 Let's do it. All right, let's do it. So hello everyone and welcome to the weird road to Gonzo Hunter s Thompson savage journey. Tonight we'll be hearing from author Peter Richardson and he will be interviewed by Matthew Felix. My name is Taryn Edwards and I am one of the librarians on staff at the mechanics Institute of San Francisco. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with mechanics, we are an independent membership organization that houses a wonderful library, the oldest in fact designed to serve the general public here in California. Mechanics is also a cultural event center and a world renowned chess club that is the oldest in the nation. Yes, we have two oldest in our description. So since the pandemic is wrapping up the Institute is open six days a week, and we continue to host virtual events but are gradually offering in person activities so I hope to see you there. So we are a membership organization. So I encourage you to visit us and consider whether or not you want to join membership is only $120 a year. And with that you really help support our continued contribution to the literary and cultural world of the San Francisco Bay Area. Now our guest speaker, Peter Richardson will be interviewed by Matthew Felix so let me introduce Matthew. He is an author and a podcaster and a regular speaker at the mechanics Institute. He has interviewed New York Times bestselling authors, leaders of major local organizations like lit quake and the mill valley mill valley film festival and the San Francisco writers conference. And what else is he done he also regularly speaks at mechanics and elsewhere about all kinds of subjects ranging from creativity the podcasting to marketing for authors. So I encourage you to check out his books. They are available at the mechanics Institute's library and for sale on online venues, like Amazon.com, or at your local bookstore. The book that we're going to be talking about tonight savage journey is part of the mechanics libraries collection and also available for purchase locally. We like to use Alexander book company because they are just across Market Street from us, and they can ship you books. Very quickly like faster than Amazon within 72 hours. So I encourage you to take a look at their bookshop. And let me turn it over to Matthew. Thank you both of both of you for coming and joining us today. Thank you Taryn for having us. And thanks for such a such a nice introduction. Let me now pass it, pass it forward or pay it forward as we say and let me introduce Peter. Jason has written critically acclaimed books about the grateful dead ramparts magazine and radical author and editor Kerry McWilliams. The New York Times and Mother Jones have exerted his work, and his essays have appeared in the nation, the New Republic, the San Francisco Chronicle, lit hub Guernica and lots of other places. A busy book reviewer in 2013 Peter received the National Entertainment Journalism Award for online criticism. He is a PhD in English from UC Berkeley and since 2006 he has taught courses on California culture at San Francisco State. As Taryn just said tonight we're here to talk about his new book Savage Journey Hunter s Thompson and the weird road to Gonzo, which Kirkus reviews called a lively loping study of Hunter s Thompson as literature. Welcome Peter. Thank you Matthew. So, lots of books already out there about Thompson, including some of his own, obviously. So I'm curious what was it that you felt hadn't been sufficiently explored or or touched on or addressed relative to Thompson that you thought, you know I want to I want to kind of explore that with with this new book. Right there are many biographies kind of a short shelf of biographies that are already out there they started coming out in the early 90s and I love all of them. I mean I've read them all obviously and and there's some, you know great documentary and by Alex Gibney and there's there's plenty to read if you if you want to read about Thompson. He's a writer about his life and his persona, especially and and you know it's very attractive it's what made him a celebrity really beginning in the 1970s. What we haven't seen a lot of is what he achieved as a writer. It's actually a harder sort of thing to write about than it might sound even though he was a professional writer, partly because his persona began to sort of eclipse some of his work in all of his work in the public imagination. His persona that his kind of gun totaling, gun toting rather booze, swigging, sort of raucous, wild persona was really the thing that made it hard to really go back and look at what he wrote, and he commented on that. During his lifetime he said you know it's funny almost nobody ever asked me about the right. I thought hey that's a that's an opportunity to go back it's not it's not the sexy part you know it's not the thing that the vast majority of people are drawn to, which is the kind of Gonzo persona. But I you know because of my because of the work that I've done before it was a sort of entree to that kind of question I felt like I had a running start on it so I decided, you know, I'm going to go ahead and give it a try now. That aside, I mean I do teach this material at San Francisco State University so it was a great blend with what I was already teaching. And so it just felt like hey if I'm going to do it I should do it now 50th anniversary by the way of fear and loathing the Las Vegas. By the way, perfect timing, and it might not be the sexy part but the book is is fascinating. I mean I really enjoyed reading this book and I think there's it's plenty sexy enough and it's just. I mean you just touched on so much local history as we're going to talk about and just his process and so we're going to talk about all of that but. But let's talk about the myth because like you said he himself even recognized he said in 1978 you say in your book, quote, you know the myth has taken over he said that about himself like you said so he even realized it. So what was it. Well, let's characterize the myth I mean you kind of touched on it the gun toting the alcohol but tell us a little bit more about about about the myth itself of what he came to be in that sense. We always had a huge personality and it was very charismatic guy. I mean you can go back and read about his youth and Louisville Kentucky, he comes out to California, but he's still pretty much a traditional journalist during that time. He has a lot of swagger and attitude but it's nowhere near the kind of persona that we see in the emerging in the 1970s. There were many reasons for a part of it had to do with the outlet that he was writing for most most of most of the stuff, most of the gun so journalism that he wrote. I came out from Rolling Stone magazine and Rolling Stone was created in San Francisco in 1967. It's really hard to imagine how the gun so myth would have been established without an outlet like Rolling Stone. So, there are a lot of things that went into the construction of that of that voice and that myth. And in the book and some related articles that I've sort of tried to break that down. I think it really begins to emerge I mean obviously as a big national bestseller with the with the Hells Angels with Hells Angels the book that he wrote while he was in San Francisco, right comes out just after he's moved to Colorado. But it's not gone so that's not gone so it's it's a critical and commercial success but but gone so emerges over the next four or five years. And it's almost an accident really and I hope we can have time to really explore that because it was not a conscious project. Okay, yeah and we are going to we are going to explore that. But before we move on to the myth or away from the myth. So, an aspect of that that's interesting to me is he played into it. So, later on it's sort of going