/lit/ - Literature

>>7013741
yes

>>7013741
>Why does this board shit on the Beats?
Because they like to be shit on.

>>7013741
Bunch of drug addled faggot degenerates who could not think, let alone write. Useless bints, the lot of them.

Yeah so sorry I won't ever shoot my wife or become a known pederast, too bad. I guess I'll never be cool because I don't abuse drugs.

>>7013768
There's nothing wrong with being a pederast or abusing drugs. Those are both morals created by the establishment.

>>7013741
>muh adventure
i bet you like Jazz cigarettes, OP

>>7013773
You left out shooting your wife because...?

They influenced life into American poetry. Highly influential and good.

>>7013741

So living life to the fullest is shooting up heroin and/or becoming an alcoholic?

>>7013764
>Bunch of drug addled faggot degenerates who could not think, let alone write. Useless bints, the lot of them.

>le angry hormonal teenager

k b

>>7013741
bitterness, purely and simply. As with the academics of the time who insulted them - they see these young alcoholic bums having fun and getting publicity and feel that they, the more intelligent, aren't getting what they deserve and so they denounce them. It's a true testament to the bullshit embedded in the academic culture.

I enjoy Kerouacs prose and Naked Lunch was fking hilarious, but saying this to some people would have them think I'm some half-wit who has never read anything else.


Ps. Capote a shit

>>7013778
That was a drunk accident caused by Burroughs' "bad spirit". Doesn't count.

>>7013741
When it comes to poetry, Black Mountain and the New York School > Beats

Burroughs is good tho

>>7013789
yeah - exactly. What else could it be?

>>7013796
link please

>>7013741
I want to Fuck young Patti Smith so bad

>>7013764
This man gets it.

They were the Mira Gonzalez's of their generation (albeit, admittedly, with more talent). Just a bunch of pederasts talking about all the drugs they do and all the cub scouts they want to blow.

>>7013814
And so why insult them? If you and the other idiots in the literature crowd had some decency you'll accept them for what they are. Instead you label them all these other bullshit things

It's pathetic, are you jealous or something? Stop riding the coat tails of your intelligentsia hero's like some no brain punk

>>7013825
>you'll accept them for what they are
I accept my stool for what it is but I still flush it down the toilet.

>>7013831
boy that was real clever

bet you thought that was a pretty worthy rebuttal huh?

ignorant punk

>>7013773

Abusing drugs isn't immoral, it's unhealthy. Keroauc died at 47 from chronic alcoholism. Do you consider medical doctors to be part of some "establishment" conspiracy to trick you into being sober for no reason?

>>7013792
>bitterness, purely and simply. As with the academics of the time who insulted them - they see these young alcoholic bums having fun and getting publicity and feel that they, the more intelligent, aren't getting what they deserve and so they denounce them. It's a true testament to the bullshit embedded in the academic culture.

Let's not kid ourselves. People like Burroughs and Kerouac WERE the establishment. Burroughs graduated from Harvard and Kerouac went to Columbia at one point.

They were into things that went against the establishment but they were less disaffected rebels and more privileged faggots who were able to do whatever the fuck they wanted to.

They really are no better than people like Tao Lin and other alt lit asswipes who went to fancy schools and had rich or relatively well off parents.

>>7013840
sad as it is he died under those circumstances, it's not for you to question it let alone insult it

>>7013800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mountain_poets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_School_(art)#The_poets

>>7013741
>They were truly spiritual, had adventures, and wrote some damn good poetry. They lived life to the fullest,

Yes, that was before the potential for freedom was eclipsed by the grinding weigh of capital.

>>7013847
> it's not for you to question it let alone insult it

what are you some.kind of soft normie who gets offended by things

>>7013741
Yeah sure, having lots of homosex, drinking, doing drugs, watching lots of bad music and live poetry, living in shitty hotels, and mumbling to each other about art is "real experience." I bet you think that the alt-lit crowd is profound too?

You want real fucking experience? Read the journalism of Guy Talse, Joan Didion, George Plimpton, George Orwell, John McPhee, Joseph Mitchell, Peter Matthiessen, and Hunter S. Thompson. Read the poetry that comes out of the great wars, the poetry by Wilfred Owen and Randall Jarrell and Anthony Hect. Read the memoirs of people of substance, like Benjamin Franklin.

