. San Francisco Chronicle bestseller for many years and his recent book is titled by the light of owaiting dreams, the tragedy of the second American Revolution coauthored with margaret talbot. His offices are down the street so you can easily say it is all in the family. Join us in giving a warm welcome to our evenings guest peter richardson, david astalbot. Its a great pleasure to have you both gracing our virtual halls. Welcome to city lights live. Thank you peter. Many peters tonight. All of us from city lights and its a great honor for me to be here with the author, peter richardson. Im very pleased to be here tonight. Ive been a big fan of peters for some time now. I read with great interest his history of ramparts magazine which played a big role in my development as a Young Journalist and Hunter Thompson did too i have to say. I first read Hunter Thompson when i was a student at santa cruz back in the early 1970s. And his fear and loathing in las vegas and later his coverage of the 1972 president ial campaign had a huge impact on me as a Young Journalist. So i read with great interest peter richardsons new book about hunter. I knew hunter a little bit myself later on as an editor of the San Francisco examiner. I actually had the great pleasure of editing a couple of columns by Hunter Thompson late in his career. But you know, to me he was an icon, still is an icon. Had a huge impact on me and many other young writers and journalists in america soim delighted to be here today with peter. Ill jump in with a few questions and were going to open it up i think and take questions fromsome of you. Peter will help out there peter, good to see you. Reyou look like youre in woody creek colorado, where are you . Im actually in glen ellen it is not far from where you are but it is another spot where Hunter Thompson lived briefly before he decamped for colorado. Actually before he moved to San Francisco. Lets talk about hunters San Francisco roots and since we are being sponsored by the iconic City Lights Bookstore, lets talk about what drew hunter to San Francisco back in what, the late and early 60s, late 50s. What period are we talking about . He arrives for the first time in 1960. He had driven a rental car or he had driven a car Cross Country and dropped it off and then hitchhiked from seattle down to San Francisco. What drew him here frankly was a place like city lights books. He was very into whatthe beats were doing. Didnt idolize the beats but he respected especially what jack kerouac could do in terms of getting a new kind of writing not only published by a major publisher but to become a kind of publishing phenomenon. So he was very strongly attracted to San Francisco. Wanted to learn more about it but moved out of the air force and wrote for some newspapers. When he arrived he applied for work at the San Francisco chronicle and examiner. He almost immediately decamped to big sur which was another kind of big outpost and was nealso the home of henry miller who was one of his real heroes but the original paul i think was kind of big impulse which was having quite crested yet but was starting to get giveaway already. Neil cassidy would go to san quentin and karabakh would move back east and Allen Ginsberg would move away as well but what they accomplished while they were in San Francisco was very importantto Hunter Thompson. Since you did write a great book about ramparts, the legendary and important magazine edited by Warren Hinkle and bob shearer, two great bay area journalistic figures, heroes of mine. Your book was fascinating about ramparts. That was also a very important magazine for hunters development in those years. T it was. It really more after he had written, right around the time he published tells angels, that was an important magazine for him and an important social nexus for him. He never published anything inrampart but he felt strongly connected. I heard from bob today and its worth noting that he worked at City Lights Bookstore three years right around the time that he was starting with rampart. So ramparts was still finding its feet. It had not really begun when Hunter Thompson arrived in San Francisco. It began as a Catholic Catholic literary quarterly and its only when Warren Hinkle takes over as editor and brings the magazine to San Francisco that it becomes the legendary San Francisco muckraker that we know today. And hunter developed the way he did as a journalist anywhere else in the country or was there something about Northern California in particular in those years in the 1960s that was more open to his style of writing . I dont think theres any doubt. He couldnt have done it in new york. He certainly couldnt have done it in louisville or aspen or chicago or boston. Not only that, i dont think he could have done itin San Francisco 10 years before or 10 years later. I think he needed to be in San Francisco right when he was in San Francisco and he acknowledged that to. Later in life and las vegas he talked about his San Francisco period as a peak era and then later on in life of course he comes back and works in San Francisco in the 1980s but much later than ho that looking back he said those were my peaks, 1960s in San Francisco. That was really informative for him and thats one of the arguments i want to make in the book is that even though he lives in woody creek colorado fordecades after that , i think in many ways hes best seen as a bay area writer. He did live in that he asked. For some time. Talk about hunter during that period. What is he absorbing, what is your learning . How is he growing as a writer . He had moved down. He went from big sur up to hear where i am, glen ellen not far from here. That didnt work out very well and he moved to 318 parnassus avenue near uc San Francisco and he wasnt really cut out for urban living. You really would rather live in these kind of you collect places like big sur, glen ellen or aspen. But i think it was important that he did come into the city during that time. He was still writing for the National