enabled so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. i'm cast, along these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. book tv, every sunday on cspan2 features leading authors, discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 3:30 p.m. eastern emergency room doctor thomas fisher gives insight into providing patient care during the covid 19 pandemic. and the challenges navigating the american healthcare system with his book the emergency. a year of healing and heartbreak in the chicago er. 8:00 p.m. eastern afghanistan war veteran jason shares his book invisible storm describing living with ptsd and how it affected his run for mayor of kansas city in 2018. watch book tv every sunday on cspan2 and find a full schedule on your program guide. or watch online anytime, apple

tv.org. >> tonight we are celebrating master journalism hunter thompson at the launch of a new book by peter richardson it is s tile the savage journey thompson and the weird road to gonzo's published reference at university of california press. focusing on hunter thompson's influence influence, development and unique model of authorship. thompson's literary formation was largely a san francisco story. and indeed those of us across see impastoto the barrier. thompson was a regular at the café just across the street from city lights we see him on a pretty regular basis. his life is intertwined with culture also seen walking down s the street the owner, he's done

a stellar job piecing together the trace elements of thompson's literary influences and compelling read. grace our halls, he has written critically acclaimed books about the iconic band the grateful dead. rampart magazine, legendary muckraking magazine and carey mcwilliams the radical author, n journalist and editor of the nation magazine. he's on be joined tonight by none other than david talbot. i can't think of anyone better to be doing the honors. david is the esteemed author of popular history books and the founder original editor in chief of salon magazine. former senior editor of miller jones magazine, he has it journalist, a columnist concert for the new yorker, times, "rolling stone", guardian much, much more. he is of course legendary san francisco chronicle bestseller for many years. his most recent book is titled by the light of burning juicy triumphs and tragedies on the second americaned revolution of co-authored with his sister so

david is a neighbor of ours at city lights is officer just on the street from us. you can easily say it's all in the family tonight. please join us now giving a warm welcome to our evening guest, peter richardson, david it is a great pleasure to have you both gracing our virtual halls. welcome to city lights live. >> thank you peter. we have peter richardson, peter maverick from cityit lights. and it is a great honor for me too be here with the author of savage journey. i'm very pleased to be here tonight. i have been a big fan of peters for some time now. i read with great interest his history of rampart magazine which played a big role in my development as a young journalist. and hunter thompson did too, i have to say. i first read hunter thompson when i was a student at santa cruz back in the early 1970s.

his fear and loathing of las vegas then later his coverage of the 1972 presidential campaign had a huge impact on me as a young journalist. so i read with great interest new book. i knew hunter a little bit myself later on as a san francisco examiner. i actually have the great pleasure of editing a couple columns bite hunter thompson was late in his career of course. but to me he was an icon, still is an icon. he had a huge impact on me and many other young writers and journalists in america. so i am delighted to be here tonight with peter. i will jump inhe with a few questions and then we are going to open it up i think and take questions from some of you peter will help out there. good to see you, you look like

you are in woody creek colorado, where are you? >> in action glen allen which is not far from where you are. but it is another spot were hunter thompson lived briefly before he decamped for colorado. actually, before he moved to san francisco. >> let's talk about enter san francisco roots. since are beingng sponsored tonight by the iconic city lights bookstore in north beach, let's talk about what drewy hunter back to san francisco back in what, in the early 60s what are we talking about? 1960 and hitchhiked prevent a rental car across countries and dropped it off drew him here was a place like city lights w book.

in terms of a new kind of writing. not only published by a major publisher but to become a publishing phenomena. he was fairly strongly attracted to san francisco. wanted to learn more about it. he was out of the air force and had written for some newspapers. and when he arrived in san francisco he applied for work at the san francisco chronicle in san francisco examiner previously. he almost immediately decamped to big sur which was a another outpost and also the home of henryy miller who was one of his real heroes. but the original was an impulse which had not quite crested yet but was starting to give way

already. neil cassidy would go to san quentin and would move back east and would move away as well. but for what they accomplishable there in san francisco was very important to hunter thompson. quick since you did right a great book about ramparts, very important magazine to the area journalistic figures, heroes of mine, your book was fascinating. that was also a very important magazine in those years early on wasn't it? >> yes it was.ls more after he had written -- mike right around the time he published hells angels that was a very important magazine for him. and that was a very important kind of social nexus for him. he never published anything and rampart but he thought very strongly connected.