These are people who can actually write, and who had or encountered intimately people who had "real experience" with something.

>>7013741
>Why does this board shit on the Beats?
Because in the grand scheme of things, they weren't that great. I was really into the Beats when I first got into literature as a teenager. As I became more well-read, I grew less interested in them.

>these people had real fucking experiences
Which weren't really like how they're portrayed in their books. If you're talking about the real life experiences of the Beats, it's important to separate that from the mythos built up around them by themselves and their devotees.

>wrote some damn good poetry
It was mostly pretty mediocre to be honest. Ginsberg was the most talented poet of all of them, but nothing aside from Howl is really great. I wouldn't consider any of the Beats truly great poets compared to the Romantics who they were trying to emulate.

>They lived life to the fullest
Not really. Burroughs spent years of his life addicted to heroin and as he put it "content to stare at my big toe". Kerouac was depressed his whole life, always searching for something he never found. He lived with his mother during his forties slowly drinking himself to death. Even the messiah of the Beat movement was basically nothing more than a speed freak, and was actually pretty pathetic by the end of his life, going from literary inspiration to hanger-on of Kesey's crew.

I think the work of the beats is fine, but I take issue with the idea that their lives represent some sort of ultimate ideal of freedom and adventure.

Seriously, they were just a bunch of quasi-homeless, quasi-employed 20 and 30-somethings who came from middle class families and did a lot of drugs.

Sure, it's a bit more of an edgy lifestyle than that of your average family man, but "getting high frequently and not having a long-term job" is still pretty low on the spectrum of crazy shit a human can experience. I know numerous people who live essentially the same lifestyle that the beats did, which to me indicates that it isn't particularly exceptional.

>>7013847

Why not? Kerouac sets a bad example for the legions of impressionable teenagers who read him and then destroy their minds and bodies with drugs. People should start with Big Sur and not On the Road. I'm not even mentioning his misogyny or childish behavior.

>having illegitimate children and refusing to acknowledge them
>living life to the fullest

Fuck, if I live to 48 without ruining my liver I'll have already lived and experienced more than Jean Louis.

>>7013845
you just don't get it

can you not comprehend things that aren't black and white?
Must they all have some hollywood like scripted life that is either fashionable or unfashionable?

> Burroughs and Kerouac WERE the establishment

nobody said otherwise - nobody was saying they were anarchists, heroes of the underground. They skimmed along doing what they wanted and writing about it generating some publicitiy and suddenly Times is doing a piece about them blowing them and them alone into a movement which middle-class white collar kids started attributing themselves to, and so when fat balding unoriginal cry babies (Capote) see these kids having a good o' time skimming along the edges of the mediocre post war society they yell at them to get of their lawn (so to speak) and then suddenly it's fashionable to dislike these poor old kids who wanted no more than fun. They denounced no-one and yet still somehow bitter nerds STILL get angry about them

Kerouac was absolutely not privileged, and either way what does it matter? They insulted nobody.

You know why they and jazz musicians used the word 'cat' to describe someone?

>>7013873
>lots of bad music
You shut your mouth. Charlie Parker is brilliant.

>>7013873
Also forgot Tom Wolfe. Read "The Right Stuff." About the sort of people who get to put a boot-print on the moon, instead of some crusty jism-shit-lube in some faded carpet in a New York flop.

>>7013887
Beats listened to a lot of good jazz, but 90% of the time you'd be listening to shoddy stuff in cheap jazz bars if you were in their situation.

>>7013886
No, why?

>>7013885
>misogyny

>>7013885
What are you a child health advocate?

>destroy their minds and bodies with drugs
'm not even mentioning his misogyny or childish behavior.

I'm not even responding to that, you're bullshit agenda is deriving from the fact and argument.

>>7013883
>they were just a bunch of quasi-homeless, quasi-employed 20 and 30-somethings who came from middle class families and did a lot of drugs.

jesus fucking christ so what

this is truly a board for fools and sheep

>>7013895
>fools and sheep
>baby's first debate

>>7013890
I cannot remember where I read it, maybe a HST article or maybe I thought it myself. But in my own words cats, unlike dogs, stride the streets to their own wills and wants and fight and fuck and go home and all the while retain to bare animal needs while dogs are subject to their masters. Which isn't inherently a bad thing but they're just two separate directions.

