Jack Kerouac - Big Sur

Ok, I just finished reading "Big Sur" written by 'the great' Jack Kerouac. I am so baffled by this guy's writing, or maybe I should rephrase that to say I am baffled by how this guy became a popular American writer.

What the hell is the story of Big Sur? As far as I can tell it's just a guy's daily journal of his time spent at a cabin in Big Sur, then his time spent in San Francisco, and only about a quarter of the writing in the book makes sense. What the hell is New York Times talking about when they say, "His grittiest book." ???? I've said it before after reading "On the Road" and "Dharma Bums" and now I'm yelling it after reading "Big Sur" - THIS GUY SUCKS!!!

I feel like Borders scammed me when they sold me "Big Sur" for fourteen dollars. I'm a sucker, I know. I've now read three of Keroauc's literary 'master pieces' and I'm convinced the guy couldn't write a story if his life depended on it. I've read "On the Road" three times this year alone (four times total) and I'm still lost for what the story is in that book??? I don't know what the beginning is, I don't know where the middle is, I don't know what the plot is, I don't know how the ending means anything. ??

So I guess my question now to everyone on this forum, and hopefully someone can enlighten me, because I am lost, but why is this guy considered a good author???
His books contain no story, the writing itself at times lacks any coherence or sense, to the point where a reader can read three or four pages and have no idea what he's reading. So what am I not seeing that others are?

I'd like to just state this- I like the idea of Jack Kerouac. The idea being that he was this wild, free spirited, boozer guy who journeyed across the roads of the U.S. at will with other wild guys all before the 60's and the hippies and all that. But as far as a writer goes, Kerouac was terrible. I guess maybe I'm just baffled with people's inability to go against the public opinion. I know, I know, Jack Kerouac was sooo cool and we're all supposed to love and admire "On the Road" and all that, but why can't someone else please agree with me that after really thinking about Kerouac and his writing, he sucks?

First of all, I'll say this: On The Road has no plot--none, zip. Kerouac is one of the most overrated writers in history. So much of On The Road is made up of phrases that were at the time--the 1950s--in style, but now they have lost any meaning they had. Just an example of Kerouac's writing from On The Road: "So we sat for awhile and pulled wrists." Okay, in the 1950s, that meant something--pulling wrists was some kind of phrase among the "hip" and "cool" that meant something to them. But now, it means nothing. It's incomprehensible. So much of Kerouac is incomprehensible, because he was writing for a certain time to a certain group of people. Kerouac is one of the most limited writers of all time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

First of all, I'll say this: On The Road has no plot--none, zip. Kerouac is one of the most overrated writers in history. So much of On The Road is made up of phrases that were at the time--the 1950s--in style, but now they have lost any meaning they had. Just an example of Kerouac's writing from On The Road: "So we sat for awhile and pulled wrists." Okay, in the 1950s, that meant something--pulling wrists was some kind of phrase among the "hip" and "cool" that meant something to them. But now, it means nothing. It's incomprehensible. So much of Kerouac is incomprehensible, because he was writing for a certain time to a certain group of people. Kerouac is one of the most limited writers of all time.

---

While it's certainly true that Kerouac's dialogue and idioms are indicative of the period and movement to which he belonged , that hardly makes him incomprehensible. I don't know what 'pulled wrists' (amongst other things) is meant to signify either, but forgoing that knowledge is hardly fatal to my understanding of the characters or the narrative. If you're baulking at the 50's vernacular, then you're not really giving yourself a chance. Similarly, dismissing a novel because it lacks a traditional 'plot' is a rather superficial move.

The novel has a lot of detractors: I sometimes wonder how much of that is an a priori distaste for the 'beat' culture. Personally, I find that Kerouac's much maligned prose frequently illuminates a captivating adventure: Sal's yearning, his confusion and eventual exhilaration still resonate with me today. Ultimately, however, I find it to be a powerful novel about loss and manhood, about the sadness and inevitability of having to face your own identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

Kerouac is one of the most overrated writers in history.

---

I'll second that!