it's worth noting he worked at city lights books for three years, right around the time he was starting with ramparts. it had not even begun really went hunter thompson arrived in san francisco and began as a literary cordray 1962. warren hinkle takes over as editor and brings the magazine to san francisco. it becomes a legendary san francisco muckraker that we know today. >> hunter could've really developed the way he did as a journalist anywhere else in the country or was there something something in particular in the 1960s it was more open to his style of writing? >> i do not think there's any doubt i don't think he could have done in new york he

certainly could not have done it in louisville or aspen or chicago or boston. not only that i don't think he could have done in san francisco ten years before or ten years later. i think he needed to be in san francisco right when he was in san francisco. he acknowledged that too. much later in life here in las vegas he talks about san francisco. as a peak era. and then later on in life of course he comes back and works in san francisco in the 1980s. even much later than that looking back he said those are my people. mid- 1960s in san francisco, those really formative for him. that is one of the arguments i want to make in theve book is tt even though he lives in woody creek, colorado for four decades after that, i think in many ways he's at best seen.

>> talk about hunter during that. what is he absorbing? what is he learning? how is he growing as a writer h during that period? >> he had moved it down. he went from big sur up to here where i am, glen allen not far from here. that did not work out very well. he moved to 318 parnassus avenue in san francisco near uc san francisco. it is not really cutea out for urban living. he would rather live in these places like big sur, i think it's important he did come into the city during that time. he was the writing dow jones publication at the time. he is not really thriving there.

he attended the gop convention in san francisco. and learn some things there. that was kind of an important lessonon for havoc the modern conservative movement. he is not into politics at that time. in short order he was trying do it tom wolfe was doing and back east and turn them into stories for big national magazines. >> unlike tom wolfe as someone who got a lot of credit for very little is more of a dandy i think. not stumped by the hells angels. he did not generate the story.

he left national observer broke off his relationship. he was always a freelancer but that was his main outlet. he left a query letter on paid $100 for an article. they barely pay more than that now. he was trying to make a living as a freelancer and he said i y will take whatever you have. he said why don't you write about the motorcycle because the california state attorney general had just issued a report on them as a threat to law and order. he said great, you are right. he went straight to one of their meetings. he had kind of afe buffer, berne jarvis was a crime reporter for "the san francisco chronicle" and a member of the hells angels. until he had an entrée was all

participatory reporting. not very many, many people could do that. i don't think tom wolfe could do that. writing with the hells angels took a a physical courage that t many reporters have. he got the kind of respect that war correspondents get because he rode with the angels first for a couple of weeks for nation magazine party parlay that into a book deal and it became his first bestseller. and then he rode with them for another year. and at the end of that year is when he got stopped by some of the hells angels and eight dispute which remains a little fuzzy. i probably has to do with the fact they thought their going to benefit directly from his story per the city promised them a keg of beer and he did not pay up.

he had another story. the point is that is how the book ended. >> participatory journalism to the max. let's talk a little bit about the legendary bay area scanlon saying very important. there could be no hunter thompson young editorr of "rolling stone" you write about how important this editors were to him the kind of enterprising swashbuckling journalism the becomes gonzo journalism. >> that's a really, really important time for him. so yes he has his first bestseller. he moves to colorado even before that book comes out.

but he maintains his san francisco connection. by this time he is met warren who is presiding over a lot of success at ramparts magazine but not financial success but in terms of impact and circulation. there's a famous story about them going out to lunch. mthey came back the cappuccino monkey that warren kept in the office gotten into hunters and was tearing around the office. they were friends and they met. >> tells a little bit about warren, what a character heff w. >> so they hit it off. and even though it worn never got him to write they remain friends. and then, frankly hunter began to struggle a little bit.

he signed some contracts but he was having trouble with the second book. he could not finish it. that logjam did not really break until another writer and novelist james defaulter at a dinner party to go and read about the kentucky derby. he pitched that story to warren. if you do not know who warren was, he could match hunter thompson in terms of the force of his personality and his stamina as well. he had a really great feeling for high conceptual stories. and he realize this could be a really great way to work together. now scanlon's was just started. that was the first issue of scanlon's. and so he was recruiting people actively. even though he could not get thompson into ramparts he did get into the debut issue.