Observer which is a wall street journal dow jones publication at the time but he wasnt really thriving there. He attended the 1964 Gop Convention in San Francisco. And you know, learn some things there. I think that was you know, an important lesson for him. But he wasnt really into politics at that time. He was really in short order trying to do once tom wolfe was doing back east which is take these kind of exotic west coast subcultures and turn them m into stories for big nationalmagazines. Unlike tom wolfe, id say tom wolfe to me is someone who got a lot of credit for doing very little. He was more of a dandy i think. Hunter really got involved with what hehe wrote about. He got stomped by the hells angels for gods sake. Thats important. But he didnt generate that story. He left National Observer kind of sort of broke off his relationship with them. He was always a freelancer but that was his main outlet sohe needed new outlets. He wrote a query letter really importuning Carey Mcwilliams of the nation. They only paid hundred dollars for an article. They barely pay more than that now but he was trying to make a living as a freelancer. And hes said ill take whatever youve got. And Terry Mcwilliams said why dont you write about motorcycle gangs because the california state attorney general had justissued a report on them as a threat to law and order. Thompson said great and youre right. He went straight to one of their meetings and he had a kind of buffer, Bernie Jarvis who worked for, he was a ll Crime Reporter for the San Francisco chronicle and a member of the hells angels. He had a kind of entrce and then he did. It was all t participatory reporting. Not very many people can do that. I dont think tom wolfe could do that for joan dion to do that. Writing with the hells angels took a bit of courage that not very many reporters have and hunter died out on that for the rest of his career. He got the kind of respect that sort of war correspondents get the cause he rode with the angels. First for a couple ofweeks. He wrote the article for the nation magazine. Then he parlay that into a book deal and it became his first bestseller and then he rode with them for another year and at the end of that year was when he got stopped by some of the hells angels and i think in kind of a dispute is running a little bit fuzzy probably has to do with the fact that they thought theywere going to benefit directly from his story. They said he promised them a case of beer and he didnt pay up. He had another story but the point is that was how the book ended with his stomping. Participatory journalism to the max. Lets talk a little bit about the legendary area editors. Warren hinkle again, ramparts. A very important scandal in and Rolling Stone. There could be no Hunter Thompson of course with jann wenner and that was warning hinkle. You talk about how important those editors were to him encouraging the kind of f enterprising kind of swashbuckling journalism that later becomes gonzo journalism. Thats a really important time for him. So yes, he has his first bestseller. He moves tocolorado even before that book comes out. But he maintains his San Francisco connection. By this time hes not wine is proceeding over a lot of the success at rampart magazine, not Financial Success but in terms of impact and circulation and theres a famous story about them going out to lunch and when they came back the cappuccino monkey that warren kept in the office have gotten into hunters dexedrine and was screaming around the office. So they were friends. Can you tell us a little bit of warren, what a character what he was . They hit it off immediately. Even thoughwarren never got him to write for ramparts , they remained friends and then frankly hunter began to struggle a little bit. He signed some contracts but he was having trouble with his second book. He couldnt finish it and that didnt break until another writer, novelist james salter at a dinner party gave him the idea to go and write about the Kentucky Derby. He pitched that story to warren and if you dont know who warren was, he could match Hunter Thompson in terms of the sizeand force of his personality and his stamina as well. He had a really great feeling for high conceptual stories and he realized that this would be a really great way to work together. Scanlon, that was the first issue with scanlon and so he was recruiting people actively. Even though he couldnt get thompson into rampart he did get him into the debut issue of scanlons and again, the story was an abject tfailure. He thought he was going to kill his career. He was ashamed of the story and warren thought once he saw. He just didnt feel like he finished the story. He claimed that he began ripping notes out of his notebook, pages out of his notebook and just faxing them in. He couldnt write the rystory. Couldnt fill in the patches of the story. Just felt like just a mess that he sent to warren and warren took the pieces together and polished it up. Warren said that he knew as soon as he saw Ralph Steadmans illustrations and it was warren who introduced those two. They had never worked together before. They hadnever met. So once more and put those two together, i think it takes a little while but people begin torealize this is a franchise. So warren midwife and, was kind of the midwife of gonzo journalism in a way. By pairing him with Ralph Steadman and then publishing in scanlons. In this book the first issue of scanlons ran hunters piece. That didnt happen, Ralph Steadmans illustrations and its not usually regarded as an example of gonzojournalism. But once you put steadman and thompson ktogether, so thompson thought he had failed but then everybody was saying this was a brick breakthrough in journalism. And he described that feeling as falling down an elevator shaft landing in all pool full of mercury. This thing that he thought was a failure turned out to be a key success and he immediately went back to warren and said this is going to be the thompson steadman report. Were going to go around