/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5790760]

name a book that has a better narrative voice

you can't

[Anonymous No.5790764]

catcher in le rye

[Anonymous No.5790805]

>>5790764
stop perpetuating the belief that catcher in the rye isn't shit

[Anonymous No.5790891]

>>5790760

A Clockwork Orange.

[Anonymous No.5791851]

>>5790760
I read this in one breath yesterday.
It was fun and amusing, I have done hallucinogens myself so I could relate a bit.
But was there supposed to be a meaning?

[Anonymous No.5791861]

>>5791851

It had none. The book is tabloid-syndicate trash.

It tried to redeem itself with some half-assed social commentary about acid culture but it was definitely just a drug story.

>critiquing drug culture while embracing drug culture

[Anonymous No.5791891]

>>5791851
It's about the death of the 60's counter cultural movement, and effectively how shallow and vapid it became, ultimately amounting to nothing but disfunction and a certain sense of disenchantment. There's that one part where he's talking about looking at the wave crashing and washing over, which is supposed to be a reflection on the death of the counter-culture drug induced 60's era, and Thompson pretty much used that quote in any speaking on the book as a summary of it's message.

>>5790891
this

[Anonymous No.5791893]

>>5791861
well...in terms of realism it's pretty accurate most of the times but it's really exaggerated.
Fun though...pretty fun.

I'd like to believe that the point was that no matter how high you are, no matter how much drugs you have on you, if you treat it naturally you won't get in trouble.

[Anonymous No.5791947]

>>5791891
>>5791851
And to clarify, Raoul is meant to be a product of this disenchantment. His rumination on the past explains how he, and many youth of the time, were lead astray into this vapid sense of purposelessness by the sheer magnitude of influence the counter-culture movement had. Drugs became the focus, rather than more meaningful intents, and lead to a mangled nation-wide confusion that culminated into nothing.

His experience in the book is supposed to exemplify how he lacks any purpose or motivation outside of a continual pursuit of "a better high". You also see elements of the counter-culture through his contempt (and distrust) of authority and success.

[Anonymous No.5791972]

>>5791947

Look, I can get behind all of that. There's actually a lack of conversation on the negative (or more serious/meaningful) aspects of drug use (and its broader implications) in our society.

but Fear and Loathing hardly asks you to even think about it. It mostly makes you say "ooooh wow, the world is playground, all this sure sounds exciting and hip!"

It's trash. I swear he wrote it to redeem himself from a journalistic assignment, then wrote some bits of "commentary" to redeem his book from being considered junk.

[yung mugsh0t !xD22ViOgmA No.5792033]

>>5790805
catcher in the rye is a very good book.

[Anonymous No.5792075]

>>5791972
I agree with you for the most part, Thompson had a tendency to shit the bed and then try to fix it in hindsight, but you have to consider that by the time of publication Thompson was already a fairly well established author. There was clearly a merit to his work and style of writing, prior to publication of Fear and Loathing.

With respect to his writing as a whole, you can trace consistent motifs and recurring themes throughout his articles and novels. Granted, the themes were rough and still emerging, and it's evident in his earlier stuff that Thompson was obviously struggling to properly voice his critique of society. Fear and Loathing was clearly where he found his voice. The characters, the setting, the commentary, they all culminated into an embodiment of the style and messages he was always trying to achieve. Yes, it comes across as playful and ignorant, but that was simply Thompson's style of writing. He never focused on rumination too heavily, because that would be in conflict to the character he was trying to create.

As I said before, Raoul was this product of disenchantment, and because of this he was always chasing a high. He was caught up in the moment, never having time to ruminate and offer commentary, which in itself is a reflection of the drug counter-culture. The brief commentary provided, while important in summarizing thematic principles, isn't the main vehicle for the message. It's the actions of the character (how he reacts to authority, how he values morality, the emphasis on immediacy, the paranoia, etc.) that provide the characterization of how the counter-culture crippled the values of american youth.

I don't think Fear and Loathing was really meant to be a thought-provoking book, at least not externally, because to do so would be to undermine the style of writing and the purpose of characters in the novel. That doesn't mean it lacks a message, however. It's just not as apparently didactic as other books.

[Anonymous No.5792103]

>>5790760
Read FALILV some years ago, don't recall the narrator being particularly powerful.

Steppenwolf comes to mind. The narration starts off slow, sure, but half way through it's a very strong voice and the ending I thought was just magnificent.

[Anonymous No.5794214]

>>5792075
>>5791947
>>5791891
tbh I got an "american dream" vibe from this. The whole book could be summarized by him explaining their trip to the hitchhiker

"Our trip was going to be different, it was to be a classic affirmation of everything right and good in this country..."

[Anonymous No.5795391]

gonzo + nam

[Anonymous No.5795501]

Ishmael, faggot.