SAGE ADVICE FROM MAD DOC THOMPSON
November 6th 2007 01:43
HUNTER THOMPSON ON HOW EDITORS NEED AT TIMES TO STOP BEING CONTROL FREAKS AND LET COPY FLOW
There is a growing call within the newspaper industry to heed lessons learned from the internet where liveliness and indeed even rawness of writing proves to be more reader-friendly than the 'polished' and often over-edited work appearing in traditional newsprint.
It has been argued that the culture of sub-editors who fussily cluck over journalists’ work, rendering into bland every-article-reads-the same-no-matter-who-writes-it ‘house style’ is in fact ruining the notion of entertaining, stylised reads.
Here, from the archives of literary history, is how journalist Hunter S. Thompson convinced his editor Jan Wenner that there was no need to keep reworking the text of the classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to remove its mad rawness.
Thompson’s memo reads: “The central problem here is that you’re working overtime to treat this thing as Straight or at least Responsible journalism…whereas in truth we are dealing with a classic of irresponsible gibberish.
“You’d be better off trying to make objective, chronological sense of Highway 61, The Ginger Man, Mister Tambourine or even Naked Lunch.
"I can’t work up much enthusiasm for treating Fear & Loathing like a news story. No doubt the holes and kinks should be filled, but for some reason I just can’t work up much zeal for the job. Maybe after 12 or 20 hours of sleep I might think differently, but I wouldn’t count on it.
“My general feeling is that you have a lot of more important things to concern yourself with than perfecting the chronology of Vegas/Fear & Loathing. I have the feeling that it’s a pretty fair piece of writing, as it stands, and I’ve developed a certain affection for it.
“I like the bastard. So why not get onto more important things? We have enough, and 90 percent of it is absolutely right – on its terms.
“And that, after all, is the whole point.”
There is a growing call within the newspaper industry to heed lessons learned from the internet where liveliness and indeed even rawness of writing proves to be more reader-friendly than the 'polished' and often over-edited work appearing in traditional newsprint.
It has been argued that the culture of sub-editors who fussily cluck over journalists’ work, rendering into bland every-article-reads-the same-no-matter-who-writes-it ‘house style’ is in fact ruining the notion of entertaining, stylised reads.
Thompson’s memo reads: “The central problem here is that you’re working overtime to treat this thing as Straight or at least Responsible journalism…whereas in truth we are dealing with a classic of irresponsible gibberish.
“You’d be better off trying to make objective, chronological sense of Highway 61, The Ginger Man, Mister Tambourine or even Naked Lunch.
"I can’t work up much enthusiasm for treating Fear & Loathing like a news story. No doubt the holes and kinks should be filled, but for some reason I just can’t work up much zeal for the job. Maybe after 12 or 20 hours of sleep I might think differently, but I wouldn’t count on it.
“My general feeling is that you have a lot of more important things to concern yourself with than perfecting the chronology of Vegas/Fear & Loathing. I have the feeling that it’s a pretty fair piece of writing, as it stands, and I’ve developed a certain affection for it.
“And that, after all, is the whole point.”
| 28 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