to oiamericas cup and the super bowl and Masters Tournament and mardi gras and this is going to be a franchise thing and were going to take those stories and put them into book form. So he thought hehad something. The only problem was scanlons was already going under. There would never be i think they published their last issue in january 1971. Unfortunately because i think warren deserve a lot of credit for not just hearing those two but kind of conceding and birthing gonzo journalism, thompson would eventually have to find another outlet for that kind of work. In some ways, jann wenner who started taRolling Stone had gotten started. Ramparts under Warren Hinkle. Jann wenner really inherited gonzo journalism and Hunter Thompson from Warren Hinkle at Rolling Stone. Thats true and jann wenner ended up getting a lot of the credit andwarren was very aware of that. That the conception of gonzo journalism was really scanlons thing. But he really didnt , nobody hadchoices here. It wasnt obvious that thompson was going to be a great master at Rolling Stone which was still a fledgling rock magazine. Thompson was older thanmost of the people who wrote for Rolling Stone. He was an air force veteran. He didnt quite fit the mold at Rolling Stone ngnebut jann really saw that his stuff might click with Rolling Stones readers and he encouraged him. The first concept came when hunter wrote to jann after the altamonte coverage came out and said. Was the concert that some people say was the death of the 1960s where the hells angels pounced on an africanamerican concert door and stabbed him to death. Right, and of course the hells angels were there and they were responsible. Whats that . Socalled providing security. Thompson follow that story with some interest because of course after having written about the hells angels he was very tuned in to that story and he really thought Rolling Stone did a fantastic job with it. They won their First National magazine award so Rolling Stone was coming along quickly. I think hunter as a freelancer was always on the lookout for new. And he began to see that Rolling Stone could be one. The first couple of pieces you for Rolling Stone or not gonzo type pieces. But you know, theres a whole story about how gonzo much like. But not fear and loathing in las vegas which to me was the peace that introduced me as a young reader under constant. Ralph steadman illustrations again were of course you know, left off the page that was a collectors item. That issue of Rolling Stone in which Hunter Thompson really gave birth to and so journalism as we know it. My first question about that is for you to define gonzo journalism. For those who may not know gonzo means. What is exactly gonzo journalism . It sounds like a genre like news journalism but its not really a genre. Its a description i think of Hunter Thompson, a string of Hunter Thompson work after 1970. The label wasnt really a label at the time but his friends at the boston globe after you read the Kentucky Derby hes said that hes was totally gonzo. And hunter had heard him use that term when they were both covering the primary in 1968 in New Hampshire and he thought well, lets call what im doing gonzo journalism was successful kind of branding exercise. It wasnt really the name of a genre. It was a super important step but it was never sort of the predictable result of conscious project. He was in la to cover a different story and he was working with oscar, the activist attorney. In the middle of that research, he got an offer to cover a road race in the las vegas desert outside of las vegas. He comes back, rights of the story, submitted to Sports Illustrated. Lthey rejected. A lot of people would say you know, okay, on to the next thing he is furious. He actually dolls down, expands the story. It was already 10 0 times longer than what Sports Illustrated wanted and he sent Rolling Stone movies already as soon as he does people in the office at Rolling Stone status is magical. So again is participatory journalism. Hunter puthimself in the story. As well as foster area he took a lot of drugs. He fueled this kind of insane coverage of las vegas. He made no bones about that. He, kind of buying realism to gonzo journalism, kind of dirty, seeing the absurdity where other people, other reporters are more objective may notsee it. Im heading on some of the things that entertain me in fear and loathing but what are some of the other aspects of gonzo journalism . First is taking the new journalism out to its logical conclusion by putting the writer at the center of the experience and in this case the writer is not just a central character but the entire world kind reveals its meaning through his sensibility. So hes an indispensable part of the story. Its all abouthim and foster and their invention. I would go back to one of the points you made their. They didnt have a lot of drugs actually in harmony with the las vegas. They had some alcohol. They had some benzedrine oscar they had some dexedrine under linux and that was about it. One of the reasons and of course they dont go as oscar and hunter. They go o as doctor gonzo and ronald and i think theres good reason to see this as a kind of, if not a traditional model as some fictional form. Hes sort of working the crease between journalism and fiction and i think its considering this drug cash which he outlines at the very beginning of the book, role do in the, and that was there, almost none of it was there. I think we rtneed to think about it more as section that asked journalism the of course the label remains a mistake. Its still classified as nonfiction if you go to a bookstore which you should do my way. You have a way to buy books on your resume link. So think a little about that. It was a brandnew thing for sure but im not sure it sits comfortably either as a form of journalism or as a traditional fiction i want to drill down because i think this is the essence of Hunter Thompsonand this whole hydrant style of writing. Today i think journalism is the draft. And you