You're implying that I am dismissing On The Road because it lacks a traditional plot. I didn't say that On The Road lacks a traditional plot. I said that it doesn't have a plot. And it doesn't.

You're also implying that the detracters of On The Road dislike it because of a distaste for the "beat culture." No, that has nothing to do with it. I dismiss On The Road because so much of it is made up of phrases that have lost any meaning they once had.

What I stated holds true: On The Road was written for a certain time to a certain group of people, and it is full of phrases that were once "hip" and "cool" in the 1950s, but now they mean nothing and are incomprehensible.

"Corporate America" needed a face to slap onto the "Beat Generation" so that it could be repackaged and sold to American teenagers.

Jack Kerouac: Beat Generation.
Kurt Cobain: Grunge.



thenagainIdoenjoysomeofKerouac'swork.

Quote:

---

You're also implying that the detracters of On The Road dislike it because of a distaste for the "beat culture." No, that has nothing to do with it. I dismiss On The Road because so much of it is made up of phrases that have lost any meaning they once had.

---

So by the same token we can dismiss Shakespeare, Milton, Dante, Chaucer, certainly Joyce - in fact any literature written prior to 2008/9 and then only literature which is written to conform to the mainstream vernacular.

Quote:

---

I know, I know, Jack Kerouac was sooo cool and we're all supposed to love and admire "On the Road" and all that, but why can't someone else please agree with me that after really thinking about Kerouac and his writing, he sucks?

---

No, I don't agree that "he sucks" I think that Kerouac has some very good moments - he is perhaps overrated to the extent of his writing, but I thought on the whole, One the Road, Dharma Bums and Big Sur worked.

Quote:

---

You're implying that I am dismissing On The Road because it lacks a traditional plot. I didn't say that On The Road lacks a traditional plot. I said that it doesn't have a plot. And it doesn't.

---

OK. But I can only infer that the lack of plot informs your dislike of the novel. You asserted that 'On the Road has no plot', as if that fact, without more, somehow went to the quality of the work.

Quote:

---

You're also implying that the detracters of On The Road dislike it because of a distaste for the "beat culture." No, that has nothing to do with it. I dismiss On The Road because so much of it is made up of phrases that have lost any meaning they once had.

---

OK. I was thinking out loud and reflecting on personal experience. Nevertheless, I agree with what Neely has suggested above. There are far greater works written with language now considered equally arcane and we don't dismiss them as redundant.

Quote:

---

What I stated holds true: On The Road was written for a certain time to a certain group of people, and it is full of phrases that were once "hip" and "cool" in the 1950s, but now they mean nothing and are incomprehensible.

---

I can understand if the 'phrases' etc that Kerouac employs render his work irrelevant in your eyes, or how he might fail to universalize the particulars of his own experience. But surely, for all its idiosyncratic language (and I think you're overstating it), 'On the Road' is not incomprehensible.

I've only read Big Sur once, was a while ago now - but I seem to remember enjoying it..

But re. On The Road.. (well done for reading it four times even though you hate him so much!).. not all literature needs to have a narrative arc that has a clear beginning, middle and end - my understanding of On The Road is that it is the search for 'it' (ie spiritual fulfillment) and the futility of such a quest because 'it' is not a destination, but the search itself.. obviously with all good literature it is open to interpretation.. and that is just one of many interpretations

I guess some people don't get on with stream of consciousness either (I read Doctor Sax recently which is tough going; in fact I didn't enjoy it at all).. but generally I think Kerouac is a good writer - not because it is 'cool' to like him, but because it is a style that flicks a middle finger to literary convention and captures the sense of alienation from society that is still relevant for most young people today

I'm not sure you can blame Borders for scamming you.. sounds like you've scammed yourself, if you had already established how much you dislike Kerouac, I cannot work out why you would go out and buy another one of his books

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanket Heist

"Corporate America" needed a face to slap onto the "Beat Generation" so that it could be repackaged and sold to American teenagers.

Jack Kerouac: Beat Generation.
Kurt Cobain: Grunge.