to come back in a way to bite him in the sense that again it's going to overshadow part of his legacy, but for a long time he played into it. So can you speak to kind of how he did that because it was some very colorful how he played into it I mean I think there were wigs involved in some of the he was there were almost like costumes involved in addition to some of the stuff you've already talked about. Can you can you speak to sort of how he played that up as that myth started to take shape, and also how it served him, I mean because he wasn't just doing it for fun it was also serving a purpose I think at different points in his career. That's right. I mean it actually starts with the publicity for house angels. He starts being more and more performative in public and, and some of his friends like the novelist William Kennedy says what's with the get up, you know what what how did you, why are you starting down this road, but Kennedy was sharp enough to see that in fact you know the wilder and more theatrical. Thompson's life became the more he had to write about so so it's this sort of, it's a generative process that the wilder and crazier he gets in his writing, and then in his life. That's grist for his mill. It's sort of art imitating life imitating art sort of thing. And so Gonzo first new general journalism and then Gonzo becomes, you know, a kind of forum for the author really to stage himself or herself. And in a first person narration where the author is part of the story, unlike in traditional journalism. You know, that preceded Tom Wolf and Joan did again and right. Yeah, so let's, well actually before we move to that another something another aspect to this method was interesting to me and then I do want to talk about new journalism specifically. But another part of the method was interesting to me and so far as how it served him was later on, when he wasn't producing as much output, he was able to almost sort of hide behind it a little bit. Is that a correct sort of take on it. Oh I think so I mean once it took him a while to realize that the gun has gone so persona was his most valuable literary asset. Once he understands that and we're talking about 1971 1972. And once he understands that he is very reluctant to let it go, even, even though his friends are advising him, come on, you know, give it a rest. Right now, keep moving, keep moving on and, and you know I think that was hard for him, partly because even though he understood as you said that the myth was taking over in some ways and he struggled with that a little bit. Well, as a, as a freelancer for his whole career. It was really hard for him to resist the kinds of, you know, the publicity and celebrity that he got from being the, the wild crazy Gonzo journals. Right. Okay, so that's the myth, which as we said is going to overshadow the writing but let's let's now move to new journalism and and Gonzo journalism as well in the writing. But can we just sort of define just quickly you did just allude to Tom Wolf and Joan Didion. But for those who might be in attendance who might not be particularly familiar with new journalism. Can you define that because that's kind of where he's starting. Right really new journalism starts in the in the mid 1960s Tom Wolf is usually seen as the person who brings it forward. He's writing for New York elites, mostly New York magazine and other outlets in in New York City. Many of his stories are actually set on the West Coast, same with Joan Didion, who was doing very similar thing. But the main thing is the importation of literary techniques into traditional magazine journalism so that you bring in dialogue. You know, the, the, the writer becomes a character in the story it's first person narration. There's a certain kind of scene setting that you might not see in traditional journalism which was more, you know, who what when where and how, right. And so it becomes more and more literary the voice becomes more distinct and more important. And you know, I just didn't really saw that as an opportunity for him he never really wanted to be a traditional reporter. He wanted to write novels. So did Tom Wolf so did Joan Didion. So those new journalists and there were others of course are really kind of working that sort of crease between between journalism and fiction. Right. From the beginning. Right. So let's look at how he went from new journalism and sort of chart his literary formation to, to the point where he evolved sort of to Gonzo journalism. And one of the things you really highlight in your book is that and you've already touched on a little bit actually is that this was largely a San Francisco story, which of course is of much interest to us here tonight. So can you elaborate on that a little bit more I mean you mentioned Rolling Stone and we're going to talk a little bit more about Rolling Stone. Can you just kind of paint the picture for you know what's going on and again we're talking about what he says actually I got a quote here quote San Francisco was clearly and this is from him. San Francisco was clearly the best place in the world to be living to be living in those years 1960s and 1970 to be specific. My memories of life in that purist of tornadoes still cause me to babble and jabber and dance. So I love that line, obviously, but what's going on in the in that in that decade and how specifically then is it informing sort of his lit literary evolution. Right so he you know he's not from here he's from, he's from Kentucky and he sort of he joins the Air Force he moves around. He takes a job to drive a car across country, and then he hitchhikes to San Francisco in 1960. So, and the reason he does that is, is largely because he's very interested in the beats. Right. And he goes around and visits all the beach shrines city lights books and other other places. And he looks for work at the examiner and the chronicle he can't can't find a job there. And he goes down and lives in Big Sur. And that's a place where it was, especially at that time was a kind of, you know, a kind of art colony. And one of his big heroes, Henry Miller lives there but he also meets some other working writers, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of artists there and he really, it really becomes a good place for him but he wears it out very quickly. He writes something about Big Sur that is not popular locally writes it for a men's magazine it's actually his first publication in a national magazine. And you know he leaves, he leaves town and he does some some other work in South America but he returns to the Bay Area now he's married. And he, he comes to Glen Ellen which is where I'm sitting right now in Sonoma County. And, you know, nothing has really lifted off yet in San Francisco, he moves to Parnassus Avenue, 318 Parnassus in New York in San Francisco just outside of hate Ashbury. And that's when things really begin to begin to click. And he, he covers the 1964 GOP convention, he's trying to cover the Berkeley student activism. And he gets a story idea from Kerry McWilliams, editor of the nation who's another California person expert, and ends up writing about the Hells Angels, and that that's really the lift off and then shortly thereafter the hate Ashbury becomes this kind of seedbed for all kinds of other art projects and music and journalism and dance and film and so that really is his element that's where he really, you know, is formed in many ways as a writer he becomes friends with and that he's not there very long, you know, he's gone by the by fall of 1966, but those two or three years are very, very formative for him. Yeah. And one of the really formative elements that that becomes sort of a component of Gonzo journalism and like you said this actually is kind of the Hells Angels, his experience writing the article in the book