some_okie_dude27's review against another edition
I'm not a reader of graphic adaptations of books that I enjoy, as I prefer to read books as how they were intended to be read. But, given on how much I enjoy the source material of Hunter S. Thompson's classic novel about the degradation of the hippie movement and the illusion of The American Dream, as well as the movie adaptation directed by Monty Python veteran Terry Gilliam and starring Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro as the two anti-heroes, which has become one of my favorites. So I decided to try and see what this book had in store in terms of adaptation.
The words and style of the novel are left relatively the same, and if you want to read my review on the original book, go here. But I'll be mainly focusing on the art of Troy Little to see if it's worthy of Hunter's time and effort. Now, if it were up to me, I probably would've had Ralph Steadman (Hunter's original artist) or Skottie Young do the graphic adaptation of the novel, but luckily Little's passion for the original book shines through and one could tell from the style of the book that Little didn't want to give the readers a bad taste when he went to adapt the source material (or should I say, give a worse taste than the book already gives you), his zany and cartoony style does Hunter's madcap and offbeat style justice.
There's also the depiction of the characters themselves. Hunter, or Raoul Duke, is depicted like a deranged tourist, one that would probably have people giving him the stink eye either due to his appearance or mannerisms, but one that you would also most likely have a beer with, Oscar Zeta Acosta, or Dr. Gonzo, is rather 'normal' looking, or, I should say, as normal as a hulking, deranged man could be. Little's depiction of them shows them as people, but also as the over the top, larger than life cartoons that they garnered through this book.
To end off this review, it's a book that captures what made the book great to begin with, in all its depravity and decadence.
The words and style of the novel are left relatively the same, and if you want to read my review on the original book, go here. But I'll be mainly focusing on the art of Troy Little to see if it's worthy of Hunter's time and effort. Now, if it were up to me, I probably would've had Ralph Steadman (Hunter's original artist) or Skottie Young do the graphic adaptation of the novel, but luckily Little's passion for the original book shines through and one could tell from the style of the book that Little didn't want to give the readers a bad taste when he went to adapt the source material (or should I say, give a worse taste than the book already gives you), his zany and cartoony style does Hunter's madcap and offbeat style justice.
There's also the depiction of the characters themselves. Hunter, or Raoul Duke, is depicted like a deranged tourist, one that would probably have people giving him the stink eye either due to his appearance or mannerisms, but one that you would also most likely have a beer with, Oscar Zeta Acosta, or Dr. Gonzo, is rather 'normal' looking, or, I should say, as normal as a hulking, deranged man could be. Little's depiction of them shows them as people, but also as the over the top, larger than life cartoons that they garnered through this book.
To end off this review, it's a book that captures what made the book great to begin with, in all its depravity and decadence.
rebus's review against another edition
4.5
It's rare to see anything adapted well across media, but the great book by Hunter S. Thompson has now been masterfully rendered in film and now in a graphic novel.
It's replete with many of Hunter's wisest observations, how in a closed society where all are guilty the only crime is getting caught, the final sin stupidity in a world of thieves, and the admission that journalism is neither profession nor trade but a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits. It's Hunter at his best, doing what he called 'edge work' and going with the flow of the 'great magnet' and the artist captures almost every manic moment of it as vibrantly as did the director of the film. The single flaw I found in the story is that I believe Hunter had his own big nervous breakdown during the research into the Campaign Trail '72 book, not here (or on the Hell's Angels journey as some suggest).
The soliloquy about our survival trip and how the 60s promised enlightenment for $3 a trip but left a generations of cripples with bad lifestyles unable to deal with the 'grim, meat-hook realities of life' is as affecting as in the film, as Hunter takes down the mystic fallacy that someone tends the light at the end of the tunnel (I always wonder if that was inspired by Dylan singing that death is not the end, which left the supposedly spiritual generation empty and unresolved about it, in actuality putting their energy into self improvement and exploitation rather than enlightenment, ending up exploiting the world they claimed they wanted to save; the Boomers are the biggest hypocrites in human history aside from Democrats).
It's also a dazzling tale of the drug culture and how it mirrors society, the uppers of the 60s leading to the downers of the 70s, still mostly being consumed by said Boomers, washing away the pain of their betrayal.