>>7013895

My issue is not with the beats themselves. They wrote about their lives, often quite well. A book or poem doesn't need inherently interesting subject matter to be good.

My issue is with people like OP, who consider them to be people who had "real fucking experience", as though the way they lived was somehow exceptional.

>>7013897
It seems I'm the only one debating, everyone else is responding with bullshit two line greentext half-insults

denouncing something isn't immediate victory of, pal

Daily reminder

>>7013741
I like the poems of O'Hara that I've read. On The Road hasn't aged very well in my opinion but I don't think it is as bad as people make it sound though it is surely the most polarizing classic novel.

>>7013908
Are you sure that's why?

Are you sure you don't want to look the better by kicking the smaller?

I read Howl once and couldnt help but feel I could be reading something else

>>7013916

yeah pretty sure

>Attributing a general consensus about anything to an online filipino donkey menagerie

>>7013895

>you're bullshit agenda is deriving from the fact and argument (sic)

Jesus Christ, put the joint down and learn to speak and write coherently again.

>>7013926
>(sic)
heh

>>7013926
see
>>7013911

Yet to receive one actual reasonable rebuttal. You can keep correcting my hungover jibberish or you can actually say something of value

>has a picture of Nixon saying "Shut up Hippy"

It's 2015

>>7013831

>>7013938
>Yet to receive one actual reasonable rebuttal.
I tried to do so. You conveniently ignored me.

>>7013879

>>7013886
No, I completely get it, and that's exactly why I think you're a massive faggot for perpetuating this idea that there's something noble about what they did.

>Lel they were just out for a good time

There's nothing unique, interesting, or valuable about that. There were, are, and will always be hundreds of thousands of faggot teenagers and 20-30 somethings all over the world who this applies to. The subset that goes into "artistic" pursuits is smaller but ultimately no different from the rest.

>the MAN is to blame for everything bad said about them and overblowing what they were going for!

Yeah, no. Like all hedonistic "artsy" faggots they thought they collectively thought they had uncovered universal truths and profound experiences the likes of which no one before them had.

Every generation has a set of people exactly like them. They were just mythologized because theirs was particularly repressive and enough people were hungry for some sort of change to eat up any bullshit people like them might have had to offer.

>>7013943
>ignored me.

I'm not OP, though admittedly I conveniently didn't see it

give me a minute

>>7013741
because ginseberg was a kike
burroughs was an edgelord
and kerouac was a talentless alcoholic

>>7013949
>There's nothing unique, interesting, or valuable about that. There were, are, and will always be hundreds of thousands of faggot teenagers and 20-30 somethings all over the world who this applies to.

In support of this, Henry Miller and Orwell, in Tropic of Cancer and Down and Out in Paris and London, wrote essentially everything the beats wrote, and in a not too dissimilar style, decades before they wrote it.

>>7013952
Fair enough.

>lived life to the fullest
Not only is this an empty statement, its not even true. Driving around on drugs does not a full life make

>>7013773
>nothing wrong with abusing drugs
Other than it being unhealthy to body mind and soul, to be a waste or time and money, and leads to personal stagnation?

>>7013911
You're not debating at all. What's you are doing is being offended that someone dislikes the beats. If you think that calling the people who answer you "fools and sheeps" will attract sympathy then you are dead wrong.

A lot has been already said if you just read the answers. I simply think that ideology of the beats ends is "rich kids doing drugs and travelling while producing autobiographical literature and thinking they are the shit". And their followers were nothing but the hippies of the 50s: doing drugs but producing nothing worthwhile at all, not even changing the world around them the slightest. It was all an empty ideology which I'm glad is dead.

>>7013938

I did. Drugs and alcohol are unhealthy and doing/drinking a lot of them is not some admirable act of rebellion but an act of self destruction and abnegation of responsibility.

>>7013977
>Other than it being unhealthy to body mind and soul, to be a waste or time and money, and leads to personal stagnation?
None of that is necessarily true. In fact, my own drug use is centered on shifting perceptions to break out of personal stagnation. Then again, I suppose "abusing" is the key word here. There's a difference between experimentation, responsible use, and abuse.

Im glad I got over smoking pot, getting drunk and doing drugs early in life. They really take you nowhere

>>7013773
>pederast
>abusing children
>nothing wrong
Kek

>doing drugs
Drugs are a means to arrive at certain steps of conscience. To the beats, they were the ends: that's all they thought and wrote about.