for the Hells Angels actually predates what ends up becoming the Hells Angels journalism but one of the key components comes out of that experience and it's also sort of related to he was a huge critic of the media. And so related relative to the story that he's writing on the Hells Angels he says the traditional journalistic approach wasn't enough he says that instead the story, that sort of story quote, require required the kind of participatory journalism that he alone was willing and able to provide. And so the key aspect of Gonzo journalism the journals as participants, not just as ostensibly objective witness, can you elaborate on that a little bit and how the Hells Angels story kind of helped help kind of get to that place. So he gets the story idea he and through some connections he's able to kind of embed himself with the Hells Angels and ride with them for two or three weeks he files the story. So it's really popular enough for him to get some, some book contracts, and then he spends a year writing with the Hells Angels, any, any finishes the book and it becomes a bestseller. So, and it's all participatory and I think it's especially important for him because it's almost impossible to imagine. I mean, if you look at Ralph or John Diddy and embedding themselves with the Hells Angels, right, it takes a certain kind of you know physical courage and kind of brawniness and kind of thick hide to really even pull this off in the first place and he gets. He dines out on that for quite a while afterwards he gets the kind of respect that's usually reserved for war correspondence, a respect for bravery, in a way, and so that becomes an important part of his, of his cache. But that's true that's real new journalism stuff what distinguishes it from Gonzo is Gonzo essentially, instead of reporting on a story that's that's underway. Gonzo in many cases becomes a situation where Thompson shows up and creates the scene that he then reports on, you know, and that and then then the entire the universe reveals its meaning through his through his own kind of warped consciousness. And we'll talk about that when we talk about the Kentucky Derby. Yeah, but I want to ask you one more thing about his San Francisco sort of a story aspect to his background and I also want to say that we have someone I believe because we're doing the. What's it called the webinar I can't see but I think we will have someone here who actually also rode with the Hells Angels if Kate is here tonight and I'm sure she's going to have a question. But anyway, so another aspect of the San Francisco story, part of his sort of again evolution was Rolling Stone, like you said at the time Rolling Stone was actually published here in San Francisco. And one of the reasons that his success was so closely tied to Rolling Stone is because they put up with them, right, they put up with his process. And because his process was so out there I think that that's really important. Another sort of very important aspect of his of him to touch on. So can you talk about his his his process for producing for writing as a writer. Yeah, I mean, early on until fear and loving in Las Vegas, let's say, I don't think his writing was that much different. His process was that much different than a lot of writers, you know he did multiple drafts. You know he sent it to editors they gave him notes he tried to fix it. And I mean he wasn't an easy writer to work with. But that was that was the basic process. After the success of fear and loving in Las Vegas which which was published by Rolling Stone in the magazine, then it becomes a book. And he said he never rewrote he never revised a manuscript after that. And so, and this is also the part where his, his, his own personal life is becoming more and more fantastical in a way right it's just like his life is gone. Not just his writing, he's living the myth, sort of, he's living into it and he sort of sort of over time he thinks he should do that that he's expected to do that. And, and he likes the celebrity and the attention and the income and everything else, but it does begin to affect his writing process to the point where he needs greater and greater, you know, interventions of editorial talent to finish the piece. Right, and I want to get really specific with that because as a writer myself what was interesting was he's throwing it he's oftentimes it sounded as if it was somewhat dependent on where he was in his drug or alcohol or tantrum. It sounds like, you know, it varied a lot, but it oftentimes, my impression was that he's throwing these bits and pieces these unfinished pages these raw pages like you said he doesn't have to do multiple drafts lucky him. But then there are people, particularly when he's on a drug binge or an alcohol binge and staying up for days at a time and then sleeping for days at a time. They're these these these poor editors who are just they're kind of waiting and and sort of having to mimic his completely unsustainable unhealthy rhythm. And so, but what I was wondering as a writer is, well how much of it is his writing then versus if they're taking these random pages and having to organize and it seemed as if sometimes they were practically co authors. Can you speak a little bit to that I mean am I am I looking too deep there or no, but he was a superstar by then I mean you know, early on, but even early. Like with Hell's Angels, he's drinking every day. And, you know, not a little bit a lot. And, you know, you can't write drunk and so one of the things that kind of helped him finish his assignments is prescription dexadrine prescription speed. And that works for a while that even that combination works for a long time. But it stops working. And that's what happens with dexadrine you can't, you know, you, you can't sustain you know, you get immune to it. So to speak, and that's about the time that cocaine comes into his life which he had never really been big on until, let's say the early 70s, even after he does the campaign trail reporting that goes into fear and loading on the campaign trail 72 so you know, with the dexadrine he's he's basically able for as long as it works he's he's basically able to kind of to do the work that then he's a superstar. So, he can ask for insist upon more and more editorial support and they're happy to give it to him because this is a franchise right it's great for Rolling Stone it's the most popular thing that Rolling Stone publishes. And so he gets he gets a bigger break really. I mean I don't think anybody else could really get away with it right no one else was as big as he was. He's on the masthead. Yeah. Okay, so let's go back to the beginning of Gonzo journalism I just mentioned a second ago the Kentucky Derby story, which is, at least if I understood correctly in your book it's sort of considered the beginning of Gonzo journalism. And that article was called the Kentucky Derby is decadent and depraved, which is an awesome title. So how and why do we think of that as the beginning, and as part of that if you could tell us where that term Gonzo came into the picture. Sure. Let me start with the term, it's supplied by his friend Bill Cardoso who used to work for the Boston Globe it was a reaction to the Kentucky Derby piece he read it and he said this is totally Gonzo, which is a term that he that Hunter Thompson used when they were both covering the 1968 primary in New Hampshire. And he just kind of accepted that as a term and decided that was a good label for his own brand of journalism nobody else really kind of. It doesn't apply fully to really anybody else it's not the name of a genre it's really the name of a kind of specific strain of his work, starting in 1970 which is when the Kentucky Derby one comes out. The idea comes from a novelist James Salter who was living in Aspen. He invites Thompson