and again the thousand abject failure. it was going to kill his career. he was ashamed of the story and warrant a thought once he set up. but suppose he ashamed? >> he just didn't feel he finish the story. he claimed that he began ripping notes out of his notebook -- pages out of his notebook and faxing them in. he could not write the story he could not fill in the patches in the story. he felt like justt a mess he set to warren. warren put the pieces together and polished it up. he's know as soon as he saw his illustration he introduced those two they'd never worked together before. they had never met. so once warren put those two together, it takes a little while but people begin to realize this is a franchise.

hooks that's kind of the midwife of journalism and away. >> by pairing him with ralph and publishing. i misspoke for the first issue ran the lead piece. that did not have ralph's ulcerations site usually regarded as an example of gonzo journalism. but once you put stedman and thompson together so thompson thought he had failed. but then everybody was saying this was a big breakthrough in ibjournalism. he described that feeling is falling down an elevator shaft, landing in a pool full of mermaids. this think he thought was a failure turned out to be a huge success. he immediately wente back to won and said this is it, it's going to be the thompson stedman report.

we're going to go around to america's cup, super bowl cup, and that mardi gras is going to be a franchise were going to take those stories and put them into book form. so he really thought he had something. the only problem was i was already going under. i think they publish their last issue in january of 1971. and then unfortunately i think warren deserves a lot of credit not just pairing those but conceding and birthing gonzo journalism thompson would have to findor another outlet for it. >> in some ways the young editor who started "rolling stone", had got his start under warren hinkle. he really benefited gonzo journalism and hunter thompson

from warren hinkle at "rolling stone" for. >> that is absolute true. i think he end up getting a lot of the credit. i think warren was very aware of that. the conception of gonzo journalism was a scanlon thing. nobody had any choices here. it was not obvious that thompson was going to be a great match with rolling stones. it was mostly rock magazine. his older than most of the people who wrote for rolling stones produce not a college graduate. as an air force veteran. there are a lot of ways he did not quite fit the mold at "rolling stone". but jan really saw that his stuff might click with rolling stones readers. and he encouraged him. the first contact came what hunter wrote after the coverage came out and "rolling stone".

>> something is the death of the 1960s the hells angels goes in and stabs them to death. >> right, the hells angelsre wee there they were responsible. >> so-called providing security so thompson followed that story with some interest because after having written and ridden with the hells angels he was very tuned in to that story. he really thoughtic it sounded like a fantastic job with a parade that when the first national magazine award. so "rolling stone" was coming along very quickly. i think hunter is a freelancer was on the lookout for new outlets. he began to see "rolling stone" could be one. the first couple of pieces that he wrote for "rolling stone" were not gonzo type pieces.

there's a whole story about how gonzo much like the -- the ask you so fear, loathing and las vegas. to me was the peace it introduced me as the young reader that began were of course leapt off the page.to that was a collector's item issue of rolling stones in which hunter thompson really gave birth to gonzo journalist as we know it. so my first question about that is for you to define gonzo journalism. for those who may not know what that means. what is exactly gonzo journalism? >> it sounds like a genre like the new journalism is not really a genre is kind of a description i think of hunter thompson's

work after 1970. the label wasn't really a label at the time but it after he read the kentucky derby piece and said that piece was totally gonzo. hunter had heard him use that term when they were both covering a primary in 1968 in new hampshire. and he thought let's call what i am doing gonzo journalism. it is very successful as a kind of branding exercise. there is not really the name of a genre. but it was a super important step. it was never sort of the predictable result of a conscious project. since l.a. to cover a different story. i was working with the activists in the middle of that research

he got an offer to cover state o road race in the las vegas desert outside of las vegas. he comes back, rights of the story, submits it to sports illustrated, they reject it. a lot of people say okay onto the next thing. he is furious, he actually doubles down, expands the story is already ten times longer thai what sport's illustrated wanted and he sent it to "rolling stone" he's already written two pieces four. and as soon as he does that people in the office at "rolling stone" say this is magic. >> again participatory journalism he put himself in the story as well as oscar. he took a lot of drugs he had c this insane coverage of las vegas hyatt often he made no

bones about that. as a heightened realism to gonzo journalism kind of absurdity were other reporters who are more objective may not be able to see it. i'm hitting on some of the things that entertain me but what are some of the other aspects of gonzo journalism do syou think? what's it sort of taken the new journalism out to its logical conclusion up in the writer at the center of the experience. in this case the writer is not essential character. the entire world reveals its meaning through his sensibilityo he is the indispensable part of the story it's all about him oscar and their invention. i would go back to some of the points you made there, they did