>>7013949
Yes but can I ask why you're defending your idea? It angers you why?

>There's nothing unique, interesting, or valuable about that

At the time, and for what they were doing - it was interesting. Hence their huge following even today, because you don't agree with out doesn't mean others shouldn't.

>the MAN is to blame for everything bad said about them

oh please - dont crop me into that generalisation.

>Every generation has a set of people exactly like them.
This I agree with, I was suprised when Dosoevsky spoke of short-haired blue-glasses nihilistic youth. But you must admit, they did not strive for universal originality, for some universal truth. They literally did 'cool' things and it caught on, and if some Nixon supporters born 40 years to get angry over it then c'est la vie

>
Every generation has a set of people exactly like them. They were just mythologized because theirs was particularly repressive and enough people were hungry for some sort of change to eat up any bullshit people like them might have had to offer.

literally every counter/sub culture ever

>>7013879
1. Great, that seems that natural progression of most who enjoy lit

2. Certainly they may have exaggerated (and you can thank the Times magazine partly for that), but are you going to deny what they did? People liked it, why question fact?

3. It seems you're agreeing with OP rather than disagreeing - O.K

4. To call them petty is both true and false, but also unnecessary. They were beacons of free will in a decade of mediocrity, what they sparked could be attributed to the hippie movement (note: could), but it seems you think them imperfect and therefore their fame is unjust, I suggest their imperfection is a perfect testament to the beats. Not some great towering archetypes of literature but just some cool guys in it for the kicks and helping disgruntled youth along for the ride

I have to be going now, but if you reply I'll try to later

ciao

>itt: ressentiment
brb gonna go clubbing and get high bitches

>>7013988
>Who is Diogenes of Sinope

Look him up, then tell me the Beats were profound.

>>7013988
>1. Great, that seems that natural progression of most who enjoy lit
Yes, because they aren't great to people who know a lot of literature, but are to the unexperienced. So when someone who doesn't know much about literature goes on about how great they are, the reaction is to shit on them, because it's old hat and no one cares any more.

>are you going to deny what they did? People liked it, why question fact?
I'm denying that their books are an accurate reflection of their lives. Therefore it's dishonest to say they "had real experiences" based on their books. I'm not questioning fact, I'm pointing out that it isn't actually fact. It's a mythos, a mythos they had a huge hand in creating, regardless of how out of their hands it eventually got.

>It seems you're agreeing with OP rather than disagreeing - O.K
No, I'm saying that one Beat had one good poem.

>. To call them petty is both true and false
I didn't call them petty, I challenged the fullness of the content of their lives based on the historical reality of it. I see them as flawed people, certainly, but I'm not judging them personally for that, merely pointing out that their lives being "full" is a gross exaggeration that once again privileges the mythos over reality.

Thanks for responding to strawmen. You're not much of a sparing partner.

>>7013741
The Beats tried to SOUND profound - but they
never made any sense. Kind of a
fake-profundity. They were fakes.

>>7013913
>You're supposed to be a faggot but you make love like a pimp

Kek

>>7014009
Why the fuck did I google him?

Unbelievably stupid reasoning, OFCOURSE there is far more profound, rewarding and interesting reads - but that doesn't mean it should be scolded.

>bread is shit because caviar exists

Idiot.

>>7014026
okay, I've certainly lost interest in this argument but I still strongly disagree.

It seems unjust that they should cop so much shit because they've been compared to other titans of literature, which is very wrong, and which I suppose causes so much backlash because these 'amateur's' are so highly regarded in comparison to the far more profound and invested

>>7013978
You aren't worth replying to

>>7013979
You and the above poster would make great friends.

Enjoy the book of Mormon, pals

>>7013741
tbh its because Burroughs is one of the few English language authors that I have trouble understanding due to his esoteric diction

>>7014286
It's nice you disagree. We all have our opinions. It's not so nice that you have literally no reason to do so, or at the very least can't articulate it in a coherent or meaningful way.

>It seems unjust that they should cop so much shit because they've been compared to other titans of literature
That's the entire point though. They were a subpar literary movement. And they weren't "amateurs" either. They studied English literature at Ivy League schools. They knew what they were doing, it's just that it doesn't stand up to the test of time. Enduring relevance is what makes a piece of literature great, and the Beats have become increasingly irrelevant. So it's completely just. If your main concern is that you want to make them look good, compare them to pulp fiction from the 50s instead. Not sure how that's any more or less "just" though.