over for a dinner party. Finds out he's from Louisville and says are you going to are you going to cover the Kentucky Derby, which is always held in Louisville every year. Thompson makes great idea. So he calls Warren Hinkle in San Francisco who's publishing the magazine scan lens monthly. And he gets the green light and he goes and and Warren Hinkle pairs him with Ralph Steadman the illustrator the British illustrator for the first time they've never met. It wasn't even Thompson's first pick it was Warren's pick. It was after Thompson's pick past. So they meet in Louisville they do the piece. He thinks it's a failure he thinks it's a brutal failure. Thompson does. He likes the illustrations. He likes Steadman's illustrations. We can work with this, especially when he sees the illustrations. Now, Thompson was tearing his hair out trying to finish it and one points reportedly he was just feeding his raw notes into a fax machine. Right, try to finish this piece and I think I, you can kind of tell what sections those are because they're jagged and fragmentary and stuff but it kind of works because his narrator is completely, you know, drunk. He's got his gourd right so the fact that he can't really perceive what's going on or or process it is sort of in keeping with it stylistically with what with what he's reporting. So it's, you know, Thompson's able to lampoon his hometown, which I think is a huge advantage you know to really know that terrain, the way he knows his hometown, and to really know its soft spots and to go directly at it like a missile. You know he gets these crazy illustrations which is indispensable part of Gonzo's success and reception. And, you know, all of a sudden you have this thing that Thompson. Oh, the other important thing is Thompson sets it against a political backdrop that that includes the Kent State killings, the bombing of Cambodia so he just mentions that it's there in the background and I get the feeling that the national political scene is even crazier than what he's reporting. Right. Right. And, and then, you know, he's got the wingman he's got the car he calls the car in this case the, the Pontiac ball buster so a lot of the elements of the, of the So, genre, the staples are sort of there in that piece. No drugs, no drugs alcohol. That's coming. But what about what about the importance of the illustrations because they're so readily identifiable, and I don't know if there are a lot of other cases where a writer particularly in journalism, whatever the genre that whatever the specific sort of journalism might be that are so closely the written word and and the visual are so closely related. Can you speak to that a little bit. I mean I can name some other examples but I don't think they're as successful as this one. And I think Thompson always understood that as soon even before he understood that his article was a success and consider to break through. And I think the work with Steadman again. You know Steadman was not kind of doing hippie illustrations. These were not the kind of psychedelic poster art kind of stuff. He wasn't that interested in that he can he comes from a different kind of tradition, but it was such a perfect counterpoint for Thompson's prose. And, you know, there was there was something about, you know, his exaggerations that were many ways, very much like Thompson's exaggerations, you know that this just kind of everything's a little bit kind of distorted and off and over the top. And, you know, so the Ralph Steadman becomes kind of part and parcel of the Gonzo project. Something I like that you said along those lines is so ostensibly the visual artist Steadman is being inspired and sort of illustrating to the words, but after a certain point. It's actually kind of a mutual inspiration Thompson is even sort of being inspired in his writing by by the art. So I love that sort of that angle on it. Yeah, I mean, you know, Tom, you know Steadman always turned his stuff right away. You know, he was ready. It was always Thompson they had to wait for and sometimes Thompson was looking at the art to try to figure out where he wanted to go with his piece. And so I mean they really there really was a team that teamwork there and Thompson understood it immediately. And he also understood that there was the potential for a franchise there. The problem was that that Hinkle's magazine went out of business before they could do another one. And, you know, so he had to table that for a little while. That's when he that's when he meets young winner strikes up a correspondence begins to submit stuff to Rolling Stone, but no Steadman illustrations. It's not until they recombine to do the Las Vegas piece that, you know, the franchise that Thompson originally imagined comes together with even more power, Kentucky Derby piece. So one thing I want to mention that I think he said around this time related to the Kentucky, Kentucky Derby piece and if any, even if he didn't, it's still relevant but I think I think this is around the same time. Because we've talked about how in new journalism in Gonzo journalism, there is a subjectivity it's no it's largely about the author's experience it's not pretending to be this again this objective traditional sort of journalism. But Thompson goes a step further, and he says quote fiction is a bridge to the truth that journalism can't reach. So it's not that he's only being subjective he's actually bringing in fiction he's bringing in stuff that isn't actually true. He's still calling it journalism, you know, or a kind of journalism. So can you speak to how he's able to marry fiction with journalism, even if he's calling it this different thing that's still kind of tricky but it's also defining, you know, definitive of his style and what he's doing so can you speak to that a little bit. Yeah, and part of it he does say that sort of early in his career right around the time of the Hell's Angels work he says it to an editor at random house. It's an unusual thing to say to your editor it wasn't his editor but it was somebody who was pitching to. And, you know, I think what he meant by that was his heroes. We're already doing you know George Orwell was already doing that. Jack London was already doing that. And others that that you can name so this idea of participatory reporting there was nothing new about it. And if it had elements of fiction in it. For the reason that the quote mentions because fiction can get at certain kinds of truths that traditional journalism couldn't get out. If you're going to just list facts, you know, without a point of view, you know if it's nobody speaking from nowhere. And there are certain truths that are not going to be available to you to you or the reader. And so he realizes that pretty early on. I mentioned already that he wanted to be a famous novelist. That was his, that was his long game. It never really happened but as William Kennedy said, of course, he, of course, he, you know, he put out fiction, you know, fear and loathing in Las Vegas was fiction. Now most of what he writes is fiction. And so and of course, you know, Kennedy was no slouch in the fiction department either. So, you know, there is a kind of a hybrid. I don't think he ever defended it as reporting. He said, I'm a writer. You know, he did think of himself as a journalist. But, you know, there was always this kind of fantastical element in much of his journalism, which is how somebody could say about one of his books that it was the least accurate. And, and say, I know the quote you're thinking of. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but it was a great quote. The least factual and most accurate exactly. That was a 1972 campaign. Yeah. But that's only if you're if you're willing to grant that there are different kinds of truths, the kind of journalism can get you to and the kind of fiction can get you to. And he combined those. I have a whole other hour dedicated to that philosophical conversation but yeah I loved that that aspect of what he's doing. Let's change gears sort of significantly. And I want to talk about a couple of a couple of themes that come up repeatedly both in his work and in your book when you're looking at his work. And that's this notion and his preoccupation and interest in the American dream that comes up a lot. So can you tell us what did the American dream mean to him. What kind of old fashioned idea about the American dream one that one that you can trace back even to the late 18th century. And the fact that he grew up in in Kentucky I think makes somebody like Thomas Jefferson a major figure in thinking about what the what the American dream was, and the idea and it was very popular in the 1950s it was made popular by an American historian named Richard Hofstadter, who wrote an essay called the myth of the happy yeoman. Long story short. You know, Jefferson thought that the best way forward for America was to have a kind of Republic of small farmers, essentially who are independent, you know who's who were economically independent in some ways, and who had this kind of civic virtue that Thomas Jefferson thought farmers that of course Jefferson himself was a was a planter. You didn't want sort of urban sophisticates and you didn't want, you know, a kind of political class, making those making those calls you know and, and, and of course you know, the American history never matched that's that description. It was always a myth. And never, it never described the situation on the ground, but it's a it's still a very attractive myth in American culture to this day, people really want to feel like they're economically independent, even though we're more urbanized or unionized corporate corporations are more powerful, we're more mechanized industrialized all that. So, but he, he was very much a believer in that version of the American dream. Now Hollywood had another American dream that sold but I think that was Thompson's version. So he was also interested in in addition to that sort of nostalgic American American dream and that version of it. He was also very interested and maybe concerned with the dark side of the American dream. And there was one figure in particular, who embodied that for him and then who also became sort of an adversary and responsible for a lot of what he ends up writing about for quite a while. Can you can you speak to who that is and why that political figure was so significant to him. Yeah, I'm guessing you're thinking of Richard Nixon. Yes, you get an A. Yes, the professor gets the A. Yes. Well one of his, one of Thompson's biographers William McKean pointed out that really, you know Nixon was was Thompson's muse. I mean Nixon had a way of drawing out some of some of Thompson's most intense and lyrical even but dark language and this kind of dark register. And he really hated Richard Nixon, not a lot of people did. But Thompson had a way of going after, after Nixon, that most journalists were they were not ready to go there. There were plenty of journalists Kerry McWilliams was one who was forever critical of Richard Nixon was forever pointing out what Nixon was up to. Nixon continued to win elections he went to presidential elections and top, you know, rather McWilliams couldn't figure it out. It didn't matter to Thompson Thompson's point was, I'm going after this guy, you know, it's, he is, he's everything that's rotten about this country. And I'm going to expose him and I'm not going to stick to objective journalism to do it. It's going to be personal, it's going to be this use of invective, which he was quite good at it was going to be satire, which he was really good at, it was going to be hyperbole and which he was awesome at. So, you know, he took all of these tools that he had as a writer, and he just directed them at Nixon mercilessly. And really, you know, when Nixon's president went presidency went down in flames. It was a little bit tougher Thompson right now I don't think he ever hated anyone quite the way he hated Nixon. And when you when you when you describe Nixon as a werewolf. What do you say about Ronald Reagan, you know, so the hyperbole in some ways he left himself less running when going forward because he you know he just went after Nixon so intensively. It wasn't clear, you know, how you could change gears or where I go from here. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so that's, that's some about his writing I mean, like I told you before we started the event I mean I easily could have I had like two or three hours of questions it was it was very difficult for me to shave it all down because you did so much I mean there's so much in this book and I highly recommend this book because I learned so much was just fascinating. But so I want to transition now back out of the writing and back to this notion of the method over taking the writing right because we talked about here's the method starting to take shape. What is it overshadowing we just talked about what it his career. Now I want to go back to to it. It's starting to actually overshadow and there's a there's a great quote in your book that sort of illustrates this you say quote. Like Jack London Thompson would soon come to believe that his biggest asset was the character he had built up his persona, which was fixed to the new genre he was creating became his most valuable asset. Indeed, it would eventually eclipse his literary output and out loud out outlast his most productive period. Then in the Amazon description notes you say quote 50 years after the publication of fear and loathing in Las Vegas and more than a decade after his death. Thompson celebrity continues to obscure his literary achievement. So I'm just curious. We've talked about how the myth came to be. But do we have a sense for sort of at what point in his career that that that that eclipse starts to take place. And yeah, can you you're not in your head yes or yes just so can you I think so I think a little bit about that. Yeah, yeah, I think it's I think it's in the mid 70s. You know his for reasons that we discussed earlier you know his ability to sit down and really focus on a piece was was declining his his XY pointed that out actually. You know he blew some big assignments during that during that time, you know he goes to Africa to report on the George Foreman Muhammad Ali fight and doesn't even attend the fight and doesn't turn in any copy. So that's, you know, there's some real red flags happening around them. It's also around that time that Gary Trudeau introduced I was just going to say this. Yes. Yeah, I love this part. He didn't, but I do. