tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post5841126833795423153..comments2024-03-22T00:20:38.510-07:00Comments on Adam Riggio writes: Rewriting a Man If He Would Allow It, Jamming, 03/06/2014Adam Riggiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14606510835439580828noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-50395961520392637212014-06-03T13:25:45.514-07:002014-06-03T13:25:45.514-07:00Well said. I enjoyed the discussion, too! Cheers...Well said. I enjoyed the discussion, too! Cheers, man!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-59063561585786582752014-06-03T10:47:44.368-07:002014-06-03T10:47:44.368-07:00It's no problem for me. Thanks for taking an i...It's no problem for me. Thanks for taking an interest and having a talk about it. To be honest, I actually rather liked how the Hollywoodization cut down on the number of chapters that could essentially be summarized as "Kemp and friends get drunk and wax poetic about Puerto Rico and failure," which do tend to obscure its political perspective. Foregrounding the book's politics with the new narrative element of the HST bildungsroman made it a better narrative in a lot of ways. That's the difference between a straight adaptation of the novel HST wrote in 1959 and the immense cultural meaning of HST in 2011. The movie rewrites Thompson's actual book, and the narrative of his own life to create a cultural figure that feeds into the inspiration of new generations of artists and writers. Much more important than fidelity of adaptation if you ask me.Adam Riggiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14606510835439580828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-46631178852197753032014-06-03T08:07:09.108-07:002014-06-03T08:07:09.108-07:00True enough. I concede your points. Thanks for t...True enough. I concede your points. Thanks for the thoughtful response, too! I'm just being lenient with the Hollywoodization of the film. My reading of the novel's rather favourable, as well. Can't help a bit of fandom. My take away from the novel was HST felt a little forced, like he was a young writer trying to play a bit too much by someone else's rules, but you could still hear his voice there, ya know? I think that's your point about reading it retroactively. Anyways, that's just my take; it's just speculation. Thanks for providing your further thoughts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-86199950104995340472014-06-03T06:39:00.030-07:002014-06-03T06:39:00.030-07:00It wasn't at the forefront of the Rum Diary, a...It wasn't at the forefront of the Rum Diary, and I looked back through the novel as I was planning this post. The film clearly tags those real estate bigwigs as politically despicable — Depp's Kemp reacts much more uncomfortably than the novel's Kemp when he meets ex-general Zimburger and hears about the Vieques hotel plans. The visuals of the film linger much longer on the opulence of Sanderson's lifestyle and the poverty of average Puerto Ricans. Kemp's internal conflict is pushed to the foreground, where the book doesn't really emphasize this. The novel's Kemp just goes along with the ride.<br /><br />As well, that acid trip and the attempt to publish one last copy of the San Juan News guerrilla-style aren't in the book at all. Kemp's comments about not having truly found his voice are much more prominent in the film. And the happy end title, where Kemp steals Sanderson's boat, he and Chenault get married and it's implied that he becomes a Greenwald-level successful journalist isn't in the book at all. The book peters out in a haze of alcoholism.<br /><br />The novel has its political content, but it isn't foregrounded — not much is foregrounded at all. And it's not a bildungsroman at all, which is pretty much what Depp made the film.<br /><br />I think The Rum Diary novel is read retroactively as a much more explicitly political novel than it is because of what Thompson became. He wrote that novel when he was 22. His work on Hell's Angels came when he was almost 30, and his landmark political works came throughout his 30s. I know, in my case, how much I've changed from my early 20s until now — my own thinking is much more nuanced and focused, and my politics have grown more radical, and are at the forefront of my own thinking. I think Thompson's priorities as a writer definitely changed over those ten years. He already had the amorphous narrative form down in The Rum Diary, which was a sign of his incredible talent even at that age. But it was only by his 30s that he could imbue that form with the fire he became famous for.Adam Riggiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14606510835439580828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-10013727160923481452014-06-03T05:56:12.608-07:002014-06-03T05:56:12.608-07:00I thoroughly disagree. Having read the book and w...I thoroughly disagree. Having read the book and watched the film, too, I thought it was rather reflective of the book. I suspect you should re-read The Rum Diary. It certainly presents a plot, oddly enough, one that the movie portrays on-screen, even if it is in condensed form. That's pretty typical when making a film from a book. You can't say it all in 90 minutes. And, you somehow think Thompson didn't put politics at the forefront of his writing? Good luck with that analysis. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com