Infrarealists > Beats.

>>7014298
Arrogant as a mule

>literally no reason to do so

He who cast the first stone

>the Beats have become increasingly irrelevant

Sure pal, enjoy your literary wonderland.

You argue that they have no literary value (subjective, if anything), I have been arguing more about the movement and the personality of the writing. You say also you have read their works early and then moved onto other things, is that reason to denounce it? - for would it not be better to consider it not a lower level (so to speak) but a different direction altogether? And please, if it no longer attracts you then let it be rather than scorn it.

No, instead you and all the high and mighty and well-reads who passed their beat stage early on with great joy spit on now spit on them because you consider them '''entry level''''.

It isn't a competition

ps. I have to go to a party (fuck you), I'll reply when I get back

>>7014009
The fuck, mate? Diogenes, if anything, should be an example of how an unorthodox life can lead to profound insights and fame.

>>7014409
>He who cast the first stone
I've explained my reasoning in detail. Repeatedly.

>You argue that they have no literary value
No, I don't. I argue their value is waning. Not nonexistent. I can see why you'd like to misrepresent my position though, since you have no real argument against it.

>you consider them '''entry level''''.
I consider them entry level for me, because they literally were an entry for me into literature. I don't really buy into the whole lit tier meme. However, judging them buy the standards that anyone should judge any piece of art (its enduring relevancy and impact), they come up short. Sorry it hurts your feelings to hear that.

Let me go on to say I like Kerouac. I feel a kinship with him. We're both from Massachusetts shithole towns. We both studied English literature at fancy east coast schools. We're both interested in Buddhism. There's a lot there I identify with. But I don't let that cloud my judgement. He's just not that great of a writer.

If you had a leg to stand on, you'd actually be able to respond to my actual position instead of misrepresenting it and burning down strawmen you set up. As is the case, you do not.

>>7014413
The guy in this thread is just arguing about how important the beats were, what I'm getting at is they were no where near the first.

They opened the door for all of the relativism and undisciplined "artistry" that plagues western society today.

Their "my ignorance is as good as your intelligence" mantra has led to everyone getting a degree. We're truly blessed to live in an age where everyone is a genius.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=USMqwGyUMM4

Dennis Hopper performing excerpts from William S. Burroughs

>>7013741
>They were truly spiritual, had adventures, and wrote some damn good poetry.

they sucked balls

>>7014026
Jesus christ this guy fucking rekt op.

>>7014306
We're should I start with the infrarealist?

Kerouac is overrated it's all "muh epic american adventure" , 'look mah I smoke a joint!" and "muh Buddhist spiritualism crap"

But anybody who hates on Burroughs is a fat moralist idiot who doesn't know the first thing about literature and is afraid whether his sensitive virgin sensibilities might get hurt.

Grow a thicker skin you faggoty millennials.

>>7014414
We're literally agreeing with eachother you're just too fucking stubborn to accept variation in opinion.

was good speaking to you my man, you high horse flat foot mormon insufferable spaz

if you want to continue this (I certainly don't) leave me an email address

>>7015553
kek sure he did pal

sure he did

>Americans

>>7013813
agreed

>>7014298
>It's nice you disagree
>you have literally no reason to do so

>>7014417
I'm not arguing how important they were you fucking numbskull, can you read?

more like

>I wanted to flex my bedroom genius knowledge

proud of you, my man

>>7015588
You're really not helping your position pal. His arguments were a lot more convincing than yours. But keep trying.

>>7013838
it was pretty funny, yeah, you're reply is nowhere near as jokes as his

>>7015619
sure
>>7015615
>arguments

his opinions you mean?

This fucking board, I am doing literally no more than saying that the beats should not be scorned for doing their own thing - and still, still people circle jerk eachother into some cry baby high horse binge

>yeah but like Kerouac wasn't like the fucking greeks dude hahaha

I D I O T S
D
I
O
T
S

>>7015654
People here compare every writer to the greats. The beats don't get special treatment.

>>7015661
un-fucking-believable

I can't believe this board is how it is.

>>7015654
>beats should not be scorned for doing their own thing
writing garbage and calling it great literature because the author was high doesn't merit praise.