It's replete with many of Hunter's wisest observations, how in a closed society where all are guilty the only crime is getting caught, the final sin stupidity in a world of thieves, and the admission that journalism is neither profession nor trade but a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits. It's Hunter at his best, doing what he called 'edge work' and going with the flow of the 'great magnet' and the artist captures almost every manic moment of it as vibrantly as did the director of the film. The single flaw I found in the story is that I believe Hunter had his own big nervous breakdown during the research into the Campaign Trail '72 book, not here (or on the Hell's Angels journey as some suggest).
The soliloquy about our survival trip and how the 60s promised enlightenment for $3 a trip but left a generations of cripples with bad lifestyles unable to deal with the 'grim, meat-hook realities of life' is as affecting as in the film, as Hunter takes down the mystic fallacy that someone tends the light at the end of the tunnel (I always wonder if that was inspired by Dylan singing that death is not the end, which left the supposedly spiritual generation empty and unresolved about it, in actuality putting their energy into self improvement and exploitation rather than enlightenment, ending up exploiting the world they claimed they wanted to save; the Boomers are the biggest hypocrites in human history aside from Democrats).
It's also a dazzling tale of the drug culture and how it mirrors society, the uppers of the 60s leading to the downers of the 70s, still mostly being consumed by said Boomers, washing away the pain of their betrayal.
iffer's review against another edition
2.0
I have three confessions to make that should be taken into account when reading my review:
1) I've never read or watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
2) I don't like funny things.
3) I've never been high out of my mind.
I enjoyed Troy Little's adaptation, because the art was reminiscent, in a good way, of the Sunday paper comics section, in art style. I also liked how Little varied the the font, size, position, boldness, etc of the speech and thought bubbles to make the content more dynamic. I also think that he did a good job incorporating portions of text presumably taken from the novel, which he did by splitting them up into the perfect size pieces in courier (typewriter-esque) font to capture the book without making the comic seem too text-heavy.
All of these positive things said about Little's adaptation, I just didn't enjoy this. Call me uptight, but it wasn't my cuppa. It reminded me of a loud, blockbuster comedy with crass jokes and drug jokes that people around me end up finding funny, but I don't. I became kind of bored with vignette after vingette of loud high guys doing things that were supposed to be funny hijinx.
Thanks to NetGalley for the digital advanced reader copy.
1) I've never read or watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
2) I don't like funny things.
3) I've never been high out of my mind.
I enjoyed Troy Little's adaptation, because the art was reminiscent, in a good way, of the Sunday paper comics section, in art style. I also liked how Little varied the the font, size, position, boldness, etc of the speech and thought bubbles to make the content more dynamic. I also think that he did a good job incorporating portions of text presumably taken from the novel, which he did by splitting them up into the perfect size pieces in courier (typewriter-esque) font to capture the book without making the comic seem too text-heavy.
All of these positive things said about Little's adaptation, I just didn't enjoy this. Call me uptight, but it wasn't my cuppa. It reminded me of a loud, blockbuster comedy with crass jokes and drug jokes that people around me end up finding funny, but I don't. I became kind of bored with vignette after vingette of loud high guys doing things that were supposed to be funny hijinx.
Thanks to NetGalley for the digital advanced reader copy.
sherming's review against another edition
1.0
Best thing about this is that it's a bit quicker than the book. However, the very thing that makes it quicker (less text) removes or diminishes the few meaningful parts of useful social commentary. What the reader/viewer is left with is a graphic novel of debauchery without historical or social context.
afshack's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
tense
fast-paced
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
kfrench1008's review against another edition
4.0
An excellent interpretation of one of my favorite books. Little captures the brilliance and humor of Thompson's writing.
ollie_lee's review against another edition
4.0
I read "Fear and Loathing" a few times when I was younger. It has always been a story that sticks with me over the years. Reading it in a new format was quite a treat. Troy Little keeps the original story together nicely. All my favorite lines were still there. There seemed to be some new stuff as well but it has been many years since reading Thompson's original. I feel it's time that I give it another read.
tericr's review
adventurous
dark
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
onceupon_a_bookdream's review
3.0
This was a nostalgic read for me. 18 year old me was obsessed with the movie, adult me however not as much.