/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4010344]

why does /lit/ hates Kerouac?

[Anonymous No.4010354]

>>4010344
Because he represents that ideal of anarchic freedom that, to cynics like us, is impossible to achieve.

[Anonymous No.4010352]

We don't, we hate his readers.

[Anonymous No.4010370]

>>4010352

why do you hate his readers? Honest question, none of my friends read so I only have y'all fags to discuss literature (ie I personally don't know any Kerouac reader)

>>4010354

From what I've read, Kerouac does not represents (at least intentionally) "anarchy" and by the time he wrote Big Sur he was very cynic and bitter towards the whole "beat" thing

[Anonymous No.4010376]

>>4010354

>anarchic freedom
>Kerouac

Maybe you should read Kerouac first before spouting bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4010378]

Because his ideas about free living and wandering are routine now that the post-graduation road trip has been ingrained into our customs. Also his appreciation of Buddhism has been appropriated ad nauseum since the 50s. Basically, the events in his novels, once revolutionary, have become middle-class day-to-day ideas.

His narrators often seem emotionally retarded in a way that I think comments on his own character. In The Dharma Bums, the main character watches a woman die and walks away because of some pseudo-Buddhist conviction of Karma and eternal life. He was a an emotionally stunted manchild.

>>4010352
Shut up.

[Anonymous No.4010387]

>>4010376
Kerouac is a completely amoral writer, he just lives for the experience. He represents the ideal of Anarchist freedom because he doesn't even associate himself with any such ideals and just does what he wants through spontaneity.

[Anonymous No.4010395]

>>4010378

>Because his ideas about free living and wandering are routine now that the post-graduation road trip has been ingrained into our customs

So basically, you "hate his readers"

>Also his appreciation of Buddhism has been appropriated ad nauseum since the 50s. Basically, the events in his novels, once revolutionary, have become middle-class day-to-day ideas

He abandoned Buddhism shortly after the Dharma Bums. Having said that, I am not sure what does believing in Buddhism has to do with being a stunted manchild (and I do agree with the fact that he was a manchild in many ways)

[Anonymous No.4010406]

>>4010395
>manchild

This. /lit/ wants to think of itself as intellectual and pragmatic and can't believe that Kerouac's childish and pure outlook of life would be better than the solitary life of books.

[Anonymous No.4010432]

>>4010395
>So basically, you "hate his readers"
Not at all, and I didn't at all suggest that.
>I am not sure what does believing in Buddhism has to do with being a stunted manchild
It doesn't, and I don't know where you got that idea. When a character leaves a dying woman behind because of some ideology, it is an act of manchildhood.

[Anonymous No.4010445]

>>4010406

hey man

nothing wrong with naive art

As a matter of fact, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't see why /lit/ would hate Kerouac for being a "manchild", while many other writers who were obviously completely drenched in fictitious book characters are so liked in this board

Specifically with Kerouac, I don't know how much of his naive views were truly his or only reserved for his Jack Duluoz character. I'd be much more interested on hearing legit arguments and not the overused 'reason' said above

Hemingway was probably a repressed homosex and in many ways he was as "naive" as Kerouac

[Anonymous No.4010450]

>>4010445
The 'legit' argument is that Kerouac wrote in spontaneous writing and /lit/ thinks thats a cheap way to write.

[Anonymous No.4010456]

>>4010445
I think you're confusing yourself, because in this thread, it's only me who has used the word manchild to describe Kerouac. I don't represent all of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.4010466]

>>4010432

>Not at all, and I didn't at all suggest that.

Wait, you said:

>Because his ideas about free living and wandering are routine now that the post-graduation road trip has been ingrained into our customs. Also his appreciation of Buddhism has been appropriated ad nauseum since the 50s. Basically, the events in his novels, once revolutionary, have become middle-class day-to-day ideas.

You're not attacking Kerouac, you're attacking the fact that Kerouac's ideas are ingrained into our modern society. So you're basically hating his readers/people influenced by him

Correct me if I'm wrong, because that's what I am getting from that paragraph

>When a character leaves a dying woman behind because of some ideology, it is an act of manchildhood.