---

A tad cynical, but very probably true. :thumbs_up

One of you asked why I would have gone out and purchased Big Sur if I've already established that I disliked Mr. Jack Kerouac. My answer is I bought Big Sur for the same reason I'll probably buy Maggie Cassidy some day--because I'm still trying to figure out why Jack Kerouac is considered a good writer. I'm still trying to figure out why some of you continue to say that you enjoy reading his books. Because as far as I can tell he was just some drunk guy with a type writer who typed a bunch of words that became sentences that became pages that became enough pages to call it a book.

I know that a good book doesn't necessarily have to follow a certain structure in terms of beginning, middle, end, plot, climax, etc., but shouldn't a book contain some kind of story to it? On the Road makes very little sense to me. Basically I can sum up the entire book like this:

I toko a bus from New York to Denver and met Dean. He was wild jail kid and said "hot damn" alot. Then we drove to San Francisco. We got jobs and Dean said "Hot Damn!" Then we were roaring across the big desert and I said, "This is fun" and Dean had that wild look in his eye and he hollered, "Hot Damn!" Then we went to New Orleans and then back to San Francisco, then to New York, then did it all again, and Dean yelled "hot damn!"

The End


That pretty much sums up the great literary work of On The Road, doesn't it?

I enjoyed On The Road because of its vigour, it was... very vigorous, if I can say this about a book at all, but that's the end of my adventure with Kerouac. Although On The Road has no general interesting plot it's written in a style that helps the reader get into the memoirs of somebody just as they happened, as they could have happened to the reader in the place of the narrator.

But then I bought Dharma Bums and I thought that I can't understand this think in my mother-language so I didn't even bother to look up what the hell there's said in english. This book is so full of words from buddhism and so strange plot turns that I just can't comprehend it. Thus I thought: "Bull****" and put it away. The only thing I remember is something about zen-sex but nothing more.

So for me, yeah, Kerouac is damn overrated.

It seems that Indian Boy and I hit a raw nerve with a few who seem to think Kerouac is a good writer and On The Road is a good book, despite the fact that it has no plot, is written in a style that can only be called juvenile, and is filled with phrases that have lost any meaning they once had and are incomprehensible. All that doesn't matter, does it. All that matters is that Kerouac was so hip and cool, and On The Road is such a hip cool book. Personally, I believe that Mary Had A Little Lamb is a hip cool nursery rhyme.

It strikes me as funny that a few are racking their brains trying to come up with reasons why they like Kerouac and think he was a good writer and that On The Road is a minor masterpiece. When all is said, it won't change the fact that Kerouac was a bad writer and On The Road was a badly written book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indian Boy

One of you asked why I would have gone out and purchased Big Sur if I've already established that I disliked Mr. Jack Kerouac. My answer is I bought Big Sur for the same reason I'll probably buy Maggie Cassidy some day--because I'm still trying to figure out why Jack Kerouac is considered a good writer.

---

well that's good, i admire your perseverance!

but re. on the road and its lack of a story.. define 'story'... perhaps you have a very clear (and maybe formulaic) idea of what a story should be..

perhaps you just need to dig a little deeper... and maybe forget everything you were taught at school about plot and structure

but i think kerouac speaks to a specific type of person (somebody who is unwilling to conform/who is dissatisfied with the mundane and wants to seek out new experiences and discover spiritual fulfillment etc) and maybe you are not one of these people.. nothing wrong with that.. the world would be very boring if we all liked the same old guff, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

It seems that Indian Boy and I hit a raw nerve with a few who seem to think Kerouac is a good writer

---

it's called debate..

He’s not a great writer and a case could certainly be made that he is overrated or appeals predominately to certain groups, but he is not a bad writer, neither are his works "incomprehensible" not by a long way. He is a writer that seems to really split opinion and often people hate his work, you only have to do a search on this forum to see the number of posts dedicated to Kerouac haters or those who are just generally bemused. Other people really dig him.;)

Me, I read about 7 or 8 of his novels/collections of shorts, a few years ago one summer mostly with a deal of pleasure. For me his best and most complete work is Dharma Bums by quite a stretch, followed by On the Road and then a lot of his other works are patchy with a few highs only.

