I’ve always been an indirect fan of Hunter S. Thompson; I’ve read interviews and about him, enjoyed him as a journalist and his outside-the-box style and figured I liked him as a person and would finally get around to working out whether that was the same when it came to his books. After buying a few off Amazon, I finally got my first taste of Mr. Thompson and, while I liked it, I think it was for the wrong reasons.
To me, there seemed very little action until the last few chapters – the carnival onwards really. I did enjoy the entire book but that was more due to the first person cynicism and simplistic expression of Kemp’s life. I don’t know why, but it seemed relatively boring – but I liked it. When I say boring, I mean it was more stripped back rather than in-your-face action. It seemed realistic, at least.
The main confusion I faced (which was the result of a stupid decision on my part) is that I read the review on the back half way through to see the book dubbed ‘hilarious’. Now, I was a fair way through at this point and hadn’t laughed properly; the rest of the book I found myself paranoid I was missing some humorous undertone. And really, I think I did. I liked it because it seemed simple yet addictive in a less obvious way. I now think I should have liked it because it was ‘hilarious’. I’m tempted to read some reviews/read up on the book to see if there was a huge missing link on my part.
Either way, I liked it – for the right reason or the wrong reason.