Wait what?? Jack and her had a discussion about some Buddhist thing (IIRC it was the whole "the world is an illusion") then Jack leaves, and while he is gone, she cuts herself and jumps. He didn't know about it til the next day....

How is this "leaving a dying woman"? He didn't even see the corpse. All he saw was an X on the ground, showing the landing spot. He does not do anything in here that would be an act of "manchildhood"

[Anonymous No.4010471]

>>4010450

that's not an argument, that's a personal opinion

>>4010456

ah yes sorry I'm tired and I'm not a native English speaker, I just re-read your comment and it makes sense now

[Anonymous No.4010474]

>>4010471

>I spent my entire youth writing slowly with revisions and endless rehashing speculation and deleting and got so I was writing one sentence a day and the sentence had no FEELING. Goddamn it, FEELING is what I like in art, not CRAFTINESS and the hiding of feelings.

Then you see the hundred of writing threads here where people paste the stuff they wrote and 500 others tell them to go rewrite it because its shit. Of course /lit/ is going to take offense at this guy.

[Anonymous No.4010512]

>>4010474

It's starting to make sense

[Anonymous No.4010520]

>>4010466
>>So you're basically hating his readers/people influenced by him
No, not at all. There is no hate in the content of my message. I'm saying that some of his concepts, once revolutionary, are now normal to our lives. So, the impact of his work has been blunted.

>How is this "leaving a dying woman"?
To be completely honest, I didn't read this particular part, which explains my inaccurate representation of it. I was talking about this scene with my used records guy and he said that the way the character sort of rationalizes her death by saying some eastern clap like "It's the way of the world, life is so fleeting" is an abnormal and emotionally stunted response. If this character was emotionally mature, he probably would have been upset that he couldn't help her in her final moments. But, because this is Kerouac, it's just another way to express ideology.

[Anonymous No.4010533]

>>4010520
>the impact of his work has been blunted.

Basically this. /lit/ now associates him with edgy teens and people who talk about YOLO. Also if that anecdote is true then he's an asshole.

[Anonymous No.4010593]

>>4010520

You're painting him as some New Age Buddhist who only parroted what he read/was told

I am assuming you haven't read the book in a while but (if Kerouac is telling the truth) he was studying Buddhist for over 5 years, meditated every day and so on. So I don't think it was "Eastern clap" as you said

And regardless of your spiritual beliefs or lack thereof, I still don't know why you think bawling his eyes or being upset about an almost total stranger's death makes him "mature" in any way. In the book, Rosie, the dead woman, was Neal Cassady's current gf. Jack went to see Neal (he hadn't seen Rosie for years, it was implied) and by that point she was in the middle of some sort of mental breakdown (this was before she talked to Jack). So they had the talk, and then she kills herself. Jack comes back and finds nothing just a chalked X in the ground. What the fuck was he supposed to do? A Hollywood scene, kneeling in the rain with his arms wide open and crying?? For a woman he barely knew? All he did was ask himself if his ideas were "stupid and childlike".He omits what happens until a week later, when he leaves. I fail to see how this is "immature". If anything, this is the typical response I expect from somebody who studies the Dharma, and witnesses something so pointless (from the buddhist point of view) as suicide.

>Also if that anecdote is true then he's an asshole.

Not reading a book and forming opinions based on somebody else's baseless opinion makes YOU an asshole

[Anonymous No.4010604]

>>4010593
>Not reading a book and forming opinions based on somebody else's baseless opinion makes YOU an asshole

True, but I did place the caveat 'if it was true'. I'm just a proponent of simple morality.

[Anonymous No.4010680]

>>4010593
Why does it have to be either resigned Buddhism or a Hollywood scene with you? Why can't it be in between?

The character in this scene is immature because he explains away the suicide with his savior Buddhist crap. It doesn't matter how much he studied Buddhism. If it got him to stop feeling bad for the suicides he knew, then he got wrapped up in the teachings and lost something along the way.

[Anonymous No.4010684]

>>4010593
>>4010680
By the way, I read about half of the Dharma Bums. I stopped because I thought it was preachy, masculine boy's club shut.

[Anonymous No.4010686]

>>4010684
*shit

[Anonymous No.4010712]

>>4010680

You are projecting your own beliefs onto something that doesn't make a lot of sense from your own warped perspective.