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, no he didn't like it at all but Gary Trudeau introduces a character called Uncle Duke into the comic. The political cartoon, doomspring any wins. He wins a Pulitzer for that in 1975 I think so it's right around that time that his fame is is now going viral, let's say, you know that he's, I mean, you know, also around that time he's got some film rights for fear and loathing in Las Vegas. And there's there's some delays because he's quarreling with Oscar Costa who felt like he deserves some of the some of the film rights for that for that work. But he does sell them and it produces one film and then that there would later be another one with Johnny Depp both of them based one loosely on fear and loathing in Las Vegas. And that's what people find out about Hunter Thompson from the movies. You know, I mean, I mean, as Bill McKean said also Thompson becomes the favorite writer for a lot of people who don't read. Right, that was another great quote in your book. Yes. Yeah, so it's all sort of got got fantastic sizing and you know a rolling stone and young winner to his credit, I guess, is really on making Thompson a celebrity in a way. And, and you know he's starting to get visits from, you know, Keith Richards and you know famous actors and he's running this kind of clubhouse up in the, up in his. Yeah, in Colorado so, you know, he, you know people are making movies about him documentary movies and, and he's one of the most photographed people I think I've ever seen, certainly in the most photographed author. And, you know, so all of this is is turning into something much larger, even then his work. The work becomes, you know, more book based, you know the journalism, he really doesn't write that much for rolling stone over. There's a big falling out about a story that he was supposed to do about Vietnam rolling stone, send him to Vietnam. He doesn't really come back with that story either there's a lot of finger pointing. And so, you know, he has to seek out new outlets which he does, but more and more the books become his major source of revenue and the college lectures, and the college lectures also feed the celebrity. And he goes back to see Raoul Duke, his alter ego and he knows that and he gets paid 20,000 bucks for every one of those events and he doesn't give a speech. I'd be raw juice for $20,000 an event. Yeah, but let's talk about his legacy because we are sort of coming to the end and I do want to leave time for questions, but given that one of the main purposes or the main purpose of your book was to help bring shed light on his legacy and on his literary achievement and not just the celebrity. How would you at a high level. I mean again this this could be another hour long conversation but at a high level how would you summarize that those literary achievements that we want him to be known for ideally. Well, I think he I don't think he maximized his potential I'm not going to put him at the, at the first rank of American writers what I what I do say in the book is I think he developed the most distinctive American voice in the second half of the 20th century. I mean when you're reading Thompson, you know you're reading Thompson. Now there are some competitors I think John Didion might be one. Maybe Tom Wolf but I think Didion's even even more notable. But I, you know I think we can, you know, support that claim with with plenty of evidence. I also think that that his political stuff though it seemed hyperbolic at the time it was hyperbolic, but it turns out to be quite prophetic. He's a political genius I don't think he was a deep political thinker. But when you go back and read his political stuff and his stuff on the media, I think he was a very astute media critic as well. It holds up extremely well. And so I think there are little areas like that where you have to, you have to give him credit. Other parts of his writing have not aged well. And I try to bring those out in the book as well. Right. But I don't think he's the sort of guy that you can, that you can dismiss because of his shortcomings. I think you know generations of people are going to be rediscovering him because of that voice. And so I think that's a literary achievement in and of itself, even though I don't think he really knows everything that he could have given the given the talent that he had. Yeah. Two last quick questions. One is his his archives are in private hands. And so for anyone who's interested in him and researching him that's that's a huge problem I can't remember if you said 800 boxes. I can't remember. There's a lot of archives that that we don't have access to so I'm just curious for someone such as yourself who has spent so much time researching him. Are there just a couple of high level questions that you would just love to get answered, or do you have any suspicions of what might be there I mean is there something in particular you would be looking for. Or is it just sort of supplemental information that would be interesting. Well it's really the letters after 1975. So there's two volumes of edited correspondence that I love I think it's the best stuff that Thompson ever did. And I think he thought that too. I think a lot of aficionados think that so some people prefer the the letters to anything that he wrote for money. And, and I think that goes back to an earlier point that we made that even though you know his literary powers were declining, beginning in the mid in the mid 1970s if you want to see what his voice sounded like you can always go to the editors, no editors, you know, no haggling, no deadlines, that's that's what he wrote like that's what he sounded like so. So I, you know, and then also there was supposed to be a third volume of correspondence. It has a title, it has a cover. It has an ISBN number and it never appeared so I'd like to know why. And nobody's talking about that. Yeah. And I'm not sure that those archives will never be made public. I think there's a chance that they will be that they'll, you know, it's possible that they'll be sold to to a research library or something like that. But it is true that a consortium bought and continues to hold that the consortium includes Johnny Depp, who also paid for Thompson's funeral. You know, I think there, there is a way that's being very tightly controlled right now. That's not impressed and William Burroughs papers are in a similar situation but it gets it's really hard to to do the kind of research that people like to do if you don't have access to those archives and he was a pack rat. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff to look through. So it's very you know, drives us crazy. I'm sure it does. I'm sure it does. Okay, last question because we do only have 10 minutes and I really do want to leave time for Q&A. But you say in the book quote in 1996 the modern library republished fear and loathing in Las Vegas, which quote literally placed Thompson between Jonathan Jonathan Swift and Henry David Thoreau on the roster of modern library authors and there's some comparisons to Twain in your book. And again, the purpose of this undertaking was to shine a light on his literary achievements. And I know 1996 was obviously quite a while ago, but I am just curious. Do you think we're at a place where he's starting to get that sort of attention, or not really are you doing this or a little of both? A little of both. You know, I think that that he still has readers. And, you know, not just general readers but people who really are amazed by his virtuosity. And, and you know, that that's the thing that that's the trade off in my book is wasn't really his virtue, his personal virtue that attracted me to him. It was his, it was this literary virtuosity. And I think other people see that too. I mean, anytime anytime you have a humorous to stuff holds up well over 50 years. I think that's, that's notable. Absolutely. And, you know, like I say, some of some of it doesn't. But you know, a lot of people you read you read his letters or you read his most famous books, Hell's Angels, Fear and Loathing Las Vegas, Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail 72. And you're like, Wow, you know 50 years old, it's journalism technically, and it's still holding up. That's rare. Thank you very much, Peter. Let's go ahead and open it up into Q&A. But I just want to yeah just encourage everyone again. Bookshop.org Amazon.com Taren can. What's the name of the local bookstore that you mentioned. Alexander Alexander Alexander book company. Please, Peter and any other place that you want to mention you have a website or anything like that that you want to point people to. I don't have a website but but you know I think I think the book is the thing I want people to focus on. Yeah. All right, so go find the book. And Taren do we have do we have any questions. Yes we do. Let's see. Kate