Gonzo

When we talking about Libicki's article, from The Jewish Graphic Novel, she called her books gonzo literary comics and I thought this was a totally a wrong classification of the book we read by her. I don't just think this because I adore the works of Hunter S. Thompson, and also find Libicki dull. I guess for something to be "gonzo", something must just be a first person narrative of events, whether you were originally in them or not, but there is more of a style with something being gonzo then just being first person. For something to be gonzo I think it is necessary for the narrator to be bold, reckless, and extreme. In Jobnik Libicki had none of these characteristics, she just seemed mostly apathetic and weak. In gonzo journalism the narrator often was more important to a piece then the actual event, which just was a playground for someone like Hunter S. Tompson's character the duke interact with. In Jobnik it doesn't seem like Libicki is really interacting with the story, so much as being driven by the situations in it. I think Libicki called her work gonzo just to give it a more appealing name than an autobiographical comic or something along those lines, but I think that gonzo is a name that should not be applied to her works.