know, theres no voice to it, very little voice to it. Its been taken largely in magazine writing online maybe as the last repository. Some writers and bloggers but certainly in mainstream journalism you dont come across voice writing the way Hunter Thompson really pioneered. But i think he could succeed in todays marketplace. He had a difficult time you write in a savage journey asa journalist those days. It got increasingly difficult for our writer like hunter. But theres something about it peter and we were talking about this beforehand that something about his writing got the inner truth about america. Particularly in those years when hes lying. And in the socalled lunacy of gonzo girls and, there was kind of realism, a kind of truth that other journalism. Some about that about his coverage of the 1972 president ial campaign when nixon was running for reelection. And you know, share with us your insights into that which you go into in the book. So i mean the first point to make that his coverage in 1972 and i want to trail black and talk about how he got the assignment which i think is important. But by the time he had collected his dispatches on the campaign trail into the book which became a critical and commercial success, a client. He had decided. Fear and loathing on the campaign trail. So he had decided to take this assignment, later his work was described as the least factual and most accurate discussion of the campaign and there i think you have the narrative. Least factual, that is he got a lotof things wrong. He didnt even try to get it right there was a lot of satire, invective and exaggeration. There was a lot of hallucination. So youre right, theres a kind of heightened realism there and he was trying to get at the truth and he realized hes his colleagues on the campaign trail either didnt see or couldnt express and the hard news stories their editors demanded so he decided to try a different kind of covering the story. In some ways he had the difficulty to do it because he had no advantages in the traditional way to do it. Hes surrounded by reporters from major news organizations who had a lot of support, who had resources, who had connections. Who had leaderships. They had everything they needed. He was at the bottom of that totem pole so he had to think hard about how he could make his mark and he did that by saying im not going to try to do any of the stuff. He took his own weakness and turned it into a kind of strength because he had no intention of coming back to thecampaign trail. He would burn all of the sources if he decided to get that now so the fact that he represented dthis kind of fledgling rock magazine in San Francisco, that should have been a disadvantage but he managed to turn it to an advantage by telling the unvarnished truth as he understood it not only about the campaign and the politicians. He went after them viciously, democrats as well as one republican, Richard Nixon who he hated openly. He made no bones about his preference for George Mcgovern so you werent getting anything like objective journalism. He dispensed with all of those conventions. Instead he gave you the unvarnished truth as he understood it not only about the campaign but about the other media. I think thats super important about his work is that hes always looking both ways. Hes looking at the thing that hes writing about and looking at why other people are covering it so every time you read something by Hunter Thompsonyou got a good laugh. Some crazy ideas. And also you learned something becausehe showed you what was behind the curtain. He had a radical vision i think that is what i took from his writing. As a youngjournalist. And as you point out in the book, here he is from a republican from kentucky and kind of the libertarian his policies word iqs and yet he saw america awash in greed and violence and addiction to war. And gefrankly the country hasnt changed all that much in the last several decades. But i think there was a kind of insane insight into what america was all about in his writing. I think thats right and i think thats why so much of it hasheld up over the years. Some of it has not aged well. I dont think hes going to get a lot of plaudits for the way he handles race or women, feminism or homophobia. If you reread him now youre going to see that very quickly especially if you read his letters which i think are probably his best work. You really see that his voice but youre quite right about his takes. He only really becomes interested in american politics after he goes to the Democratic National convention in chicago in 1968. And he is traumatized by what he witnesses by the police writes that he witnesses there. Only then that he pivots away from the kind of tom wolfe journalism stuff and starts taking a direct be on american politicians like hubert humphrey, like edmund muskie. Like Richard Nixon. Like mayor daley in chicago. So really its kind of, it is the kind of journey in a way, a multistate journey and then some more extended as things happen as well to shape the body of work. But let me ask you a question david. You mention his affinity for warren. I dont i dont think warrens politics were really worked out cleanly. I think he was also a rebel and i can iconic iconoclast writ would you put them both in a similar category . I think warren is more appositive from San Francisco. He grew up here. I think he kind of along with the water he drank in, the kind of pathos. The liberal progressive pathos of San Francisco. I would put him to the left politically. Of Hunter Thompson. I think consciously left. But they were both mavericks and they both liked their drink and they both liked to have a good time. That was very much a part of the spirit of the 60s and 70s when they were operating at their best. So there was something that linked the two. I think kind of the journalism of the bay area in those years, ramparts early days with Rolling Stone before it moved to new york. And even my salon back in early during the. Com era were all examples of the bay area