not have a lot of drugs actually in that cart when they went to las vegas. they had some alcohol, they had some benzedrine which a oscar liked they had some dexedrine which hunter liked. that was about it. [laughter] and of course they don't go as oscar and hunter they goes doctor gonzo and duke. i think there's good reason to see this as a kind of not a traditional novel some sort of hybrid, fictional form. you see the working between journalism and fiction. and i think considering this drug cash he outlets at the beginning of the book, none of that was there almost none of it was there. and so we need to think about it more as a fiction event as journalism. the label remains of the state

gonzo journalism. and it still classified as nonfiction to go to a bookstore, which you should do by the way. you do have a way to buy books on your resume link. so think a little bit about that. it was a brand-new thing for sure. but i'm not sure it's comfortably as a form of journalism or as a traditional form of fiction. quick so it should drill down on this point. i think this is the essence of hunter thompson and the whole hybrid style of writing. today, i think journalism is pretty drab. there is no voice to it, very little voice to it. it is been taken out largely in magazine writing, online maybe some writers have some bloggers.

but certainly in main stream journalism you do not come across voice writing the weight hunter thompson really pioneered. so i don't think he could succeed in today's marketplace. it is difficult enough time issue right in savage journey, as a journalist in those days. he had us run in the 1970s, but it got increasingly difficult for a writer like hunter. but, there's something about it peter we talked about this beforehand, something in his writing got to the inter- truth about america. i'm particularly in the years when he is writing. on the so-called lunacy of gonzo journalism there is a heighteneu realism. i kind of truth other drills and cannot get up.

the 1972 presidential campaign when nixon was running for reelection. and share with us t your insighs into that, what you go into in the book. cooks the first point to mate about its coverage in 1972, the anointed trail back and talk a little bit about how he got that assignment which i think is really important. by the time he had collected his dispatches from the campaign trail and put them into the book it became critical and commercial success, a triumph, he had decided frequencies on the campaign trail? >> 72, right. so he had decided to take this assignment. later his work was described as the least factual and most accurate description of the

campaign. in there i think have the paradigms. he got a lot of things wrong but he did not even try to get it right. there is a lot of satire there was a lot of exaggeration. there is a lot of hallucination even. so you are right there is a heightened realism there. he was trying to get at some truths he realized his colleagues on the campaign trail either did not see or could not express the hard news stories their editors demanded. so he decided to try a different way of covering the story. now in some ways he had to come up with a different way to do it. i had no advantages in the traditional way to do it. he is surrounded by very seasoned reporters are major news organizations you had a lot of support. had resources, had connections,

had readerships, they had everything they needed. he was at the bottom off that totem pole. so we had to think hard about how he could make his mark. and he did that by saying i'm not going to try to do any of the stuff they are doing. he took his own weakness and turned it into a kind of strength. he had no intention of coming back to the campaign trail. he could burn all of his sources if he decided to. it did not matter. so the fact he represented this fledgling rock magazine from san francisco, that should have been a disadvantage. but he managed to turn into an advantage by tying the unvarnished truth as he tunderstood it. not only about theou campaign ad politicians, he went after viciously, democrats as well as one republican, richard nixon who he hated openly. openly detested and he made no bones about his preference.

you're getting anything like objective journalism. he dispense with all those. instead he gave the a a unvarni. truth as he understood it not only about the campaign but the other media outlets. and they think that is super important about his work is a tt he's always looking both ways. he's looking at the think he's writing about. look at the way other people are covering it. every time you read something bd hunter thompson you got a good laugh, some crazy ideas and also you learned something because he showed you what was behind thead curtain. lexi had a radical vision i think that is what i took from his writing as a young journalist. and as you point out in the book, here he is from republican kentucky. kind of a libertarian his politics were very diffused.

