Talk:The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test/Archive 1

Archive 1

spoiler

Does one need to worry about spoliers in a work of non-fiction?Theblackgecko 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

hmm . . . good question. i dunno. there's probably a wikiproject dealing with this . . . --Heah ^talk 21:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see how a spoiler warning would do any harm (if that is what you are asking). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have read the book and didn't immediately feel Wolfe's disdain for the hippies. It seemed to me that he was very ambililant to the whole "hippie" movement in general and Ken Kesey in particular, but any thing deeper than that I didn't pick up on. 207.157.121.50 04:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey""

While I have a great fondness for beginnings of the hippie movement, I can certainly empathize with Wolfe's ambivilance. There he was, a pretty straight guy, careening around the country on a bus full of people who behaved (for the times) as though they were completely insane. Although it seems somewhat acceptable now, back then it was absolute lunacy to paint a schoolbus, wire it for sound and then travel the nation with the express purpose of shocking people. Wolfe must've felt like a white-suited fish out of (LSD-tainted) water.

--Helenabucket 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)helenabucket

actually, he wrote most of the book from interviews, notes, audio tapes recorded by Hunter Thompson & watching footage of the epic road movie filmed during the bus trip to NYC. he was not really "on the bus," literally or metaphorically. ZebulonNebulon 22:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems to describe characters who are at times entirely on the bus, like Norman Hartwig and Black Maria, with the "in-looking-out" tone of one who is "on the bus". This is either a mark of his literary skill, or an indication that he was at least partly on the bus, in the metaphorical sense. It is enough for me to think we should not dismiss the idea that Wolfe the person did not empathize with the Pranksters. — Swpb^talk|edits 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

I doubt whether many people would consider the Pranksters' drug-fuelled musings as "reaching personal and collective revelations", or believe that they achieved "intellectual and quasi-religious breakthroughs". Unless people object, I will probably tone down these claims in a few days. Awien 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it so hard to imagine that substances which alter the way the mind works might have revelatory effects that resemble a religious experience? And who are you or I to declare what counts as a religious experience or breakthrough? The people in the book describe their experiences that way, as does Wolfe, and relating these experiences is Wolfe's primary concern, as the introduction states. That you don't think any "personal and collective revelations" were reached is irrelevant. Wolfe writes, in the Author's Note following the text, "...the events described in this book were both a group adventure and a personal exploration. Many achieved great insight on both levels." He does not describe "alleged" or "supposed" experiences, as you might have it. The "alleged" or "supposed" is in the opinion of the skeptical reader, and is not appropriate in a neutral description of the book. The introduction is NPOV as it is. — Swpb^talk|edits 22:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because Wolfe took the Pranksters' claims at face value doesn't mean that a neutral commentator has to as well. Awien 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A revelation is just a change in perception - if someone tells you their perception has changed, you wouldn't tell them that no, they only think it has. In other words, if I honestly think I've had a revelation, then yes, I've had one, even if it's only meaningful to me. So, if you are suggesting that because the Prankster's revelations weren't universally meaningful, they weren't really revelations, then I think we are debating the meaning of a revelation. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that they were being dishonest in their accounts to Wolfe, and that they recounted changes in perception that they never really experienced, then you're going to need some pretty good sources establishing why they would do that, and discrediting decades of knowledge on the effects of LSD. So, to clarify the conversation, which idea are you suggesting? — Swpb^talk|edits 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt their sincerity, as my edit clearly shows. However, words like 'revelation' and 'breakthrough' imply that they were making real discoveries, whereas the fact is that what happens to people who spend all their time stoned is that they are out of touch with reality. And following up on the Pranksters, we find that both Kesey and Cassady changed their minds. Kesey "denounced the curative powers of LSD as temporary and delusional" (http://www.lib.virginia.edu/small/exhibits/sixties/kesey.html), and Cassady, before dying very young, advised Walter Cox, "Don't do what I have done" (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Neal_Cassady). I believe that the present phraseology is very fair. Awien 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you need to look revelation up in a dictionary. Awien 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Better still now without any "breakthroughs". Awien 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's again your own bias that people on drugs are necessarily "out of touch with reality". Who are you to say that your natural brain chemistry presents you with a more accurate "reality" than an altered chemistry? — Swpb^talk|edits 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me just remind you that it IS the point of view Kesey himself anyway, and apparently Cassady too, came around to. Not to mention that it's what you typically (always?) hear and read from recovering addicts and alcoholics. Awien 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote you threw at me from Kesey was about "curative powers", and Cassady recommended against taking LSD. How do either of those statements imply in any way that they denied having had revelatory experiences? — Swpb^talk|edits 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They were admitting, Kesey more explicitly than Cassady, that the "revelations" they had thought they were getting from their use of LSD were not real, not useful, not going to make the world into a better place as they had hoped. When somebody tells you "Don't do what I did", they are acknowledging that they made a mistake. What they had taken for enlightenment was a delusion. Awien 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're doing an awful lot of interpretation to get from point A to point B, and I just don't buy it. — Swpb^talk|edits 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have read the book but wonder whether you have. I also looked up 'revelation' in a dictionary (OED) - did you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs) 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done both, so there goes your argument from superior expertise. — Swpb^talk|edits 04:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KoolAid 1stUSEd front.jpg