journalism that they think couldnt exist anywhere else and im proud of that. Been reading some of the obits about joan didion that went on and on about what an iconic and great figure she was. She obviously produced. She was a great writer, produce a lot of great writing but i think again, california is not given its due and thats why peter, im so grateful for the work youve done over the years on ramparts and Terry Mcwilliams and now Hunter Thompson because i think the west coast doesnt get its due on the new york media mandarins to this very day. Im glad to see you give Hunter Thompson the due that he deserves. Thats very much in my mind when i sit down to do this work. I think the funniest version of the feeling that you are expressing is that that i was at the San Francisco Public Library when the rampart book came out. Some of the family members and other people who contributed and the person who organized the event in the San Francisco Public Library listened carefully to the presentation and conversation and he said do not from the floor and asked the question and said seems to me if rampart had been published in new york city there would have been a broadway musicalabout it 20 years ago. And i think theres some real truth to that because you know, in a way it was an advantage to be in San Francisco. You could try new things. Without fear of failure and there was a nurturing culture underneath it that was more experimental and innovative and doityourself and collaborative. So i think all of those things helped. People asked her rampart magazine was helping out Rolling Stoneon all their coverage. And then all the guys that left ramparts and went on to start mother jones. There was a real synergy there. Absolutely. I want to talk about your process, about how you went about your recent on this book and open it up. I think peter will be ready in about five minutes to open it up to questions from the audience. Which we are very anxious to hear. But lets talk about your process as a writer. I know youre frustrated by the blocks that you faced in time to access Hunter Thompsons archives. Many of these researchers run into similar blocks when theyre doing their own work but tell us something about ethat and for the future. Are these archives going to be open tothe public at some point . The good news is hunter kept everything. Theres Something Like 100 boxes of stuff mostly correspondence. He kept copies of his correspondence owing back to his teenage years, maybe even before that. So its just an in or miss treasure and we seem to great edited volumes come out of that. Both edited by douglas brinkley. If you havent read it and you love thompson i highly recommend that. I think its some of his best stuff. Not on deadline,his voice, not edited. Notwritten for money. Just him expressing himself. In a direct and colorful way. You also see what a great literary networker he was maybe thats why he kept everything the way he did. I think it was inspired by other people like henry miller who posted up at big sur and used his correspondence to keep his literary networker alive. One of them was write letters. So the letters are a great source but except for the ones that were published in his books by brinkley, including. His soni think has only seen the archives wants when he was riding his who is responsible for being so they sold it to a consortium, the family or thompson sold it to a consortium that includes johnny depp and that includes some talks about try to do something with them but his finances and personal life are little messy right now and so i dont think these letters are really at the top of the list of things hes going to get to in the short term. And also maybe theyre trying to sell them to a different player. I understand that librarians come Research Librarians working on them, processing them and so on. They are supposed to be at a Storage Facility in los angeles right now. They may be made available, who knows, but right now what about your research and for the book . What do you have been . You can go out and talk to people who worked a with them which i did that as much as i could. Covid put a lot of kibosh on those facetoface interviews but as you probably inferred i spent a lot of time thinking about how he worked with his editors and i think they were very important. The only more important person in his career was, in terms of the success he achieved. The artist. Its easy to overlook his contribution to that franchise. Of course he didnt go to las vegas. He still came up with that, this fantastic illustrations that gave ad kind of, gave gonzo its distinctiveness. So you couldnt go to oscars archive which is at uscp, same thing, shut down because of covid. I talked to as many of his editors as they could and did a word it was excruciating. As the 70s war on, he wasnt doing any new drafts, any second drafts, third drafts which he always did when he was younger. No first drafts after las vegas and he begins to live into his persona more and more. I wasnt that interested in the celebrity. Ihi think his biography covered his celebrity adequately. I wouldnt want to get that what made him distinctive as a writer and thats why focused my research and my assessment, just trying to read it and, and then situate it using the correspondence and some of the oral histories that have been done so we can figure out his decisionmaking during this time. It was not a a smooth, you kns frictionless process. It was haphazard, uneven. The stuff that made him famous, took them years to figure out that those things was most important literary assets. But when hee finally figured tht out he stuck with it. In fact, probably for a little too long. I think he was getting diminishing literary returns. When you worked with him in 1980s, obviously most of his work was behind him and yet beet talking to the editors about how to work with and then turned out to be very illuminating. So what did you see, david, when you saw him in San Francisco it in the 1980s . I was an editor in San Francisco, editor