| Author |
Message |
    
longfellow
Citizen
Username: Longfellow
Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |     |
Here's a little provocation for y'all...
Who will have the lasting impact? Miller, for breathtaking, human plays that often sought out the moral center of humanity....but ultimately became a purveyor of a somewhat tired and outdated realistic form...
or Hunter S. Thompson, who blasted away a fake, false and calcified form of polite journalism and injected passion, iconoclasm, and himself into the mix, influencing the media to this day....but ultimately chose to stop fighting and took the Hemingway route out...
Lest I sound too high (no pun intended) on Thompson's case, let me reiterate the brilliance of Miller, even if it was not sustained. (One can certainly argue that Thompson became a living retread.) But my question was re: lasting impact, and on that score, good neighbors.......what say you? |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 3933
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:41 pm: | |
Miller |
Dave -agent of MOL
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5421
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:09 pm: | |
You're comparing apples and hand grenades. |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 6:15 am: | |
Why can't they both have lasting impact, or neither? Maybe in 200 years, kids in school will think they hung out together. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 840
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 2:04 pm: | |
like Dave said |
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 8:47 pm: | |
Hunter was better off the draw... |
longfellow
Citizen
Username: Longfellow
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 10:31 pm: | |
Apples and hand grenades...? Love the image, but.....really? Miller had audiences shaken (not stirred) when SALESMAN first appeared; weeping in the aisles. That's grenade-ish. Did it again with Crucible--they didn't weep, but they were visibly agitated. (I can research & quote newspaper accounts if you insist.)
And if you read some of the personalized, semi-gonzo journalism of today--from New Yorker to NY Times and beyond--then Thompson's innovation has been completely mainstreamed (apple sauce).
So, I think I can legitimately (and respectfully) disagree on that descriptive. They both were both at one time or another.
As for AM and HST each leaving their mark -- well, that's interesting, Nan. But if we define 'lasting impact' has having a serious bearing on the communications crafted by their literary descendants, then we have to decide if theatre will be permanently influenced by Miller and journalism by Thompson.
None of us can answer definitively, and although my personal preference leans to HST, I think the answer may well be 'neither.' I'd still like to hear some views, though. Before they seal the time capsule... |
KingofNJ
Citizen
Username: Kingofnj
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:15 am: | |
Hunter Thompson will be remembered more. He's going to end up being celebrated like Kerouac in years to come -- cult of personality. The Gonzo legend will grow from here. Arthur Miller will always be known for "Death of a Salesman" and for Marilyn Monroe. That said, the drug-taking, gun-toting, outlaw journalist is simply a more interesting character.
During the summer of '94 I visited both Hunter Thompson and Arthur Miller at their homes. Unfortunately, if the pattern continues, Vonnegut is next.  |
D.
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5495
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 8:30 pm: | |
No one messes with a journalist who takes drugs and has dynamite. I just wish more reporters followed in his footsteps. We'd have more interesting content and less this. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page