Leile's review
The Dharma Bums
by Jack Kerouac
well, you have to cut the guy some slack.
If thoughs are the flaws you look out for, then you've probably observed alot of great journalists write like that.
Journalist's and author's are different breeds, both capable of the same things but do there work differently.
Author's usually spend a long time writing a story, perfecting it in the comfort of the their own home or office.
though a non fiction writer would dabble somthing down the moment it happens, they still take it home a polish it into a story.
on the other hand,
A journalist has to write everything down almost directly after they've experienced it, that's why tape recorders are useful tools now.
They are also writing every day which is probably what would make him seem more casual, contrary to an author which is generally a more formal style.
I admit he sounds a bit to rambley but he's a fucking journalist!
and a good one too.
I like my journalism as good journalism,
cold.
hard.
ruff.
and true.
if I want an interperted story, I'll read an auto-biography.
Say if you were to travel across country (like Kerouac did) only instead of writing it, you were going to film it as a documentry.
once you got done, and started editing; what are you going to edit out?
what parts are you going to leave in?
what parts are really unneccesary and neccesary to have?
and how much can you edit until you feel the story in your film is completely different than the actual experience?
I'm sure this goes through alot of Journalist's heads.
also
The drunk suspicions you have of him are likley to be true.
However I like to read that in the writing because it helps be get an idea of the state of mind he he was in, as I've already made clear.
so don't be too critical man.
hee hee, duly noted. Good points, all of them. I think in the end I'm just jealous of Kerouac because he had the balls to do exactly what I want to do: hop freight trains, get drunk, and meet people.
I'm curious why you'd classify Kerouac as a Journalist rather than a Novelist? Despite the fact that most of what happened in "Dharma Bums" is true, Kerouac did take liberties to change many details of what happened in life to make the book cohesive, a complete vision. In doing so, I feel as though he played the documentary editor exactly in the way you described. He did it well. But Kerouac was a film editor like the rest.
Regarding the critical-ness, I think you're right. Who am I to judge what this guy did? He did a lot, and this is a great book. I just think that Kerouac has a lot of great ideas, and if he had felt the need to sharpen some of these visions into the bling-iest little diamonds, we'd be looking at the best author of the 20th Century. But I understand. That's not what he was about. When he's looked at as a journalist everything makes a little more sense, I think.
But more than anything, he's a poet without structure. In a poem of his, he wrote: "This is prose, not poetry." He doesn't want it to be structured, and that's what makes it perfect.
Yes, that makes sense too. Maybe after everything is considered, perhaps we should just classify him as a "writer"? Or not classify him at all? After all, as Japhy says in The Dharma Bums, "comparisons are odious". By the way, you guys should check out Kerouac's Big Sur if you haven't already. It's sort of the polar opposite of Dharma Bums in many ways, but I found it to be just as enjoyable if not more so...
Big Sur is incredible, and incredibly depressing. I felt kind of disgusting after reading it, if anyone can relate. I think it's also a must-read if anyone wants to get into Kerouac.
Leile's review
The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac
Leile's review
rating:
This was really a pleasant surprise. After making my way through "On the Road" and a few other things by Kerouac, I had come to the conclusion that the dude is a hack, and that the other Beats were really on some way better shit. I just couldn't feel that "rambling" ass style that he writes in, even though I acknowledge that it was a conscious decision of his to write that way.
I get it -- he writes the way he travels, making quick decisions and trying to be spontaneous and spiritual. But to me it's kind of just a garbage decision stylistically...personally, I like writers to show a little discipline and take heed to the laws of grammar and punctuation. Plus I think he was just drunk half the time. I write a lot of stuff when I'm drunk too -- it doesn't mean I would try and get it published unless I sat down and edited the fuck out of it, with a clear head one day. Drugs and booze can be good for the creative process, but at some point you've got to sit down and...more
I get it -- he writes the way he travels, making quick decisions and trying to be spontaneous and spiritual. But to me it's kind of just a garbage decision stylistically...personally, I like writers to show a little discipline and take heed to the laws of grammar and punctuation. Plus I think he was just drunk half the time. I write a lot of stuff when I'm drunk too -- it doesn't mean I would try and get it published unless I sat down and edited the fuck out of it, with a clear head one day. Drugs and booze can be good for the creative process, but at some point you've got to sit down and...more
well, you have to cut the guy some slack.
If thoughs are the flaws you look out for, then you've probably observed alot of great journalists write like that.
Journalist's and author's are different breeds, both capable of the same things but do there work differently.
Author's usually spend a long time writing a story, perfecting it in the comfort of the their own home or office.
though a non fiction writer would dabble somthing down the moment it happens, they still take it home a polish it into a story.
on the other hand,
A journalist has to write everything down almost directly after they've experienced it, that's why tape recorders are useful tools now.
They are also writing every day which is probably what would make him seem more casual, contrary to an author which is generally a more formal style.
I admit he sounds a bit to rambley but he's a fucking journalist!
and a good one too.
I like my journalism as good journalism,
cold.
hard.
ruff.
and true.
if I want an interperted story, I'll read an auto-biography.
Say if you were to travel across country (like Kerouac did) only instead of writing it, you were going to film it as a documentry.
once you got done, and started editing; what are you going to edit out?
what parts are you going to leave in?
what parts are really unneccesary and neccesary to have?
and how much can you edit until you feel the story in your film is completely different than the actual experience?
I'm sure this goes through alot of Journalist's heads.
also
The drunk suspicions you have of him are likley to be true.
However I like to read that in the writing because it helps be get an idea of the state of mind he he was in, as I've already made clear.
so don't be too critical man.
hee hee, duly noted. Good points, all of them. I think in the end I'm just jealous of Kerouac because he had the balls to do exactly what I want to do: hop freight trains, get drunk, and meet people.
I'm curious why you'd classify Kerouac as a Journalist rather than a Novelist? Despite the fact that most of what happened in "Dharma Bums" is true, Kerouac did take liberties to change many details of what happened in life to make the book cohesive, a complete vision. In doing so, I feel as though he played the documentary editor exactly in the way you described. He did it well. But Kerouac was a film editor like the rest.
Regarding the critical-ness, I think you're right. Who am I to judge what this guy did? He did a lot, and this is a great book. I just think that Kerouac has a lot of great ideas, and if he had felt the need to sharpen some of these visions into the bling-iest little diamonds, we'd be looking at the best author of the 20th Century. But I understand. That's not what he was about. When he's looked at as a journalist everything makes a little more sense, I think.
But more than anything, he's a poet without structure. In a poem of his, he wrote: "This is prose, not poetry." He doesn't want it to be structured, and that's what makes it perfect.
Yes, that makes sense too. Maybe after everything is considered, perhaps we should just classify him as a "writer"? Or not classify him at all? After all, as Japhy says in The Dharma Bums, "comparisons are odious". By the way, you guys should check out Kerouac's Big Sur if you haven't already. It's sort of the polar opposite of Dharma Bums in many ways, but I found it to be just as enjoyable if not more so...
Big Sur is incredible, and incredibly depressing. I felt kind of disgusting after reading it, if anyone can relate. I think it's also a must-read if anyone wants to get into Kerouac.