--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > This was a brilliant response, thanks.
Hopefully more brilliant than disturbed. ;-) > > In the most general sense, Thompson had redeeming > > value, IMHO, because he he pushed the envelope in > > so many ways at a time it desperately needed to be > > pushed. > > I know he got the credit but I'm not sure his > uniqueness was a bit of the myth. I used to read the > Free Press when I was a young teen and I can't > believe all those writers have to thank Thompson. Well, but as Barry suggested, he made that kind of journalism more acceptable, brought it into the mainstream, because of who he was and the attention he attracted. <snip> > > I suspect it takes narcissism to break barriers that > > most others lack the self-confidence to challenge. > > The guy who breaks them takes the first, most > > intense, wave of criticism, making it a little safer > > for those who aren't as courageous (or as self- > > involved, or even as foolish, depending on your > > perspective) to take a few steps beyond their comfort > > zone. > > > > The narcissist can do this because his/her self- > > regard protects him/her from being concerned with > > what others think of him/her. > > This was my favorite part and I totally agree. (This is different from my mother's type of narcissism, BTW!) <snip> > > You make a distinction between "mental disturbance" > > and "brilliance," but I'm not sure the line between > > them is all that clear. Can a psyche that lacks > > disturbance be as creative as one that continually > > churns? There's a pretty wide middle ground, I think. > > Thompson was on the more-disturbed edge of the > > middle ground, but there was a distinct component of > > brilliance in the churning. > > This is a better perspective than the one I was > pitching. I was making a false dichotomy. But > I still maintain that that era had a poor line > between brilliance and sheer stupidity where > even guys like Manson were given more credit than > they deserved. That was one of the aspects of our culture that was in serious flux at the time. We knew new lines needed to be drawn, but we didn't always get them right. It's a lot easier to see where we went wrong in retrospect, but if we had been more cautious, the lines might not have moved as much as they needed to. <snip> > > Here's an obit that takes a very positive view of > > Thompson: > > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed58.html > > > > It concludes on a negative note, asserting that > > all the positive change Thompson inspired has been > > lost. I'm not sure that's entirely true. What do > > you think? > > Guys like Bush strengthen the left. Like Nixon he > was almost a characiture of himself in the end. > Even with him in the White House I think our > generation has taken a lot of the good perspective > of the 60's ideals and blended it with more > realistic sense of all the variables and compromises. > I am proud of our generation. I think that's right. The social pendulum doesn't usually swing back to the same place every time; it's more a spiral than going around in circles. (Yes, I know a pendulum doesn't go around in circle; it's a very sloppily mixed metaphor!)
