Oh, is that what it's called, Hank Stamper. Thank you very much for the information.
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)Originally Posted by Jermac
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
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
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.
Last edited by Red-Headed; 01-07-2010 at 03:39 PM.
docendo discimus
He's dead! I don't mind Catcher in the Rye either.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.
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).
I don't actually personally know anyone who likes both equally well. There's always the exception...I don't mind Catcher in the Rye either.
Last edited by Red-Headed; 01-07-2010 at 02:57 PM.
docendo discimus
Ah ha! So you have a preference then!
There's no rest for the wicked...
docendo discimus
{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.
Last edited by Scheherazade; 01-08-2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason: quoting a deleted post
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.
Uhhhh...
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.
The Journey of the hero has been a staple of storytelling for millennia.
docendo discimus
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.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
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.
L'enfer, cest les autres
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.
Uhhhh...
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote