Scan barcode
jerrica's review against another edition
5.0
One of my favorite ways to learn -- through laughter. Parts of this book had me CACKLING. I'm talking deep belly laughs that have the potential to suffocate.
I did not know anything about the 1972 Presidential campaign when I picked up this book, but Thompson's take is lucid, hilarious, and strangely prescient for the politics of today.
I did not know anything about the 1972 Presidential campaign when I picked up this book, but Thompson's take is lucid, hilarious, and strangely prescient for the politics of today.
big_dub_dostoevsky's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
informative
5.0
Extremely entertaining book on politics. Extremely funny and also a bit.
Holds up fine as you can see parallels with politics today and probably for ever. Refreshing way to read about politics because you don’t typically see reporters referring to candidates as scum, yet it still seemed less biased than lots of journalism out there.
Holds up fine as you can see parallels with politics today and probably for ever. Refreshing way to read about politics because you don’t typically see reporters referring to candidates as scum, yet it still seemed less biased than lots of journalism out there.
valentipeter's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
cellardour's review against another edition
5.0
I'm disappointed in myself that it took me this long to get into Hunter S. Thompson. He's a real all-American bastard, and hilarious. I also suspect we share some anxiety issues and coping mechanisms that I find touchingly sympathetic. I listened to the audiobook narrated by Scott Sowers and I think thanks to this book I'm going to have a whole-ass Hunter S. Thompson phase. I've already started Hell's Angels.
I decided to do this book first (rather than the more obvious and famous F&L in Las Vegas) because I heard some discourse back in 2016 that there are some strange, poignant parallels between the election of that year and the one from 1972. History did not repeat itself, but there were a few moments and observations from Thompson that were weirdly prophetic - he basically predicted the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. And his analysis of the voting populations rang true up, and remains accurate through the present. George McGovern denied having changed his campaign once he won the nomination, but Thompson was right that he absolutely did, and McGovern probably never had a chance in the first place. He at least might have had a less humiliating defeat if he hadn't turned corporate and tried to appeal to the old Democratic base he defeated rather than stay true to his "Politics of Love." The hippie years were a trip, man.
I was also surprised at how seriously Thompson took himself as a writer and a journalist most of the time. Having watched the Johnny Depp movie and knowing the general motifs of Rolling Stone, I took him to be a bit more of a comic, perpetually stoned fuck-up than he actually was. Further more, I've made it known to anyone who brings up the topic that I despise overly-masculine writing. Authors like John Steinbeck and Ernest Hemingway both piss me off and bore the hell out of me, and for a long time I was told (and I believed) it was due to some latent misandry on my part. Well, Hunter S. Thompson is even more of a macho, misogynist, bigoted asshole than both those boys put together and I love him for it. I think the difference isn't actually in the masculinity of the writers, but instead in the stoic, largely emotionless, and minimalist style of the former two compared to the highly descriptive, emotionally charged, unique, and witty approach of the latter. Granted, the main emotions Thompson describes are disgust and anger. But he portrays himself as a main character with emotional range and nuance that was probably part of the rebellion against tradition that characterized the 60s, which Hunter was clearly formed by. Given that the former two were decades older, perhaps it's merely a generational issue.
Overall, highly enjoyable. I could listen to Scott Sowers call people pigs and assholes all day.
I decided to do this book first (rather than the more obvious and famous F&L in Las Vegas) because I heard some discourse back in 2016 that there are some strange, poignant parallels between the election of that year and the one from 1972. History did not repeat itself, but there were a few moments and observations from Thompson that were weirdly prophetic - he basically predicted the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. And his analysis of the voting populations rang true up, and remains accurate through the present. George McGovern denied having changed his campaign once he won the nomination, but Thompson was right that he absolutely did, and McGovern probably never had a chance in the first place. He at least might have had a less humiliating defeat if he hadn't turned corporate and tried to appeal to the old Democratic base he defeated rather than stay true to his "Politics of Love." The hippie years were a trip, man.
I was also surprised at how seriously Thompson took himself as a writer and a journalist most of the time. Having watched the Johnny Depp movie and knowing the general motifs of Rolling Stone, I took him to be a bit more of a comic, perpetually stoned fuck-up than he actually was. Further more, I've made it known to anyone who brings up the topic that I despise overly-masculine writing. Authors like John Steinbeck and Ernest Hemingway both piss me off and bore the hell out of me, and for a long time I was told (and I believed) it was due to some latent misandry on my part. Well, Hunter S. Thompson is even more of a macho, misogynist, bigoted asshole than both those boys put together and I love him for it. I think the difference isn't actually in the masculinity of the writers, but instead in the stoic, largely emotionless, and minimalist style of the former two compared to the highly descriptive, emotionally charged, unique, and witty approach of the latter. Granted, the main emotions Thompson describes are disgust and anger. But he portrays himself as a main character with emotional range and nuance that was probably part of the rebellion against tradition that characterized the 60s, which Hunter was clearly formed by. Given that the former two were decades older, perhaps it's merely a generational issue.
Overall, highly enjoyable. I could listen to Scott Sowers call people pigs and assholes all day.
andyagv's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
funny
informative
reflective
sad
tense
fast-paced
5.0
janthonytucson's review against another edition
5.0
This is the 1st Hunter S Thompson book I have read, and god damn what an amazing read. Hunter's insight into our political system from 1972 have so many parallels to 2016-17 it is a bit depressing to realize as a culture we have virtually had no growth in the last 45 years.