Image:KoolAid 1stUSEd front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Girl/Carolyn Adams

The list mentions both, but they are the same person. Maybe we should put Mountain Girl next to Carolyn Adams' name instead of listing her twice? --76.64.183.112 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)cdizzy

• Done. I also added Garcia. Omgitsmonica (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

summary

Can someone please put a summary of the book back on the page? A poorly written one is better than none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.13.45.8 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Can the Influences section possibly be more pretentious and overwritten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.13.145 (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Sources are needed for this section. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Wolfe's influences

Though Wolfe did not indulge in the same frequent drug use as the subjects in his work, he was intrigued by their experience and attempted to capture their state of mind and frequent revelations. To do so, he used extensive interviews and primary texts including many interviews, letters, and recordings from Ken Kesey, Norman Hartweg, and Robert Stone (among many others) to re-create not only the story of the Merry Pranksters, but the "subjective reality" of their experience, which relates obviously to Kesey's philosophizing of intersubjectivity. Far more controversially, Wolfe used (and vaguely cited) the research of Hunter S. Thompson, who encountered the Merry Pranksters while writing his own nonfiction novel on the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang. Unlike Wolfe, Thompson was a friend to Kesey, before and after all of these publications. Wolfe seems to write just as maniacally as someone who had been “on the bus", while his "[recreation] of" his subject's "subjective reality" is occasionally interrupted by his "impersonal and objective" narrator's self-inclusion. Wolfe's infrequent first-person recounting creates the underpinning dynamic between subject and journalist in the novel, which establishes Wolfe as a medium of the acid culture to what he calls "the outside world," in a form which he was concurrently establishing as a medium of journalism within a greater medium of literature.

Doctor Strange?

"Doctor Strange" is listed as being mentioned in the book, however the wikilink (Doctor Strange) is to a comic book character. Error or what? --Stybn (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

any updates on the movie?

The main article claims there's a movie in production that's scheduled for a 2011 release. As it's now Dec. 22nd, I don't think so....

I couldn't find any further info. Anyone have more recent details? Thanks

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

unfocussed

this is so awful i wish someone would start over. focus on the book, not the author or the subject!

robotwisdom (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Cultural significance and reception

"Some saw the book as a testament to the downfall of American youth [ref. needed]"

"Where the Pranksters see ideas, Wolfe sees Real-World objects. Had this book been written by a Prankster it would not have the appeal that it does from Wolfe’s hand."

"In addition to its literary significance, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test had immense social implications. During its time, reviews either revered or regretted the way in which it influenced societal expectations and perceptions"

"The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test undeniably altered society"

This section reads like an advertisement for the book or the flowery language of a college essay. Many of these claims are hypothetical or unverifiable. From the Talk page, it appears that these issues have been brought up repeatedly, so I'm adding the NPOV tag. Corax rarus (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)