Most people on /lit/ grew out of the beats long ago. You probably will too when you turn 18

>>7015582
Burroughs is the only beat I fuck with anymore, Naked Lunch is just too damn funny not to

>>7015668
Apparently they (you) haven't grown out of childish generalising, when did the beats describe their work as great literature? When did I describe them as great literature? Hm?

Maybe you just don't get it man - doesn't have to be an academic canon for it to be hard to understand. It's okay you may 'get it' sooner or later when you lighten up.
Have you considered that? Do you like fun? No?


Am I being trolled, could this board be so insufferable?

Board doesn't shit on the beats, merely acknowledges they're not worth much. Now I must admit I'm only posting to call the advocate in this thread a faggot. You're a faggot, chile

>>7015679
Most writers just do their own thing, and they
get compared to every other writer. That's just how it is. Should writers only be compared to other writers in similar movements? Maybe. But beats doing their own thing doesn't mean fucking shit in general, and is a dumb argument in the first place.
Someone doesn't just up and say, "I'm gonna go write a fucking masterpiece and be a part of the Western Canon."
>when did the beats describe their work as great literature
Who fucking does? Honestly. Did Dante? or Homer? Fuck no.

>>7015679
why are you so angry

>>7015654
>>7015667
>>7015679
Fucking hell, now you're just throwing a tantrum like a petulant cunt. Get off your computer. Go to your "party."

>>7015703
I've been awake for a long time and this blind arrogance is beyond all comprehension

>>7015700
>writing garbage and calling it great literature because the author was high doesn't merit praise.
>when did the beats describe their work as great literature?
>Who fucking does? Honestly. Did Dante? or Homer? Fuck no.

That is how fucking retarded you are, I've pointed it out for you

>>7015707
I'm back :^)

>>7015725
>>7015700
>>7015654
>>7015597
>>7014409
>>7014286
>>7013988
>>7013938
>>7013886
>>7013847
>>7015585
>>7015679
These are all of my posts, I'm going to sleep now but reading them should prove my point

goodnight all I cannot argue anymore I hate you all so much and if I were nearyby I'd drive a fucking wooden stake through your foreheads for being spastic brainless children firing off insults for convictions that are not of your own but some academic cry baby

anyway, good night x

>>7015752
But you've been proven wrong time and time again. Good riddance though.

>>7015752
night

>>7015752
If you decide to come back from r/books put a trip on so I can filter you

>>7015759
link to where I've been proven wrong so i can sleep tight and cosy and dream easy :^)

also an interesting read for those who oppose the idea of the beats and who like being angry at wonderful lovable dudes

http://www.lovehaight.org/history/counterculture.html

>>7015764
>buzzwords and memes

square up I could honestly floor you I'm quick and agile and dangerous baby

>>7015775
Lol, I love how you're still lurking pathetically after saying your good nights.

>>7014026
>No, I'm saying that one Beat had one good poem.

Kaddish was better than Howl, but Ginsberg really fell off after that.

>>7013741
Most of them are garbage pseudo intellectuals and the work that matters is rarely discussed, even by academics who study them (Burroughs' trilogies for example).

this thread honestly makes me hate the beats even more if this is the kind of autistic fanboi that typifies their acolytes.

>>7015784
Ever read early-to-middle Ginsberg? Such boring empty tosh. His late-late stuff is stupid, but at least has a gimmick.

>>7015771
It's all over the thread buddy, I'm not gonna bend over backwards just because you can't see it. You don't even debate for the most part, just restate and "clarify" your position. Beats are judged by their writing regardless of the mission statement, not by their lifestyle, or influence, or whatever the fuck your purporting they be accepted for, I don't even know anymore. Deal with it.

>>7015667
>STOP NOT LIKING WHAT I LIKE REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>7013813

>>7015810

OP the beats are okay but if you like some of the themes you get it beat lit but with a little more direction and substance behind it look into Paul Bowles. He was the guy people were travelling to tangier to see. He felt they were good interesting people and that some of thier work was okay but that they were not going far enough/missing the mark in some ways. He has an actual quote about it somewhere.

Most of his stuff is more minimal and moody than the frenetic stream of consciousness beat stuff.

