3 Men
Hey Guys:
This is Nick Redfern.
To address the comments people have made:
Ironically, Colin Perks (in the Glastonbury Gargoyle story; the validity of which is questioned in this thread) is a very skilled artist. He actually had to sign a waiver with the publisher (who dealt with him direct) to allow some of his artwork to be used. In the end, the publisher decided not to use any artwork - I think for budget reasons. In other words, whether we accept his story or not, he told it, and the publisher liaised with him direct.
Also re Perks: whether we believe his story or not, if you go towards the end of the book, I relate an account of how Perks supposedly photographed a sea-serpent in the River Thames, and that he sent me the photo. Now, we can debate whether or not the photo shows a sea-serpent or a log (I think the latter - a log), but it does exist and can be found at this link at my blog:
http://monsterusa.blogspot.com/2007/07/ ... hames.html
3 Men is very different to all my other books. 3 Men is a Gonzo story. The back cover (no less!) of the book describes it as being "...uniquely Gonzo." The press-release describes it as "...a Gonzo trek and an equally Gonzo story." In EVERY interview I have ever done for the book, I have specifically said it's a Gonzo story. There's a very good reason why the publisher did this - to stress it's Gonzo and not straightforward non-fiction.
Wikipedia describes Gonzo (accurately) as:
"Gonzo journalism is a style of journalism which is written subjectively, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first person narrative. Gonzo journalism tends to
favor style over accuracy and often uses personal experiences and emotions to provide context for the topic or event being covered. It disregards the 'polished' edited product favored by newspaper media and strives for the gritty factor. Use of quotations, sarcasm, humor,
exaggeration, and even profanity is common."
I have always been a big fan of Gonzo journalism and always wanted to do my own Gonzo story - which 3 Men is. There's nothing being hidden by that. I have always stressed the fact of what the book is.
So, yes (as per any Gonzo story) there are exaggerations, recreated conversations to add (hopefully) entertainment and humour, name changes, changes in character description, timelines - but still using real people and real events.
Gavin Addis, for example (one of the people in the book) had to provide a waiver agreement, as I did not present him in a good light. Same for Morris Allen. who I equally denounced.
In the same way that Hunter S. Thompson wrote Gonzo, so did Jack Kerouac (although the term wasn't used back then to describe his work - and I wouldn't even dream of putting myself on a par with them!). A lot of people think Kerouac's books are straightforward non-fiction. They're not. They are based on real events, recreated with name changes, changes in timelines, changes in description of characters, new dialogue etc etc.
That's all typical of a Gonzo story. And, again, I never avoided saying 3 Men was Gonzo. I've said so on at least 30 radio shows. It's only now, however, that I've seen this post and so felt the need to comment specifically here too now.
As for my all my other books: yes, they are all strictly non-Gonzo; and that is the truth. But, as someone who loves Gonzo, I wanted to try that for myself. Some people liked the book, others didn't. But that's how it goes. And there's no deceit here. I wanted to write a Gonzo book, and then after I did so, I went back to my normal writing.
Everyone cited in my "Memoirs of a Monster Hunter" was interviewed on-tape, or via extensive notes etc, and there's no Gonzo there. Same for "Man-Monkey" and "There's Something in the Woods."
Now, some people see Gonzo stories as being more fiction that fact; which is why if you type into Google "Three men seeking monsters novel" you'll see it referred (in links going back YEARS) as a "novel" or "cult novel." It isn't; but some people do see Gonzo as being closer to novel form than non-fiction.
The thing to remember is that Gonzo is a style all of its own, outside of conventional non-fiction and fiction.
Consider, too Keel's "The Mothman Prophecies." Several editions of that book (including, most recently I think, the Feb 2002 edition of the book published by Tor, to coincide with the release of the Hollywood film version) include the following at the beginning: "This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously."
Of course, the cases are real, and the people are real in Keel's book. But Keel too employed Gonzo-style tools to tell his story. That statement at the start of his book is no accident.
In the same way that my book is described (on the back-cover no less) as a Gonzo story is no accident, and the words of the press release calling it a Gonz story are no accident, and in all my interviews describing the book as a Gonzo story is no accident.
So Keel's statement is there for the very same reason: to ensure the reader knows what they are reading and its style and nature.