Overall though, I like Kerouac.

Oh, is that what it's called, Hank Stamper. Thank you very much for the information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jermac

Oh, is that what it's called, Hank Stamper. Thank you very much for the information.

---

literature is subjective isn't it. some people like certain things. other people don't. obviously you really dislike kerouac - that's fine with me.. but just because you don't like him, doesn't mean those who do can't debate your reasoning (which is surely the point of message boards? like i said earlier, would be very boring if we all agreed)

i enjoyed on the road very much, but i don't go around saying it is a 'cool hip book', which seems to be your major accusation - that we are all blind to the criticisms you level against it, because we are too preoccupied with the myth of kerouac

so let's have a look at your criticisms..

1. that it has no plot. right. it has no conventional plot. but you argue that it has no plot at all. Sal and Dean travel around trying to make sense of life in 50s post-war America.. that seems a fairly legitimate plot to me, and they travel around and DON'T find what they are looking for - maybe that is not resolution in the classical sense, but it is still a plot

2. that it is written in a style that is 'juvenile'.. well, that is in an entirely subjective remark and not proper criticism, you need to elaborate further

3. that it is filled with phrases that have lost any meaning .. I think this has been answered sufficiently by Neely already, because this reasoning dismisses everything that is not written in a modern vernacular

your turn :D

In the UK there seems to be a bifurcation of opinion, so to speak, about whether Kerouac's On The Road or Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye is the better work. Both were written in 1951 (I believe On The Road was published in 1957) & both novels can be seen to address issues of truth, identity & alienation in post-war America. However, it is often the case that people tend to love one of the novels & are mystified by the appeal of the other. For instance I'm definitely with Salinger. I enjoyed CITR & I think it is an interesting, thought provoking & well written work which occasionally made me laugh out loud! Which can't be bad. I think I 'get' CITR. I didn't 'get' On The Road though. I know people who think it's marvellous & often re-read it. To me, at any rate, it seems like the work of some bloke who sat in front of a typewriter & just wrote down in some strange idiom what he could remember from a road trip that he had gone on all in one session as preparation for writing a novel. When he gets around to actually writing the novel it might be OK. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

In the UK there seems to be a bifurcation of opinion, so to speak, about whether Kerouac's On The Road or Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye is the better work. Both were written in 1951 (I believe On The Road was published in 1957) & both novels can be seen to address issues of truth, identity & alienation in post-war America. However, it is often the case that people tend to love one of the novels & are mystified by the appeal of the other. For instance I'm definitely with Salinger. I enjoyed CITR & I think it is an interesting, though provoking & well written work which occasionally made me laugh out loud! Which can't be bad. I think I 'get' CITR. I didn't 'get' On The Road though. I know people who think it's marvellous & often re-read it. To me, at any rate, it seems like the work of some bloke who sat in front of a typewriter & just wrote down in some strange idiom what he could remember from a road trip that he had gone on all in one session as preparation for writing a novel. When he gets around to actually writing the novel it might be OK. ;)

---

He's dead! I don't mind Catcher in the Rye either.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

He's dead!

---

I know (but if he had lived it would have made a great novel when he actually wrote it instead of just publishing the notes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I don't mind Catcher in the Rye either.:p

---

I don't actually personally know anyone who likes both equally well. There's always the exception...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I would probably punt for On the Road before Catcher though.

---

Ah ha! So you have a preference then!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Now enough of all this I've got to get on with some work...

---

There's no rest for the wicked... ;)

{edit}

Personally, I never read Kerouac, mainly because I was turned off by the Beat culture thing. I like the jazz music from the time, but the Beat lifestyle didn't resonate with me when I encountered it, years later. But I do look forward to giving it a shot someday. I get the impression it could be a pretty great read if I can manage to immerse myself in Kerouac and his ramblings.