and yet he saw america awash in greed, violence, addiction to war. frankly the country is not changed all that much in the last several decades.ig but i think there was an insane insight in what america was all about. >> i think that's right and i think that's why it's held up over the years. some of it hasn't aged well. i don't think he's going to get the way he handled women, feminism, homophobia. if you. reporter: him now when you see that very quickly pretty special if you read his letters which i think is probably his best work. you really see that this is voice. you're quite right about his politics pretty only really becomes interested in american politics after he goes to c democratic national convention

in chicago in 1968. and he is traumatized by what he witnesses. by the police right that he witnesses there. only then that he pivots away from kind of journalism stuff and starts taking a direct bead on american politicians. like hubert humphrey, like richard nixon, leg daily in chicago. it is aou kind of journey in a y a multistep journey. some more serendipitous things happen as well shape his body of work. but let me ask you a question. you mentioned his affinity for warren. i don't think warns politics were really worked out cleanly. think he was also a rubble. would you put them both in a

similar category and that way? >> i think worn is more a product of san francisco part he grew up here. i think he, along with the water he drank in, and of echoes the liberal progressive echoes of san francisco. i would put him to the left of politically of hunter thompson. i think consciously left. but they are both at mavericks and they both like their drink. they both like to have a good time. i was very much a part of the spirit of the 60s and 70s when they were operating at their best. there was something that link to the tube. i think that kind of journalism that came out of the bay area in those years early days of "rolling stone" before it moved to new york, and even my salon during the.com era were all

examples of the very area journalism. i don't think it exist anywhere else. and i am proud of that. even a rinse of the obits about joan teddy and they went on and on about what an iconic and great figure she was.ot she obviously produce she was a great writer produced a lot of great writing. i think again and againo california is not given its due. and that's why peter, i am so grateful to the work you have done over the years on mcwilliams and no hunter thompson because i think the west coast does not get its due from the new york media to this very k day. i am glad she to see you give hunter thompson the do that hen deserves. >> that is very much in my mind when i sit down to do this work. i think the funniest version of feeling that you are expressing

most of the san francisco public library when the book came out. warren was there and some of his family members and other people who had contributed. in the person who organized the event for the san franciscod public library listened carefully to the presentation and conversation. and stood up from the floor and asked the question and said seems to me that if it had been published in new york city, there would have been a broadway musical about it 20 years ago. [laughter] i think there is some real truth to that.ca in a way it was an advantage to be in san francisco because she could try new things. without fear of it immediate failure. there is kind and eighte nurturing culture underneath that was more experimental, innovative, do-it-yourself, collaborative. so i think all of those things helped. i was helping out stone on all

of their issues. and then all of the guys the left and went on to start mother jones. i think there's a real synergy. >> yes absolutely. look, i won't talk about your process, the archives and how he went about your research on this book and then open it up. i think peter goretti about five minutes open up to questions from the audience. which we are very anxious to hear. but let's talk, peter a little about your process as a writer. i know you were frustrated that you faced in trying to accessmp hunter thompson's archives in many right and similar blocks when they are doing their own work. it tells something about that. t and hope for the future are these archives going to be open to the public at some point?

ask the good news is that hunter kept everything. there something like 800 boxes of stuff mostlyde correspondenc. he kept copies of his correspondence going back to teenagers maybe even before that. it is just an enormous treasure. we have seen two great edited volumes come out of that. both edited by douglas brinkley. if you have not read it and if you love thompson, i highly recommend that. but again i think it's on his best stuff. not on deadline, his voice not edited. not written for money, it's just him expressing himself in a direct and powerfulls way. they also see what a great literary networking he was paid maybe that is why he kept everything the way he did. i think it was inspired by some other people like henry miller

are posted in big sur and uses correspondence to keep his literary network live it. that's what you have to do for going to live in these remote places. it was model of authorship was so unique. he had to do things a little bit differently. one was write letters like crazy. so the letters are ahe great source except the ones of publishing the books bite brinkley unavailable to everyone including his son i think his son is only seen once when he was writing his. >> responsible? echoes sold to a a consortium. includes johnny depp. there has been some talk about trying to do something with it. but you probably know finances and personal life are a little messy right now.

i don't think' these letters are at the top of the list of things he's going to get to in the short term. and also i they may be trying to sell them to a different place. i understand they have research librarians working on them. processing them and so on for their supposed been a storage facility in los angeles right now. they may be made available, who knows. but right now not. >> how you go about your research and for the book? >> what you have then? you can gowh out and talk to people who worked with him, which i did that as much as i l could. scope would put the kibosh on a lot of those face-to-face interviews. as you probably inferred, i spent a lot of time thinking about how we worked with his editors and i think they were very important. the only more important person in his career in terms of the success he achieved a. >> the?

