Search

Search only in certain items:

Hilarious, observant and inventive. (0 more)
The casual use of racist, misogynist (all the ists really) language really dates the writing. (0 more)
What's not to like (other than the casual prejudice)?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so I am one of those people who definitely saw the film before I read the book (and having now done the background reading I am even more impressed with Gilliam’s direction which uses some seriously creative camera angles to replicate the constantly expanding and contracting drug dependent points of view).
Whilst I understand that America’s post counter-culture, folksy racism/ misogyny/ homophobia [insert prejudice here] is subject to criticism by the author, there was more than one occasion where I found the discriminatory language jarringly unnecessary. It really dates the piece.
That said, on the whole, this is a really excellent read, and I was in equal parts disgusted and amused by the antics, and found myself (to some degree of shame) identifying with some of the scrapes and situations the Doctor of Journalism and his legal crony got themselves into- I mean who hasn’t found a casualty or two in their bathrooms following an impromptu house party? (Although I do wonder how events might read to those who avoided misspending their youth...)
It’s a short, pithy searing indictment of American culture, society and the tacit implication (or actually come to think of it- pretty explicit statement) that substance abuse is the only way to deal with and make sense of the chaos. So, one could argue, still pretty relevant.
Violence is frequently a first recourse, the idealisation of capitalism is metaphorically “burned to the ground” (yet antithetically also a cause for admiration) and towards the end a primate bites into an old man’s skull. What’s not to like?