has a question. Kate Farrell. Kate, would you like to ask your question directly. Come on down Kate. I'm going to mute on video. Okay, I just unmuted. Can we hear you. Okay, so, you know, I, I was in San Francisco in my 20s, all during the 60s. And it really was ground zero for so many things that intersected. You know the literary community, Hell's Angels beats hippies jazz, you know acid rock. You know, I, I felt it was very easy to jump from one to the other, even me. And so I know that the Hell's Angels were very tough, but, but you could talk to these guys. And I had a boyfriend who rode with him, Oakland Hills. I'm wondering how much influence the those guys in the mid 60s have on the formation of Hunter Thompson's persona, because that's his asset, and I wonder if he really rub shoulders with these guys. And developed a strength of aggression character. And out you, you know, you call them savage. And they could certainly be that. I think he had some of those characteristics even before he met the Hell's Angels and that that that was that enabled him to do the story in the first place. But I do think he learned a lot from being around the Hell's Angels who weren't who weren't terrible at promoting themselves they had some some ways of getting into the news, not all of them putting that put them in a good light. But I think that I think that experience of covering the Hell's Angels was really, really did change him as a writer. He never had a super high opinion of human nature. And I don't think anything in the Hell's Angels, you know, persuaded him to raise his appraisal of people in general. I think that the that the Hell's Angels project had many things in in in common with what the hippies were up to. Thompson was no flower child either. So he was some sort of like, you know, missing link, maybe between between the Hell's Angels and the hippies and of course he introduces the Hell's Angels to Keesey. And that becomes part of the Grateful Dead's community. And so, you know, you're right, everything was kind of blending together that way. Right. And I think, you know, and just as a coda to that. It's really the Hell's Angels that introduced Thompson to Rolling Stones so Rolling Stones starts in 67. But it's not until they cover Altamont in 19. Altamont happens in December of 1969. So Thompson writes to Jan Wenner and says, I love the Altamont coverage. And he loved it in part because, you know, it didn't sort of gild the lily when it came to the to the to the Hell's Angels. You know, Thompson knew that what they were capable of. And they showed some of that at Altamont and he commended Rolling Stone for covering it the way that they did. And that's when Jan Wenner invites Thompson to start submitting his stuff to Rolling Stone, which he really needed. I mean, that's when that's when Warren Hinkle's magazine went down in flames. That's amazing. Really those connections that took place in the mid, you know, in the mid 60s between literary journalism, counterculture, you know, the values, the characters, the personas that were really bumping into each other. That's right. And that's what was so formative I think for Thompson, even though he leaves, he continues to work with San Francisco editors and San Francisco outlets, most notably Wenner and Hinkle. And I mean he takes a little bit of San Francisco to him and of course there's a whole hippie scene in Aspen as well that he that he hurls himself into he runs for sheriff, you know, and all that too but but the San Francisco piece I think that that's the DNA for him as a writer. All right, we have a question from Greg. Greg, would you like to ask that directly. Let me see. Yeah, hi, thanks. Peter. Thank you so much for being here. You touched upon this, his relationship with Ralph Steadman. I just wanted wanted to know how much more you go into that in his book not so much sort of the, the wingman, you know, relationship but but the creative that he had I would really like to hear some more about that if you don't mind. It really was creative and generative like we were saying earlier I mean there were ways in which Thompson was was his writing was responding to, to Steadman's illustrations. And you know Steadman, and it went the other way to Thompson said that he put Steadman in extreme situations to see how how Steadman reacted to them. And then he went to Kentucky Derby. Steadman doesn't go to Las Vegas of course he famous Thompson famously goes with Oscar Costa, the Chicano activist attorney to Las Vegas so he does Steadman does do the illustrations for the book. But when they're together. There's really a kind of synergy there that leads to some of their best work and then later when people say you know how do we get something out of Hunter, you know it's getting harder and harder to get him to produce. You know, you know, Jan when I would say find it find a good bar put him near put him near the bar. Get Ralph Steadman involved. You know, that's when he's going to do his best work. And there were, you know you have to do meet all of his other demands, but Thompson's that is, but the Steadman part of it was very, very important and and you know Steadman felt tested and, you know, put upon at different times. But I think I think in a way there was something about that chemistry that really did bring out both of their best work. And then, together, it was very memorable you can't overlook it's so easy to do, especially if you're writing a book, you can't overlook Steadman's contribution to Gonzo. Thompson got help from a lot of other people, but I don't think anybody was more important than Ralph Steadman. Well, thank you. Let's see we have a question about writing from Bob. Yeah. So, you mentioned his correspondence. It seems to me that the correspondence is really a huge part of his actual writing. Can you comment on how that differed from his Gonzo journalism and his, his Gonzo novels. Yeah, I mean, you know the obviously you know he was using his correspondence for a lot of other things besides self expression, or, or getting paid, you know he didn't get paid for his letters, although, you know, many people did run his letters a lot of editors just when they got a letter from God, this is so good we're going to run this. Now that happened more than once. But I mean the thing about it was, he used his letters also to kind of build and maintain his literary network, don't forget he's out in the Rocky Mountains somewhere. That's not where the publishing business is publishing businesses in New York City. And you know so he has to, he has to figure out a way to kind of keep his project going even though he's not, he's living thousands of miles away from the closest literary capital so a lot of a lot of the letters have to do with, you know, that part of his enterprise and he never did that, you know when he lived in Big Sur. I mean how do you stay on people's radar when you're at some kind of remote outpost. And so Thompson had that problem as well. But I think it also was a way he felt free, he felt freer there he didn't get blocked you know he could just let it fly in the letters and you know he wasn't haggling and he wasn't dealing with editors and he wrote when he wanted to write and a lot of times it was very early morning hours. You know he had a whole day got up late. You know he had a bunch of stuff that he did with his friends and I go for a swim at midnight, usually, and then he'd come back. And then he'd stay up all night many times and a lot of times he would make phone calls, people did to friends, you know, three o'clock in the morning. Sometimes he wrote letters to friends and you know people that he was pitching ideas to. And it just there's something about it I can't, I'm not sure I can put my finger on it quickly but some of them are so funny, but he could also import tune