of thehe Heart Corporation now runs thehe chronicle but back in the day will was very enterprising as an editor about bringing people like Warren Hinkle and Hunter Thompson and other unique voices, and Dave Mccumber was the newsroom editor. R he usually edited hunter, his columns. Dave and he hadun a unique relationship at a think he talked to dave, didnt he . I couldnt get him to go on the record. He saidpl he would. That happened a couple of times. I think these interactions with Hunter Thompson are so valuable that a think writers are tempted to kind of keep it to themselves although we never said that. I told you the story i know for the book, and its my one great memories of working with hunter. He did come into the newsroom, my colleague steve was a great writer, described him as walking like an upright praying mantis. He had canada herkyjerky movement, his lanky frame which is really funny and interesting to watch as he made his way across the newsroom. It i did work with them on a couple of columns when the cumbre was out turkey was sick or on vacation, and i always remembered rewriting the great Hunter Thompson, to me was like repainting mikel angelo. Michelangelo. I was in that position because we were on deadline and he hadnt filed and is filed something that was not printable and so hadad to write the great Hunter Thompson. I rated turn back on the phone. He wasnt in the newsroom that day. I think he was up in woody creek. There was a silence over the phone and thinking of my god hes going to hate what i have done. He said hey, its not bad. He changed one or two words and they were brilliant. What he actually recommended made it more Hunter Thompson like. By then he had one brain cell, or twoel brain cells. But god bless and he still had enough i think selfrespect to change my writing back here and there to make it more a Hunter Thompson a original. This would have been i dont know the late 1980s i guess and it wasnt the hunter towns and i grown up with right so this thing but hey speaking of the marketplace just the fact that he was able to break through and even those days in 1960s and 70s with a unique way of writing. Im reading the book now the novel from the Victorian Era by george guesting a novel. Long forgotten called new grub street about how difficult it was for writers back in that day the same thing to make a living as a writer in victorian england. Thats where the book is set written by i think a writers are saying in george kissing and a devotes the the great hardships and ridiculous kind of travails that writers have to go through again and again just to get published and yet published for very little money. So for someone like Hunter Thompson to not only breaks through all that difficulty and to establish of voice as a writer and to establish a life long career. It didnt end well for him, but god bless him. He still to me as a blazing light and im glad that you were able to write the book you did and and to acknowledge his great contribution. Yeah. Let me say one more thing about the marketplace and maybe we open it up after that. Um if its time, maybe peter can guide us on that. But you know toward the end in the 1980s for example, and hes riding for will hurst. Its interesting to me. Not just because its a bay area thing. But of course he went after the Hearst Newspapers viciously when he was younger. I mean he they were a real target for him and his kind of on the on the fly media criticism some of his funny some of his funny as cracks were at the examiners expense. Really and and then there he is working for the examiner and then you know, he had the books going during that time, too. But at the end of his career, hes writing for espn. He comes full circle. He starts as an as a Sports Writer and ends as a as a sort of Sports Writer. But dont forget espn a quarter of espn was owned by the hurst corporation. And the people that were his editors there he knew from Rolling Stone and you know, he and he met will hurst and you know through through Rolling Stone as well. So, you know those those networks and those connections, you know, kind of turned out to be very helpful for him. And you know, when is when his literary productivity was was declining. You know there there were there were these old friends and i think will hearst and and espn were two of his best friends toward the end. Yeah. Great. Well peter manvelas, i think we should open it up. Take questions from our wonderful audience. Yes, indeed and we do have some joseph asks. Can you talk a little about hunters first novel prince jellyfish, although a short acts of appears in his book the songs of the doomed it still not ever been released. Is there more to it . No, i dont think so. Im not looking for that the person ive looked to on that is William Mckean his biographer. Um, you just dont know that much about it, and im not i dont think its coming out. Havent heard that. And you know, i dont think he was a great fiction writer. Thats the funny thing and if youve read the wrong diary, you can see why it took so long to come out. Its pretty traditional, you know, as journalism is so, you know energetic and and powerful and precise and funny and you know over the top with all at the same time. The fiction is pretty traditional by comparison and and if prince jellyfish was not as good as the ram diary then you know. I know he pitched it to Angus Cameron. Who who was . An editor at randomized he had been blacklisted in the 1950s. He was kerry mcwilliamss editor actually a little brown and very successful, but he had been blacklisted arthur slezinger jr. Led that charge and anyway, you know, they they he and cameron struck up a correspondence which turned out to be, you know, super instructive and interesting. But prince jellyfish never made it over the top. If anyone else is on on here that knows something else. I welcome that. So we have a question from stuart. Would hunter consider nixon as a lightweight now that weve had the donald can you imagine what he would have said about the country