Read the fucking book. Kerouac does not "explains" anything. He only wonders if the outcome could've been different had she listened to him (there's the empathy you're looking for).

He didn't feel bad for her but he did not "explain" it with "buddhist crap". Read the fucking chapter and shut your whore mouth

[Anonymous No.4010716]

>>4010712
No thanks.

[Anonymous No.4010720]

>>4010716

>doesn't read the book
>lies to prove his "opinion"


aight den

[Anonymous No.4010727]

>>4010720
What did I lie about? This is getting silly.

[Anonymous No.4010751]

>>4010352
Hell, even he hated his readers

[Anonymous No.4010752]

>>4010727

That scene on the book, you're basing it on your hearsay and whatever else you want to base your opinion of Kerouac. He didn't explain shit. He didn't parrot "buddhist" shit. He didn't "leave her dying"

If you want to hate on Kerouac, thats fine with me. But pls stop pulling arguments out of your ass. It makes you look like a fool

[Anonymous No.4011627]

bump

[Anonymous No.4011731]

>>4010344
http://www.cracked.com/article_18787_6-books-everyone-including-your-english-teacher-got-wrong_p2.html

>Kerouac spent roughly seven years roaming the countryside looking for answers. He never found any, and it's pretty clear in the book. Yes, there were some wild times that seemed like a blast, but it got old after awhile. Nevertheless, it was that side of his character everyone celebrated even though he tried to put it behind him.

>And keep in mind, Kerouac wasn't even describing events that took place during that time. Since the novel came out in the late 50s, everyone assumed he was describing the thought and feelings of that era, but the events of the novel took place almost a decade before. He wasn't even writing about the era he supposedly defined.

[Anonymous No.4011770]

>>4010344
You either read him at exactly the right time and fondly remember him or you miss this and think he's shit forever.

[Anonymous No.4012189]

>>4010387
this understanding of Kerouac is why people don't like him, but this understanding fails to recognize that Kerouac is really a very deeply Catholic writer.

[Anonymous No.4013004]

>>4011731

Wow, anyone with 4 neurons working in unison would have figured this out by now. The book is filled with the dates when each trip took place.

[Anonymous No.4013044]

>>4010354
No, his writing is just shit. Nevermind the narcissism and Pharisaical hippy bullshit, Kerouac just wasn't a good writer. He had potential for sure, and you see it in some of his poems, but his books are terrible.

[Anonymous No.4013048]

>>4010593
>You're painting him as some New Age Buddhist who only parroted what he read/was told
>he was studying Buddhist for over 5 years

He studied incorrectly, unfortunately, which isn't uncommon when it comes to Western interpetations of Eastern thought.

[Anonymous No.4013057]

>>4013048

>He studied incorrectly, unfortunately

care to explain, please?

[Anonymous No.4013068]

on a related note, what does /lit/ think of Kesey?

I think pic related is a true masterpiece. Cuckoo's Nest is also brilliant.

[Anonymous No.4013082]

>>4013068
Kesey's great. Both you mentioned are classics

[Anonymous No.4013087]

>>4013044
>caring about style
>2013

captcha: nikingt philosophy

[Anonymous No.4013099]

>>4013087

Style is content

>caring about content

[Anonymous No.4013113]

>>4013099
REKT

[Anonymous No.4013295]

He has half the talent of Ginsburg. "On the Road" is passive, rambling, dated

[Anonymous No.4013731]

>>4013295

>"On the Road" is passive, rambling, dated

You must be one of those who thinks art should be X and Y

[Anonymous No.4016389]

>>4013295
and both are inferior to Burroughs.

but I think all three are excellent.

[Anonymous No.4016555]

>>4010474
You have to be high on benzydrene.

[Anonymous No.4016571]

Because his work is about "common men doing common things". The durge of society. The anti-intellectual. The excess.

Really appeals to immature nihilistic-hedonists. Funny thing is, I bet most of /lit/ liked him at one time (or still secretly do), that is, until the elites trashed them to smithereens.

Most of /lit/ loves that annoying dick hole...forgot his name but he sucks, he wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He's so shit that I actually forgot his name. Hah.