>> it's easy to overlook his contribution to that franchise. of course he did not go to las vegas, oscar didn't. but he still came up with those fantastic illustrations that gave gonzo. it's very distinctive. so, you could not go to oscars archives which is at ucsb same thing shut down because of covid. but i did talk to as many of his i could and tried to tease out what it was like to work with him. and end a word it was excruciating. as the 70s wore on, he was not doing any new drafts any second drafts, third drafts which she always did when he was younger. no first drafts after fear and love in las vegas. he began to live into his persona more and more.

i wasn't that interested in his celebrity appeared his biography covered his celebrity adequately. i really wanted to get at what made him distinctive as a writer but that's where i focus my research and my assessment, just trying to read it. and then situating using the correspondence and some oral histories that have been done. you can figure out his decision-making during this time. it was not a smooth process for him. it was haphazard, uneven, the stuff that made him famous it took him years to figure out those things were his most important literary assets. when he finally figured that out, he stuck with it. in fact for probably a little too long. i think he is getting diminishing literary returns. when you worked with him in the

1980s, obviously most of us best work was behind him. and then talking with editors how they worked with him then turned out to be very illuminating. so what did you see, david in the 80s? >> i was an editor at the san francisco examiner. it runs the chronicle. but back in the day will was very enterprising as an editor bringing in people like warren henkel and hunter thompson and other unique voices. david was the newsroom editor who usually edited hunter's columns. dave and he had a unique relationship. i think you talk today for the book? >> i could not get them to go on record. he said he would that happen a couple of times. t i think these interactions with hunter thompson are so valuable

i think writers are tempted to keep them to themselves but he never said that. >> i told her the story know, peter, from the book. you know it is my one great memory of working with hunter. he did come into the newsroom, my colleague, steve chappell who is a great writer, described hif as a walking like an upright praying mantis. he had a herky-jerky movement, his lanky frame was a funny and interesting to watch as he made his way across the newsroom. and did work on a couple columns the cumber was out and he was sick or on vacation. and i always remembered read slick repainting michelangelo. i was in that position because we were on deadline and he had not filed. he filed something unprintable. i had to rewrite the great hunter thompson. i read it to him back on the

phone he was not in the newsroom that day. i think he was up in woody creek. there's a silence of the phone and thinking onhe my god this is terrible is going to hate what i've done. he said hey that's not bad. he changed one or two words and they were brilliant. when he actually recommend i do, waited more hunter thompson liked. by then he had one brain cell probably left or two brain cells. but god bless him he still had enough i think self-respect to change my writing back here and there to make it more of a hunter thompson original. but he was certainly literally funny by then. this would have been the late 1980s i guess. it was notgh the hunter thompsoi had grown up with. he was a little disappointing. but hey, speaking of the

marketplace just the fact that he was able to break through. even in those days in the 1960s and 70s with the unique way of writing, i believe the novel from the victorian era called new grub street about how difficult it was for writers back in that day, the same thing, to make a living as a writer and victoria england that's where the book is set and it evokes the great hardships and the ridiculous travails that writers have tot go through just to get published a get published or very little money. for some of my country thompson to not only break through all of the difficulty and to establish a writer and establish a lifelong career. it did not end well for him but

god bless him, he still to me as a blazing light. and to acknowledge his great contribution. >> yes, let me say woman thingng about the marketplace and maybe we'll open it up after that. if there is time, a beat peter us on that. toward the end , 80's for example he is writing for will hurst, it's interesting to me not just because it's a bay area thing, of course he went after the hearst newspapers viciously when he was young. they were a real target for him and his on-the-fly media criticism. some of his funniest cracks were at the examiner's expense. and then there he is working for the examiner. he of the books going during that time too. at the end of his career he's writing for espn. he comes full-circle he starts

as a sportswriter and ends a sort of a sportswriter. but don't forget, a quarter of espn was earned by the hearst corporation. and the people that were his editors there knew from "rolling stone". and he met will hurst through "rolling stone" as well. so those networks, those connections turned out to be very helpful to him. when his literary productivity was declining there were these old friends. i think will hurst and espn or two of his best friends toward the end. >> great, peter maravelis i think we should open it up, take questions from our wonderful audience. >> yes indeed we do have some. joseph asks, can you talk a little about hunter's first

novel princess jellyfish? a short excerpt appears it is still not ever been released. is there more to it? >> no i don't think so. i am not looking for that.ia the person i look to him that is william mckean his biographer. we just don't know that much about it. and i don't think it's coming out. i have not heardin that. i don't think he was a great fiction writer, that's the funny thing if you read the rum diary you see white took so long to outwards pretty traditional. his journalism is so energetic, powerful, precise, funny and over-the-top all at the same time. fiction is pretty traditional by comparison. and if friends and jellyfish was not as good as the rum diary than i know he pitched it to

angus cameron who was an editor at random house. he been blacklisted in the 1950s. and very successful and he had been blacklisted arthur junior led that charge. anyway, he and cameron struck up a correspondence which turned out to be super constructive and interesting. but princess jellyfish never made it. if anyone else is on your that know something else, i welcome that. x we have a question from stuart. would hunter consider nixon as a lightweight now that we've had the donald? can you imagine what he would have said about the country today? [laughter] yes. a couple of things about that. i write in the book that i think

donald trump or his supporters, or the media reaction to them would have surprised hunter thompson. he had been trying to warn us about people like this for a longw time. and at the time when he wrote that stuff in the 70s for example, it seems hyperbolic. hyperbole has its place. and over time to see more prophetic thanng hyperbolic, all of the things he was imagining about nixon who of course he despised. and i think nixon i mentioned built mckean the biographer he said about hunter that nixon was his mus. nixon really brought out hunter's best work. because he hated him with this white-hot intensity that sort of pushed and don't forget after

nixon was reelected in anr landslide, thompson writes in rolling stones, a few days later comparing nixon to a werewolf. the problem there is want to compare nixon to a werewolf,ru what you say about reagan? much less trauma. think that's one of the downside of hyperbole as well you have less running room what should get over the top in that particular way. but i do think thompson got lucky. when nixon presidency goes down in flames sodas thompson. most of his best work comes out nixon resigns. >> david asks, can you tell us about how the friendship betweet hunter thompson and ed bradley came to be?

>> great question i'm not sure the answers there. i do know thompson befriended charles with cbsbs news guy very early on. like in latin america in the early 60s. they remained friends for a long time. he had a ton of friends. i'm sure there are many of them on the skull right now. and many girlfriends. many of them have contacted me with their stories and it is a'l interesting, believe me. but i am not quite sure how he and ed bradley crossed paths. he was doing a a lot of politicl reporting so it would not be uncommon for hymns to run across anybody that did that along the way. it is true they had a close friendship. bradley would come and watch football with hunter.

there is a real kind of social network there, there was a very important. hunter ran a little show. there's a lot of bedding. that wasn't all about theit benedict the bedding brought them closer together. hunch about the political journalist asrall well. you will see hunter was very proud of his record bedding on the primaries, betting against experts, the other journalists. but he didn'ts do it just to win eric's book displays expertise. i think he also did it to bring them closer together with his colleagues and he needed that,, he was not part of that group when he joined the campaign press corps. his personality and these other little mechanisms to ingratiate himself and even stand out in that press corps was one of the many things he was good at.

>> chris asks us a bag of this fiction and a novel what distinguishes itin from on the road? >> great question. i think that is the thing that hunter really admired was that he was taking his slightly fictionalized experiences and turning them into fiction. i mean his own experiences might be fictionalized in them and selling them as fiction through major publishers. and it included stuff about taking drugs which was very important to hunter in the 1950s. his other favorite novel by jr dunlevy. it is the same sort of transgression there's kind of this rogue at the center of the

story. of course that was sold known mostly for its erotic for many years. all of that was catnip for hunter thompson. something for henry miller. the facts this stuff had been damned for someone like thompson was very important. he took henry miller's, the world of, and sent it to norman. they had never met this was his introduction to norman. it is really interesting letter it's an announcement there is this a young vero fiction writeo on the rise, that is how he presented himself. the person writing the great puerto rican novel. [laughter] they get the question? >> a bill asks, your recent nation piece reference hunter

thompson to angus cameron lies at up. can you elaborate on what you think he meant by this? >> site think he meant there certain kindst of truths that fiction can get at, but nonfiction can't get out. certainly traditional journalism. objective journalism. they are going to miss some plain truths. the greatest example is nixon. nixon knew how to play the game. he knew the rules of objective journalism. he knew had a manipulative press corps. so his campaign stoppers. thompson saw the goes to a truth. fiction lends itself to a traditional didn't. another way to put you gett more