today . Yeah, well a couple things about that i mean i write in the book that i dont think donald trump or is supporters or the media reaction to them would have surprised Hunter Thompson. He had been trying to warn us about people like this for a long time. And at the time, you know when he wrote that stuff in the 70s, for example, it seemed hyperbolic, right . But hybrid hyperbole has its place. And over time, you know, it seemed more prophetic than hyperbolic. I think all the things that he was imagining about nixon who of course he despised. And i think nixon as bill i mentioned bill mckean the biographer. He said about he said about hunter that nixon was his muse in a way. That nixon really brought out. Hunters best work in a way because he hated him was this white hot intensity. That that its sort of pushed his it pushed his pose to a kind of new register. Anyway, dont forget that after nixon is reelected in a landslide. Thompson writes enRolling Stone stone a few days later comparing him nixon to a werewolf. Haha. The problem there is once you compare nixon to a werewolf. What do you say about reagan, you know or much less trump . So i think that thats one the downside of hyperbole as well is that you have less running room once youve you know gone over the top in in that in that particular way. But i do think that thompson was got lucky with nixon in a way. That that you know when nixons presidency goes down in flames. Service thompson kind of you know, i mean most of his best work comes out before nixon resigns. David asks, can you tell us about how the friendship between honduras thompson and ed bradley came to be . Great question. Im not sure what the answers are. I do know. That thompson befriended charles corral who was cbs news guy very early on like in latin america in the early 60s. And they remain friends for a long time. So any who sort of he had a ton of friends, im sure there are many of them on on this call right now. And and many girlfriends, you know, many of them have contacted me. You know with with their stories and and and its all interesting believe me, but im not sure quite sure how he and and ed bradley crossed baz. Now, of course he was doing a lot of political reporting. So its its not wouldnt be uncommon for him to run across. Anybody that did that kind of political coverage . Along the way but its true that they had a a close friendship and and bradley would come to woody creek or to owl farm. And watch football with hunter. And you know that there was a there was a real kind of social network there. That was very important hunter ran a kind of a little shadow. There was a lot of bedding, but it wasnt really about the betting the bedding kind of brought them closer together in a way. And hunter bat with the political journalists, too. I mean if you read fear and loading on the campaign trail, youll see that hunter was very proud of his record. Betting on the primaries betting against experts the other journalists. You know, but but he didnt do it just to win or to just play his expertise. I think he also did it to bring bring him closer together with his colleagues and he needed that he wasnt part of that group. When you join the campaign, press corp. So the force of his personality and then these other little mechanisms to kind of is kind of ingratiate himself and even stand out. In that press car was one of the many things that he was very good at. Kurthymer asks if we now see fear and loathing in las vegas as a work of fiction a novel then what distinguishes it from kerouacs on the road. Great question, you know, i think i think that was one of thats the thing that hunter really admired about kerouac. Was that he was taking his lightly fictionalized experiences and turning them into fiction. Yeah, i mean, you know his own experiences lightly fictionalizing them and and selling them as fiction through major publishers. And it included, you know stuff about taking drugs, which was very important to hunter in the 1950s. You know his other you know, his other is other favorite novel is the ginger man right by jr. Dunlavy and its the same sort of transgression and you know, theres this kind of rogue kind of at the center of the story. And of course that was that was sold through an imprint that was known mostly for its erotica. You know for many years so all of that was catnip for a hundred thompson. Same thing with henry miller. Now the fact that his stuff had been banned. I think for for someone like thompson was very important. He took he took henry millers the world of sex. And sent it to norman mailer, theyd never met this was his introduction to norman miller. And you know, its a really interesting letter. Its a sort of announcement to mailer that theres this young kind of viral. Fiction writer on the rise thats how he presented himself as the person who was writing the great puerto rican novel that i get the question. Bill asks your recent nation piece referenced Hunter S Thompson comment to Angus Cameron facts are lies when theyre added up. Can you elaborate on what you think he meant by this . I think he meant that there are certain kinds of truths that fiction can get at that nonfiction cant get out certainly journalism, you know traditional journalism. Objective journalism you know, theyre gonna miss some plain truths and great example is nixon, you know. Nixon knew how to play the game. He knew the rules of ejected journalism. And so he knew how to manipulate the press corps so did his his Campaign Staffers . And thompson saw that and realized that that you would you would better get out him and his essence. By fictionalizing it not worrying about the facts. And go for the truth of him in a way that you know fiction lends itself to in a way that traditional journalism didnt and another way to put it i mean you can get more theoretical about it. I dont think that was hunters interest in it, but you know later historiographers would say just getting the facts tray is not always going to get you to the truth. You know that every every