[Anonymous No.4016574]

>>4016571
>The durge of society
>dregs

[Anonymous No.4016600]

>>4016571
Hunter S. Thompson. The best Gonzo. Better than Mailer, and much better than Wolfe.

[Anonymous No.4016604]

>>4016600
>Gonzo
>Roach Tier /lit/

pls.

[Anonymous No.4016631]

>>4016604
>Opinions

[Anonymous No.4016666]

I love Kerouac. On the Road is essential reading for modern american lit. The only thing is it's so...Dickens and Hemingway. It's where you break ground but it's not where you end. You gotta dig deeper. I still thoroughly enjoy Kerouac though. Reading him is like meeting an old friend from church who sat in the back pew and tried not to laugh to hard at inside jokes.

[Anonymous No.4017464]

>>4016571

if you're grouping HST with Kerouac then you missed the entire point of Fear and Loathing, and by default, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.4017497]

>>4016666
this made absolutely no sense.

[Anonymous No.4017523]

>>4010370
>I personally don't know any Kerouac reader

then your friends are dense. he's one of the most commonly read american writers. usually assigned high school lit. on the road was about old school hipsters jerking off on eachother whenever they thought their perspectives widened.

[Anonymous No.4017638]

>>4011770
After my college class didn't like him I went back and reread On The Road. Was surprised how many brilliant bits there are and how interesting the guy's life was. It's grammatically wobbly because it's colloquial, it's plotless because it's memoir.

He has a reputation for being looked down on because of 50s newspaper critics bitching at an outsider who outsold their friends and stood for the wrong things. That legacy of educated disapproval means that when people don't like it they feel they have license to make bold declarations. He's not the best, but he's decent.

[Anonymous No.4017641]

>>4016666
That was lame brah.

Also, it's not like Dickens at all, and barely anything like Hemingway, Hemingway being a rather tight-lipped precursor to minimalism while Kerouac is a latterday romantic

[Anonymous No.4017725]

Hemingway and Dickens aren't alike either, but they have inspired countless others to the point where they were at the center of paradigm shifts. That's what I meant in comparing them. They're well known writers, in the pantheon of success. I'm not comparing them in style or subject, but in notoriety.

[Anonymous No.4017858]

So what I am gathering from all this is that /lit/ is full of snobs.

[Anonymous No.4017868]

>>4017858

[Anonymous No.4017873]

>>4017868
Too true.

[Anonymous No.4017969]

>>4017858
Oh my, what a surprise.

[Anonymous No.4017973]

>>4017858
>snobs.

nah, once you actually develop taste you'll see what we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4017976]

Everyone needs to just forget about all this shit and read this

[Anonymous No.4018006]

>>4017976
THIS

[Anonymous No.4018015]

>>4017973
You sound like a spiritualist. "If only you could understand the secrets of the universe like I understand them."

While i will admit to maybe not having the most diverse palette i shall forever cherish not being a conceited snob who convinces himself that his subjective taste and foe intellectualism is an objective assessment.

[Anonymous No.4018025]

>>4018015
>You sound like a spiritualist.

true. but i do encourage you to keep reading and to put a little trust in what are considered classics before you condemn us all as snobs.

>foe intellecualism

teehee.

[Anonymous No.4018068]

>>4018025
>true. but i do encourage you to keep reading and to put a little trust in what are considered classics

I will take that under advisement. I am not saying that the classics are not classics for a reason or that they have been invented as classics. Classics are objectively good in some way, shape or form. The same way a lot of authors have faces and glimmers of beauty and skill to their writing that a lot of people ignore subjectively and then relate as an objective truth. This threads seems to stink with a little bit of that mindset. People seem to relate their opinion as fact simply because it's their opinion.
Mainly remember that no one wants to end up like the art snobs, buying blank canvases at premium price while whole heatedly knowing they are fucking morons with out being able to confront that fact.

I enjoyed On the Road. I wouldn't say everyone HAS to enjoy it. They should at least try to enjoy it when they read it though, otherwise they are just being a snob. If they actually try to see the good, then asses the bad and say "This book is tripe" then fucking ey and all power to you. But without that first step of trying to find enjoyment in reading the book then all assessment after that is tainted.

[Anonymous No.4018076]

>>4017976
YES. I just finished it about weeks ago. It's wonderful