Everybody always be hating on Jack Kerouac here. There’s no fence-sitting on this one - you either love him or you hate him, like Brussels sprouts. And now I think I may be the first person to ever compare Jack Kerouac to a wild cabbage. Anyway, as Neely said, this topic pops up here with some regularity; so I’ve gotta think there must be something to it.

English-Red, it sounds like you’re in agreement with Truman Capote, who famously said of Kerouac’s work: “That’s not writing. That’s typing.” (well, it’s a quote that’s been attributed to Capote anyway)

As for me, I loved On the Road. But then I loved The Adventures of Augie March and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test as well. Also I loved The Odyssey.

I've always been partial to hero-takes-a-trip books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

English-Red, it sounds like you’re in agreement with Truman Capote, who famously said of Kerouac’s work: “That’s not writing. That’s typing.” (well, it’s a quote that’s been attributed to Capote anyway)

---

I think that sums it up. This whole debate reminds me a bit about the discussions about The Lord of the Rings. People tend to love it or hate it. Either way it provokes quite vehement reactions. I think that the On The Road 'thing' is parcelled with some subcultural perception of it. Not unlike LOTR. Neither were particularly well written in my opinion but have come to represent something greater than themselves in popular mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sancho

I've always been partial to hero-takes-a-trip books.

---

The Journey of the hero has been a staple of storytelling for millennia.

W a r n i n g

Post containing personal/inflammatory/OT comments have been and will be deleted without any further notice.

Those who insist on making such comments will receive infraction points.

Please also keep in mind that you can report the posts you find offensive or ignore posters who resort to such tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

{edit}

Personally, I never read Kerouac, mainly because I was turned off by the Beat culture thing. I like the jazz music from the time, but the Beat lifestyle didn't resonate with me when I encountered it, years later. But I do look forward to giving it a shot someday. I get the impression it could be a pretty great read if I can manage to immerse myself in Kerouac and his ramblings.

---

I think that's a good point. I don't think you can approach this work half-heartedly, either you should read it and go with it, or pretty much don't bother. As I say though I'm certainly open to criticisms of the books, because there are flaws for sure, but overall I think there is some merit to be found within the pages.

I first read On the Road when i was 18, and i loved it so much i read it again straight after. I can't quit put my finger on exactly why i liked it, it was more of a feeling the book gave perhaps, i'm not too sure. But i think when it comes down to it, it was the right book at the right time, like i just HAD to read it at that time in my life, if that makes sense. Yes his writing takes time to adjust, and even then can be tiresome. Yes, i think it is infantile, but i don't think that's such a bad thing, not for him. I don't really have much interest in the beats, i think it was the concept of "the road" that appealed to me.

I think i once read that the mark of great literature was universality. While i acknowledge that on the road doesn't have universal application, i still think it has quite a bit, it's like your background/age/circumstances will determine whether you gain anything from this book. I hope that made sense, i just think a few of you are being a bit too harsh on kerouac.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastable

I first read On the Road when i was 18, and i loved it so much i read it again straight after. I can't quit put my finger on exactly why i liked it, it was more of a feeling the book gave perhaps, i'm not too sure. But i think when it comes down to it, it was the right book at the right time, like i just HAD to read it at that time in my life, if that makes sense. Yes his writing takes time to adjust, and even then can be tiresome. Yes, i think it is infantile, but i don't think that's such a bad thing, not for him. I don't really have much interest in the beats, i think it was the concept of "the road" that appealed to me.

I think i once read that the mark of great literature was universality. While i acknowledge that on the road doesn't have universal application, i still think it has quite a bit, it's like your background/age/circumstances will determine whether you gain anything from this book. I hope that made sense, i just think a few of you are being a bit too harsh on kerouac.

---

I think that sums it up nicely. I was drawn to the book as well, but I’m not sure why. When I was eight, I was drawn to the game of baseball, but I’m not sure why.

