Field work and imagination

The nature of Danish gonzo journalism is up for discussion on Thursday night at Vartorv, Farvergade 27H, 1., Copenhagen, at 8 PM. I'll be presenting the paradox of imitating a demonstratively personal and American style like Thompson's in a Danish context: What postures and rhetorical strategies are adopted, and how are they adapted and developed?

I'll be discussing the cases of Mads Brügger, Morten Sabroe and Henrik List -- so yes, the M&M's are back indeed, and adding List to the list doesn't improve that situation at all, of course, (even if his name is Henrik). I permanently welcome names of female reporters that ought to be included too. Gritt Uldall-Jessen has been pointed out to me as having "all the right credentials, only she's interested in avantgarde drama rather than journalism,"

--which brings back the question of whether a provocative attitude in itself and/or 'putting yourself on the line' in your work in general will make you or your work gonzo - ?

Well, I do in fact insist on keeping the gonzo label within the sphere of journalism, because gonzo is basically conceived as a way of handling and challenging journalistic constraints. On Feb. 20th one guy in the audience made the remark that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas might as well have been all fiction and written back home at Thompson's Colorado kitchen table. In my opinion though, no matter how much Thompson pushes the envelope for journalistic expression, it is exactly that particular envelope which determines the nature of the reading experience. Thinking of the book as a piece of professional reporting from the field (and not from the author's imagination alone) is what raises the interesting questions and enables us to appreciate or wonder about the social and rhetorical skills of the implied reporter as we go along.
The gonzo reporter persona should be viewed as a (linguistic) product of the actual field in which the reporter has actually been.