Howl was good
Naked Lunch was in parts great - didn't enjoy the incoherence too much
On the Road was good in the sense that you were immersed in such a foreign lifestyle, at least for me.
I like that they expressed the lifestyles they lived. America at the time was irritatingly conservative and their way of living defied that conservatism in every sense. Homosexuality, the use of drugs, not having a stable job and a family and a white picket fence and all that. I can imagine that society to be fairly stifling for the eccentrics. It's important to contextualize literature, and even that aside, the stories they told were immersive. I don't think that an author needs to necessarily be criticized on his morals.
I'm not sure if this forms a coherent argument for the worth of Beat literature but cum at me br0
They didn't necessarily champion their lifestyles either, but merely explained it. Burroughs hated his addiction and tried to shake it, wrote about how to shake it.

>>7016032
Also choosing an alternative lifestyle filled with poverty, sex and drugs such as they did on intellectual grounds for having the freedom to choose their own life experience, and to express it adequately is interesting and entertaining.
Obviously the harsh realities of their lifestyles such as addiction and diseases exist and can either add or detract from their choice, depending on the value you place on why they chose to live the lives they did.

>>7013847
The worst thing you can do, worse than molesting kids or killing your wife, is type insults none of them will ever read.

>>7013873
>watching bad music
>ben franklin

fucking kill yourself

>>7013879

have you read Kerouac's poetry? obviously not.

This is a common pattern on 4chan.
/lit/ hates the beats because they believe most people who like them are obnoxious, therefore fear that liking the beats will erode some abstract accredation they are deluded enough to think they possess.

>>7013792
word, my man.
you can learn more about voice, breath, imagery, and humor from anyGinsberg poem than from most meme books.

>>7016140
Are you kidding me? His poetry is shit. I own this, and I've read some of his other stuff. He makes terrible "haikus" and boring bullshit. He's not a good poet. I'd consider his poetry the worst of the Beats to be honest. He was better at prose (which admittedly had poetic sensibilities). Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with it.

>>7015585
>We're literally agreeing with eachother you're just too fucking stubborn to accept variation in opinion.
A variation of opinion is a disagreement, asshat.

> high horse flat foot mormon insufferable spaz
Super hot opinions, mate.

>>7015810
Pretty much this. I remember loving Ginsberg when I was younger but then I bought his Collected Poems and realized most of his literary output was garbage, not unlike Whitman who I discovered thanks to Ginsberg.

Fortunately Ginsberg led me to Gary Snyder and from there I started getting into the New Directions catalog and discovering good shit.

Beats are embarrassing to me now and I wish I could time travel to stop myself from pushing On the Road on so many people.

>tfw you made an ass of yourself

>>7013741
man, since all you pro-beatnik guys are pseudointellectual bitchfags ima just leave this here-

The beatniks were hugel influential in the seminal phase of the cultural revolution that slowly liberated culture in the 60's and beyond. Whether you like their writing or not hereby becomes irrelevant when arguing about their social relevance; they're a piece of literary history and can't be argued with anymore.

Second, about whether their actual writing is actually good, that depends on what you like. It's not as profound as things by other movements. No high modernism or w/e. But it did have truly beautiful and in my opinion pretty damn profound artists and works; see Kerouac's Mexico City Blues. They also informed a lot of later art, and still inform a lot of art being made. They did not pioneer, but made public in America for the first time the idea of society as an illusion, a great call to come and question the powers that be. This looks dumb when you look at the hordes of mindless hippies that riff off the beats now, but it's a healthy and (in the 50's) extremely necessary artistic impulse, which they lived out with a lot of balls. They lived insecure existences with their art (i'm not saying for, but at least with), many (like ginsberg) gave up well-respected jobs and risked social repression to get to express himself. If you don't respect that you're a cynic, and everything the beats fought against. Again, not saying you have to like their writing per se. Even though the voice of a lot of turned out to be fucking revolutionary, in literary-historical terms.

fight me, lovers <3

>>7016430
Mexico City blues isn't that bad

>>7013949
Damn, son! That a lot of resentment in just one post.

>>7016481
very nice

>over 100 replies to that

holy fuuuuuck

I dig the beats daddy-o.

But digging the beats wouldn't be half as fun if everybody did.

What's easier and more satisfying than rustling somebody's jimmies by just reading a book?

I had a goddamn dream I was posting in this thread

anyway it's a nice sunday and I've lost interest I hope you all have a nice sunday x