Talk:Gonzo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
pasted here becasue they have no place in the article. figure out the concepts and add amongst yourselves, for now. Lockeownzj00 05:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Example:
I have been aware of Wikipedia for some time now, and I’ve been both amazed and frightened by the concept of providing what amounts to a world-wide, freshly whitewashed wall with an infinite supply of paint spray cans to the millions. What if Da Vinci had executed La Joconde (Mona Lisa) as an American Indian sand painting?
Last week I read a report (The New York Times, February 10, 2005 The Unassociated Press, By AARON WEISS) about the accuracy and utility of Wikinews, a new service related to Wikipedia. The concerns expressed about communal news reporting are issues that I’ve had about using the information in Wikipedia as gospel, since anyone can add anything one wants, for whatever purpose one presently has, whether that be for information, or misinformation (See Swift Boat Veterans for Truth).
Today when I learned of the death of Hunter S. Thompson, the alleged founder of Gonzo journalism, I was aware of two new holes in my knowledge. I did not know Hunter S. Thompson or his work, or what Gonzo journalism was. Since gonzo sounds like a word that no self-respecting dictionary or encyclopedia would deign to define, I turned to Wikipedia..
Having found this definition, and swearing to the absolute fact that everything I now know about Gonzo comes from Wikipedia, it seemed an excellent opportunity to attempt ‘gonzo Wikipedia posting’ wherein I try to involve the audience in my writing in the same way that gonzo journalists do, but in this case by augmenting gonzo’s definition.
Should this example be determined, by those who know, to be a true example of gonzo-like marriage of writer with audience, then its credentials in that regard should be, at a minimum, anecdotal evidence of the value of Wikipedia.
Seems like this ‘double-thumbed’, gonzo-icon-like, effort, at worst, could result in nothing so inoperative as the person who becomes the gonzo, according to the Boston Irish vernacular.
Are you involved? If so, how? If not, did this piece force you to make a conscious decision not to be?
Example prepared by Gary Pelphrey
I think you misunderstand the Gonzo concept a bit. It isn't as much an involvement of the audience and describing it which makes a good Gonzo journalist. It's more a logging of 'what you see surrounding' a certain subject. You can't expect going around, asking people how they are acting and not interfere with their behavior at that certain point.
By being noticed and showing that you are logging the actions undertaken, you create an unnatural situating which alters the behavior of the individuals you are studying. That's the main reason why people like Thompson have a gross dislike of being around, or with cameras. You create an unnatural situation by being present and the people who you try to document will act far differently than they normally would.
I think that is the main reason Thompson committed suicide. He lost that 'fly on the wall' sensation he had when he was merely an anonymous bystander. He became a noticeable person, thus altering the situation. He lost control of writing by becoming famous. That is probably the best thing that can happen to any common writer who craves for attention and fame, but it's a death sentence for the average gonzo journalist.
Trying to write web-based gonzo thus means you have to stand back from the asking and get into the wondering. You'll have to ponder the web, examining responses and behavior without being noticed let alone attract attention by asking for it.
There are many documentaries involving Thompson/Duke/Dr.Gonzo where they explain this concept very clearly. Thompson just drove it as far as he could. Killing himself was his final resort to regain his anonymity. He often said that he oughta murder his old character to start a new one. Unnoticed again, maybe in the after-life. Ironically not being able to write about it again off course.
Kind Regards,
Chronix
- So you define gonzo as exactly the opposite of what it's usually taken to mean? Can you give citations that support your definition of gonzo = "fly on the wall"?--87.162.17.224 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] gonzo prank
I've removed the section on "gonzo prank" because it sounds like a hoax and was completely unreferenced. If you believe it to be true, feel free to replace it, but make sure to cite it. --Bachrach44 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] objectivity =? not taking in the big picture
I removed a part from the "Objectivity is a myth" section claiming that said something like Thompson has been criticised for "being too objective - that is, not taking in the big picture" as this just plain doesn't make sense. --Andymussell 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Gonzo Porn? Would Gonzo mean then Porn is that is produced by the directer and staring the directer?
- read TFA
[edit] Hunter S. Thompson
In reading related articles, specifically Hunter S. Thompson and Gonzo (Muppet), they refer to Hunter as the creater of the term. In other words, the articles don't coincide. So which is it? do we have a reference that shows that Thompson didn't actually create the term? I suggest rewording the opening paragraph to say that he is a great employer of the technique, first to use it prolifically, or some such verbage. 66.151.81.244 16:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spam?
"Florida-based consultant Brian Smith, dubbed "The Guru of Gonzo" by his clients, coined the phrase "Gonzo Management" to describe a style of management which pushes the envelope and challenges conventional wisdom."
Looks to me like spam, anyone else agree?
[edit] Subjectivity
To me, Gonzo implies that pretence, or even aspiration to, Objectivity, is dispensed; and further, unlike, say, participative sociology or anthropology, where work is done to minimise and identify subjectivity, the Gonzo relishes and revels in the subjective ; for the Gonzo operator, the subjective, replete with all the concomitant cognitive dissonance and blundering, are what it's all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.77.183.209 (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Merger with Gonzo journalism
Do it. -- DH85868993 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support merge. After its content is merged with Gonzo journalism, I think this page (Gonzo) should become a disambiguation page, including links to all the pages listed in the DAB text at the top (Gonzo pornography, Gonzo (Muppet), Gonzo (studio), Gonzo the Mechanical Bastard), as well as Gonzo photography, Gonzo Station, and others listed in this search query. -Tobogganoggin talk 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
