Coincidental Collision

Where’s my rebel? Where’s my angst machine? Where’s my Hunter S. Thompson? Where’s my iconic ode to a generation? We’re lost in a commercial hell. Any rebel bursting onto the scene is gobbled up by the do-it-their-way horde of xerox marketers. Not because the rebels want to be copied, but simply because they are. Each copy dilutes the original so much that we wouldn’t know original if it stuck it’s dick in our eye. Everything we know and see and believe is a copy of a copy. A watered-down solution of mixed metaphor. An interest of conflict with purposeful intent; hell-bent on mindless consumption. Buy later, pay now.

I’ve said for a long time that Chuck Palahniuk is my generation’s quintessential time capsule. With Fight Club, he captured my essence, my thoughts, my present and future desires, failures, and things to be pissed off about. He had a vision. To this day I cannot work or drink with a few friends or even strangers of roughly my age without alluding to or directly inciting a quote from Fight Club. In open discussion one might hear “The first rule of such and such is …”. To wit, when asked to detail my favorite movies I always say “My first and second favorite movies are Fight Club”.

Beyond the obvious, Chuck P. so brilliantly illustrated Generation X’s obsession with consumables, our inability to truly fend for ourselves, and our inert desire to change a disgusting system we have umbilically linked ourselves to. In doing so, he captured the essence of punk and anti-establishment.

But, he is no Hunter.

I also believe Christopher Hitchens is a much needed force in our time. A contrarian to the Nth degree and one of the - if not the - smartest people I can think of. A discussion of thoughts through spoken word is not something you ought embark upon lightly with Hitchens; even if you think you agree with him. You will no sooner have thought what you believe to be your enlightened turd then he will have dissected it and fed it back to you.

But, he too is no Hunter.

Any why not? Why are they not Dr. Gonzo? They are not Hunter, because they are copiable. They are copiable not simply because they allow themselves to be copied, but because the “system” has recognized that people resonate with their rhetoric and find mimes to imitate their message.

In the present - or not so distant one - you have Hitchens and then you a marketing team who so ilwittedly devised the “Gang of Four”. Hitchens, Dennet, Dawkins, and some other guy who’s so sweet, nice, and likable you want to stop listening. The entire point being that they sit upon their atheistic perch and spout poetic about how great their theological position is and how not-so-great the belivers’ position is.

Yes, you’re smart. Nice fucking cardigans. Who gives a shit?

As if we need a movement of atheism. Hearing smart mother fuckers referring to themselves as “the brights” or members of the “Gang of Four” is fucking embarrassing. I blush with shame to know it exists and to think they are the closest in like-mindedness to myself. I am not so smart as they, yet I know ridiculous when I see it. Hicthens himself has no qualms about asking his plethora of interview hosts ranging from contemptible to respectable to mention his book(s); “In fine book stores everywhere” as he is fond of pointing out. He doesn’t have a problem with the capitalism of his thoughts; I have no problem with him not having these qualms, but it leaves an indelible lack of defensibility on my part and on his - yet I will not be debating him on this point … ever. I like him because he has a deep insight and intellect; I can’t quite completely get behind him because he seems to be missing the point.

More to my point, you have copy-cats. Intellectual masturbation on worldwide scale through distribution channels such as YouTube and … and … well, YouTube; seems to be enough. Copy-cats come in all forms, but they seem to be less smart or perhaps more poignant and focused, but certainly less well versed. Hitchens does routinely debate or engage in discussions with these bafoons; but all-in-all, his points get lost amidst a see of contractual idiots and Hitchens seems content with merely putting up a wall to hold them back. The fame is far too strong an allure for him.

Now take Chuck P. He has had a successful career. Yet since his generationally defining success with Fight Club, you apparently get his publisher asking for more which does in turn give us diluted Chuck; Choke, Pygmy, Rant, some wandering perversions into grotesque, shock fiction. He is very good at identifying a topic to dive into and then immersing himself so completely as to make himself a visual artisan with mere words as his brush. Since Flight Club, though, his topics have lost external meaning. Perhaps they mean something to Chuck and perhaps that means something to Chuck and perhaps Fight Club was a coincidental collision of Chuck’s interests and generational angst - which all being true would make me even more morose.

No, I believe Chuck knew he had a point just as Hitchens absolutely knows he has a point, but the two have lost themselves in a world of Disney-land ball sucking and can no longer tell when they are being mocked and when they should be offended and when they should remove the vacuum from their genitals. This is where they differed from Hunter. Not to say Hunter did not get caught up in his own fame, but it was obvious he knew when it was happening. It was also obvious he did not necessarily seek it. It was also obvious he knew he should take a side and push forward by all means necessary. He apologized not.

To this point, I would agree that Hitchens is Hunter’s closest contemporary. They apologize not. They do choose sides. Where they differ is in their infantileness, as Gary Hart so put it. Hunter was infantile in so much that he wanted the good to win and thought evil should suffer to no end. This is not so different from a Chuck P. finale, but is so different from a gentlemanly Hitchens.

In closing, what I really want is an infantile asshole who won’t take no for answer, but knows a good thing when they see it. And then I want them to write about it, tell me why I’m an idiot for thinking otherwise, and have fun doing it. A life should be lived, apologies should be saved.