kind of beg a little bit. You know, he could threaten people which he did a lot. And, you know, it was sometimes ingest, you know, sometimes maybe it seemed kind of serious because he would do it to people he didn't know very well. But sometimes they're, it's just hilarious. You know, I'm thinking of the letters that he wrote to Larry O'Brien who was the head of the Democratic Party at the time. And Thompson offered his services to be governor of Samoa. That's, and he went out and bought some suits, you know, I'm ready, I've got the suits. I'm ready to become governor of Samoa. And, you know, O'Brien kind of went along with it for a little while and then gave up and then, then the letters become more and more menacing and you know he's ridiculing O'Brien, which is interesting kind of position for someone like him to take. Why would you, why would you go so far out of your way to aggravate, you know, an important American, you know, person in the Democratic Party? Because he bought the suits. He had the suits and he felt like he got burned on the suits. So, but he would do that he would he would engage people in that way in a kind of a super aggressive way. And so you see that too. And you're just thinking, what is this guy doing? What's his, what's, what's he up to here? So I just, I just personally, and I'm not alone, I find the letters really incredible. Do you think he actually published the, wrote these with an intent to publish them later? He kept them. Yeah, he kept them and they go back to when he was 10-12 years old. So he must have known there was, you know, there was going to be some sort of audience for them. He kept carbons. And, you know, and he kept everything. George Washington did too. Oh, interesting. So I think he had an idea that, you know, that someone that there was going to be an audience for this someday. He was so pleased when Douglas Brinkley edited them, and they were well reviewed in the late 90s when his own efforts were flagging. You know, his letters were getting a lot of critical acclaim. And that really made him feel good. It was right around the time that modern library reissued. Fair and lowly in Las Vegas and Las Vegas movie came out. And so he was experiencing a kind of rise in his critical fortunes, even though his own new writing was flagging and but I think the letters were a very important part of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And then I'd like to have miles speak because he has a nice comment. Let me see if he's willing to say hello. Miles, did you want to talk directly to Peter? If so unmute there we go. Yeah, this is miles. Yeah, I just I read the book. And I went across it by accident in the bookstore and just said, oh, and then halfway through reading. There was a sort of English phrase used and I said where's this guy from and I looked and I'm like, I had dinner with this fellow once. And yeah, I just wanted to say hi we once had dinner agenda Macintosh's house and you gave me a copy of your Gary McWilliams book. So anyway, just as my notes as I just wanted to say keep up the good work. Thank you so much, Miles. I really miss Janet, but so why. Yeah. That's really that's really cool. Yeah, that that that must have been a little while ago and and it's been a long journey since but but I really appreciate it and I really appreciate people, you know, going out and looking at the book and if you like it and right and want to write a review on Amazon, even better. Already. Yeah, I mean the McWilliams book was really the first of these and kind of one thing led to another ramparts book came next and the Grateful Dead, and, and then the, and now Hunter Thompson and so question now is, you know, another San Francisco book, I mean there's been three, three on political journalism and three on kind of informal trilogy in a way on the San Francisco counterculture. And, you know, it's, I'm not, I'm not sure if if the world needs another book in that area, some people tell me it does and so I'm still trying to decide what to do next but it did all start with that Karen McWilliams book. And, and then the teaching that I've done at San Francisco State. I could audit the class but sounds great. I know coyotes books pretty definitive on the diggers but maybe an outside perspective wouldn't hurt, you know, what a good one Peter coyotes sleeping where I fall really really great book and, and there are others, I mean, you know, I also want to write about Los Angeles but what an editor that I really respects that there's a lot of good books on Los Angeles. Yeah, Mike Davis but I don't know man I love your perspective so anyway, let's stay high and thank you. Thank you Miles. Thanks for timing in. Yeah, take care. All right one last question aimed for the writers in our attendee list, because this event was co sponsored by the San Francisco writers conference. Do you have any quick advice that you can share to help our nonfiction writers plow through their work as quickly as you do. Wow, I don't know if I have any general advice, I mean, it might be, you know, find another racket, you know, but it's kind of hard to say it at that at this point. I mean, my life is me. Usually write a full of tips. Yeah, I continue to think that that there's a lot more to say about what I write about, you know, the San Francisco, you know, the San Francisco counterculture. I mean I think that if you want to write about that there's there's still a lot of work to do. And a lot of it has, and you know, between the Grateful Dead book and Thompson book, everybody's a lot of people have heard of the Grateful Dead and Hunter Thompson. It's a way that they, they turned into stereotypes or two dimensional cartoons. And I think it's, you know, you don't want that, you know, especially if you teach that material like I do you want, you want to go back and look harder. And you also want to see where it's gone, you know, over time, you know, we, in our racket we call it the long 60s, you know, what, what did this, what sort of played out in subsequent years. And there's still plenty of stuff to do there. If that's on anybody's radar now. I mean, you know, if we don't do it. I'm thinking of the San Francisco Writers Conference right now, there's plenty of things to write about whatever you want to write about is what you should write about. In fact, it should be super important to you because it's a very difficult process to finish. If you're not very fired up about about your topic. I would say that, you know, there's a lot of San Francisco stories that because publishing is basically still in New York business. We have to tell those stories, you know, other people are not going to tell them, or tell them the way we would tell them. So, you know, I wouldn't, I would encourage that kind of work if you're attracted to it. But if you agree, there really is a, a dearth of material on San Francisco personalities, and I find that interesting. Yeah, I mean we're starting to see more books about tech, and I think the San Francisco writers bring bring, you know, a point of view that that's going to be different from from writers from from other areas, and I think that's a plus. I'm not planning to do that, but I teach that material. And I can tell you that I think we have we can bring something new to that conversation that will be overlooked by others. What a great note to end on. I'm really feeling my my San Francisco Bay Area roots here right now and I'm fired up. Thank you so much both of you for turning out and just really having a riveting conversation. Thanks for having. Thank you chair and thank you mechanics thanks for everybody thanks Peter, of course, thank you. Thank you Matthew. All right everyone have a nice evening and I will share the video of this with you later in the week. Thank you so much. All right, have a good night.