I think this book was the book for its time and place and it spoke to the people of that time and place. And those were the people who were too young to fight in WWII but became adults in the fifties and were trying to make their way in a place where all the good jobs were taken by G.I.s and the colleges were largely filled with ex-soldiers on the G.I.-bill. The book captures the anxiety as well as the exuberance of youth and has a sort of forward-looking optimism that only the youthful truly possess.

I have the benefit of knowing what was in store for that generation, so when I read On the Road, I read it with a sense of nostalgia rather that a sense of anticipation. As for universality as a test for literature, I’m not so sure. I think if a work appeals to too broad an audience, it may lose the edginess that makes it great, which is one of the problems with mass-market books.

On the question of the plot of Big Sur, to understand the book, you need to know Kerouac's life-story. Let it suffice to say that Big Sur is the story of Kerouac's downfall, and salvation through the bottle.

As for On the Road, I think that it's all about the time that a person reads it. If I read On the Road now, I probably wouldn't be so impressed, but I read it when I was a 17 year-old hippie kid(2 years ago, haha, how things change in so little time), and at the time it just struck a chord in me. When I read it again, it didn't have the same magic, though. Kerouac will always hold a special place for me, though, as my introduction to literature. I read Kerouac, and from his list of influences I picked out the names Dostoevsky, Proust, Celine, Henry Miller, and so on and so forth. It was entirely thanks to Kerouac that I now love literature, and although I'm not so fond of his writings anymore, he certainly means a lot to me.

indian boy and the others saying that Jack Kerouac "was actually a bad writer" and his books "were actually all bad", you have all right to not like the books and the writer. But i dare to say that you have no right telling people who like it that they are wrong for liking that. everybody has their own damn preferences. You're not required to like Jack kerouac. You can even say that you don't enjoy his books. but saying or writing stuff like "It strikes me as funny that a few are racking their brains trying to come up with reasons why they like Kerouac and think he was a good writer and that On The Road is a minor masterpiece. When all is said, it won't change the fact that Kerouac was a bad writer and On The Road was a badly written book." is just plainly stupid. It's just yours opinion that he was a bad writer. It's not a fact. It's an opinion. Yours. That doesn't mean that others see it the same way. Hasn't it occurred to you, that maybe you just don't understand the book the way it was meant to be? It was written for a certain group of people (well not really, but a certain group of people loved it, and others didn't.) and you're just not part of that society. Why don't you just put the book away and go on reading something that fullfils your idea of a great book. For example I, I like On the Road, because i like the idea of being free, and that idea emittes a lot from the book - at least i see it that way, i'm not saying everybody feels the same. But I don't like Shakespeare. It's because I can't understand the beauty of his sonnets. I can't understand it. So i don't read it. I don't like it i don't read it. Other people like it, love it, so they read it. I don't go around telling them that they should not like it because i think that Shakespeare wasn't that good. I let them enjoy what they enjoy. Why can't you do the same...
Well, i'm sorry. Forget it, it doesn't even make sense. I was trying to explain something, but my limited vocabulary and my inability to express myself is blocking me from doing so, so i'll just shut up. The best thing to do would be to just ignore you, because right now i'm just forcing my opinion to you, which is what I criticized you for. So i'm not exactly better.

Maybe you should give up on K. He bored me too. Try that fellow who was a drunken postman. I'm sure his autobiographical writings are largely made up. But he might be more interesting to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dinkleberry2010

First of all, I'll say this: On The Road has no plot--none, zip. Kerouac is one of the most overrated writers in history. So much of On The Road is made up of phrases that were at the time--the 1950s--in style, but now they have lost any meaning they had. Just an example of Kerouac's writing from On The Road: "So we sat for awhile and pulled wrists." Okay, in the 1950s, that meant something--pulling wrists was some kind of phrase among the "hip" and "cool" that meant something to them. But now, it means nothing. It's incomprehensible. So much of Kerouac is incomprehensible, because he was writing for a certain time to a certain group of people. Kerouac is one of the most limited writers of all time.

---

I think that "pulled wrists" means that they mutually masturbated. Jack and Neal Cassidy
Both were "bi". His books are ok, nothing great but good for time travel back to the 1950's.