theoretical about it, i don't think that was hunter's interest, but later historiographers would say just getting the facts straight is not always going to get you to the truth. every list of facts is a theory in a weak sense. that is a theoretical concern. i think hunter came out of from the point of view that fiction is better at getting at this stuff than traditional journalism. and i think that's what he meant. and certainly his critique in tim krause's critique of campaign journalism suggested that. these guys are missing the real story. the real story is about nixon. >> wrote for "rolling stone" he wrote boys on the bus, right? >> right. i think what they added in the

end up writing the most memorable accounts of 1972 campaign, again least effectual and most accurate. i think tim krause is probably more accurate it was more sustained look at the media that shortcomings in blind spots. hunter was a little bit more intuitive about it. i thought he was an astute media critic. >> i think we have time for couple more questions. what was the most we are writing this book? >> i guess two things. i mentioned the letters, at the end of the day i just think it is his best stuff up. i did not expect to reach that conclusion. the other thing i've already alluded to pick. [inaudible] >> what is that? [inaudible] goes he would write them to l.l.

bean. company at their latest product. it took it to a level of art print he would write to the television station in grand junction, colorado telling them about the garbage they were airing and hilarious, really funny. letters to sunny barger, letters to phil gramm at the "washington post". it is just incredible how many people he wrote to and came to know. the letter themselves are incredible. that is one thing. i mean i had read the letters but have to sit with them for a while you realize and i think h knew that too. these letters might be the best stuff but that's what one thing. the other thing is that i had sit with this a while too, he did not know what he had. some of this stuff was almost accidental. some of the success. these were opportunities that were very serendipitous,

pursuing this. even after being successful he did not always realize that was his future. the gonzo franchise was going to be it. here's an example i don't think i mentioned this and i should have. his editor and his agent wanted him to include the las vegas material and a second book he was supposed to do and he said no i don't want that stuff printed with my other stuff, my serious stuff it will ruin me will make a fool out of me. i don't want it. that's why they call it nonfiction because he had book to write on fiction. that's what came outf separate.t and of course he became the most important think may be arguably that he ever wrote. he thought if it wasn't handled just right that it would ruin him.

anything thought the same thing about the kentucky derby piece. i think that's a ver interesting a sharp who really knew the business, experienced freezing entrances and freelancer did not see that path even as it was opening up. once he sought of course he could not walk away from it. i talk about that a little bit in the book as well. probably should have, he was encouraged to shed the gonzo thing and start riding in another mode. but it was just really hard for him having to work so hard to achieve that success. even the celebrity is kind of a mixed bag he could not let it go. >> i have time for maybe onemos, more question. are there any future projects you hope to tackle that developed out of the work you did for this book?

>> you know, the one ordered version, one word answer, yes. i had another idea but the more i think about it and getting advice including some from david, i might want to keep turning on this a little bit. because in many ways i realized again after i had finished this whole thing the last three books on this and hunter thompson or informal trilogy about the san francisco counterculture. of course if you added mcwilliams he is not countercultural figure. it's more about the left of center political journalism. some advice had been getting from very knowledgeable people is maybe there aren't enough books about san francisco. there certainly a lot of good ones and david has written one of the best.

but i there is still some more here. and i think that people have responded positively to it not just mine but david's and others, as a sign there is stories to tell. not just for us but for broad broader audiences as well. most well, we look forward to that next book. the thing i regret the most about these virtual event is you can't go out for drinks after words. a rain check is due to both, thank you so much. >> a lot of familiar faces here. i do not have time to acknowledge all of them. plus a lot of new ones. thank you for coming it's really fun. ♪ weekends on cspan2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday american history tv documents america's story. on sunday but tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. funding for cspan2 comes from

these television companies and more including cox. >> homework can be hard but squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that's what we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet some homework and just be homework. cox connect to competes. >> cox along these television companies support cspan2 as a public service. >> good morning. my name is sam abrams panama senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. and professor of politics andah social science here in new york. i like to welcome you to the american enterprise institute another edward and helen book form event.is simply put, american journalism today is under attack. ioin this intense polarizatione many major news outlets takeed pressure to push so-called politically correct narratives undeth