list of facts is a theory in the weak sense. So, you know they you know, thats thats at theoretical concern, but i think hunter came at it from the point of view that fiction was better at getting at this stuff. Than than traditional journalism, and i think thats what he meant. And certainly his critique and tim krauses critique. Of Campaign Journalism suggested that you know, these guys are missing the real story. The real story is about nixon and and impress wrote for Rolling Stone. Also, he wrote the boys on the bus. Right, right. So, you know, i think what you know what they added and of course they end up writing the most memorable accounts of the 1972 campaign. Again least factual and most accurate. I think tim krauses was probably more accurate. It was a more sustained look at the media and at shortcomings and blind spots. You know hunter was a little bit more intuitive about that i think but i thought he was an astute media critic. I think we have time for a couple more questions rm asks. What surprised you the most while writing this book . Yeah to i guess two things one is you know, i the letters just at the end of the day, you know, i just think its that his best stuff. You know, i i didnt expect to reach that conclusion. The other thing ive already alluded to you like to peter. Whats that . He wrote the letters to what to editors to friends too . Oh, you know he would ride him to llb, you know complaining about their latest product, but i mean it just took it to a level of art that um, oh he would write to the television station and grand junction, colorado. Tell them about the garbage that they are airing and you know hilarious really, you know letters to sonny barger, you know letters to phil graham the washington post. I mean, its just incredible how many people he wrote to and and came to know but the letters themselves are incredible so that thats one thing. I mean, id read the ladders but after you sit with them for a while you realize yeah this spot. I think he knew that too. He said it a couple times these letters might be my desktop. So that was one thing the other thing is and i had to sit with this a while too is he didnt know what he had. You know, some of the stuff was almost. Accidental some of the success that he had. You know, these were fleeting opportunities and very serendipitous just pursuing this and then even after being successfully didnt always realize that that was his future. You know that the gonzo franchise was going to be it. Heres an example. I dont think i mentioned this i should. His editor wanted him his editor and his age. Wanted him to include the las vegas material in a second book that he was supposed to give to to random house. And he said no, i dont want that stuff. Printed with my other stuff my serious stuff. It will ruin me. Itll make a fool adam. I dont want you know, thats why they thats why they called it nonfiction because he had a contract to write a book in one fiction. And thats why i came out separate. You know, and of course it became the most important thing maybe arguably that he ever wrote. But he thought you know, he thought if it wasnt handled just right that i would ruin him and he thought the same thing about the Kentucky Derby piece. I think thats really interesting. You know that a sharp guy who knew the business. You know an experienced. Season freelancer you know didnt see that path. Even as it was opening up and once he saw it, of course he couldnt walk away from it, and we i talked about that a little in the book as well. Probably should have he was encouraged to you know kind of shed the guns out thing and and start writing in another mode. But you know he it just was really hard for him having worked so hard to achieve that success. And even though the celebrity was kind of a mixed bag in many ways. You know, he couldnt he couldnt let that go. And we have time for maybe one more question anika asks, are there any future projects you hope to tackle that developed out of the work that you did for this book . Uh, you know the one word version one word answer. Yes. I think i had another idea but the more i think about it, and im getting advice including some from david that i might want to keep turning on this a little bit. And because in many ways, you know, i realized again after id finished this whole thing that the last three books on ramparts grateful dead and a hundred thompson in our kind of informal trilogy about the San Francisco counterculture of course if you if you add in the carrie mcwilliams, you know, its hes not a countercultural figure. Its more about the you know left of Center Political journalism. But some advice that ive been getting from very knowledgeable people is maybe there arent enough books about San Francisco. I mean, theres certainly a lot of good ones and davids written one of the best. Seasons of the witch but i think theres still some more here. And i think you know the fact that people have responded posi and i think, you know, the fact that people have responded positively, not just mine but david and others is a sign that there still some story, stories to tell, not just for us but for broader audiences as well. Well, we look forward to that next book, and the thing i regret the most about these Virtual Event is you cant go out for drinksri afterwards. Yeah. Salt rain p check is due to you both, david, peter. A lot of familiar faces here. I dont have time to acknowledge all of them plus a lot of new ones and thanks for coming, all. Really fun. Watch tv now on sundays on cspan2 or find it online any time at booktv. Org. Its television for serious readers. Good morning. My name is sam abrams, i am a senior fellow graph American Enterprise institute and a professor of politics and social science at Sarah Lawrence college here in new york. I would like to welcome you to the American Enterprise institute and another edward and howl enhance book forum event. Simply put, american journalism today is under attack in this age of intense polarization many major news outletss facere