Jessica's review
On the Road
by Jack Kerouac
Yes, a lame boy made me read it, but the lamest part is that I actually read it.
I read this book when I was 15 and was filled with inspiration and a love of life and a desire to be Dean Moriarty. Then, seven years later, I read it again in college, hoping for the same experience - only better because I should "understand" it more, now that I was in college. Instead, my understanding this time was that I was irritated, disturbed, and a little depressed.
i know i read this book, but i have absolutely no other recollection of it. i do know i don't feel like rereading it. i did like "the dharma bums", at one point.
I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this book is worthless. I couldn't read it when it was new or any time since. It still sits on my shelves waiting to be appreciated. Might be the most over-hyped book of all time.
I am into the whole American hit the road thing. Just not this book.
hm. we should form a club. i should like to be treasurer, and all of your dues are in arrears.
are the comments always in bold?
no, they're not. what gives?
Okay, so yesterday I walked past the New York Public Library -- the fabulous one on Fifth Avenue, where I hope to live in the event of drastic environmental catastrophe, though hopefully (dare I dream?) I'LL have a decent script and costars -- and couldn't HELP but notice the gigantic BANNER for an EXHIBITION devoted to this STUPID CRAPPY PILE of TEDIOUS TYPEWRITING. I was and remain, in a word, aghast.
Will somebody please explain to me why respectable grownups like this book so much? Or perhaps better, why I don't? What am I missing here??? It's not just that I was too old by the time I read it. I first tried to read this book as an impressionable fourteen-year-old, at a time when I was easily swept away by romantic rebellion and at a personal cultural low point: I'd recently discovered Drugs, and was addled enough to believe the Doors were a terrific band. BUT EVEN DURING THIS VERY DARK AGE, I DID NOT SEE THE APPEAL OF THIS NOVEL AND ABANDONED IT AFTER A FEW PAGES BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS DUMB AND THAT THE GUY WAS A JERK. That is to say, at a point in my life when even (I'm not proud of this, Booksters) Jim Morrison seemed like a genius to me, I still was not taken in by the rumored romantic appeal of this novel.
My question is this: what am I missing here? People love this book. People I respect have granted it plenty of Bookface stars. Apparently it's not just a favorite of goateed coffee-shop patrons and unkempt college students, as the New York Public Library (granted, the same institution that sold Kindred Spirits to Walmart) has apparently decided to canonize this document and declare Kerouac some kind of book saint.
Obviously, there is something wrong with me. This must be a good book. What makes this book good? And what is the goodness lacking in me that makes me think it is so bad? Because I think it is. I think it's bad. But clearly I'm missing something!
Okay, so I'm being a little disingenuous here. I do understand the appeal of the nonconformist, follow-your-dreams, freedom-of-the-road novel, but what I don't understand is why THIS book gets to be THAT book. THERE ARE BETTER BOOKS ABOUT TRAVELING AROUND AND NOT GOING TO WORK. There are even better books about trying to be a "White Negro." Way better books, before and since. So what is the DEAL here??
Please explain!
As I've said, I was very inspired by this book when I first read it. I think the reason it's THE popular book about all those things is because its style is so energetic. Yes, there are other books about traveling and being rebellious and being a "white negro." But they don't make you feel like you're on speed when you read them the way this book does. So the answer to your question is - everyone just wants to feel like they're on speed, or have fond memories of the time they did.
Jonathan Ames wrote an essay about his relationship to this book. You should read it. It's in "I love you more than you know."
I need a 'read-it-liked-it-but-can't-remember-why' shelf, or more accurately, a 'stuff-I-read-between-1968-and-1973,
which-quite-possibly-sucked-but-I-liked-it-at-the-time' shelf.
I do remember reading and liking On the Road and The Dharma Bums back in the day (about age 15) but I have no clear memory of either. When I had to read Desolation Angels, though, as a graduate student, I pretty much wanted to shoot myself.
That doesn't really answer your question, does it?
hm. more ames. i suppose it's not synchronicity if we're all sitting around discussing writing. homes, of "music for torching", praises his "wake up, sir!" quite highly, however, in what i think might be a bit of synchronicity (or, merely, the incestuousness of the literary world).
They're both Yaddo people...
i'll have to look into that (after my nap); i'm unfamiliar with it.
i was too curious... i wonder if the artists' colony, in "wake up, sir!", is based on yaddo.
Jessica, I think the "before and since" part of your comment is significant. My understanding is that Kerouac and the Beats, much like Hemingway and the Lost Generation, are strongly associated with a particular time. And while drinking all day in Parisian cafes and going to bullfights in Pamplona remains appealing, that stuff -- and that time -- seem pretty remote. I figure the enduring popularity of _On the Road_ has a great deal to do with its being a particularly early expression of a certain post-WWII sensibility which is still shared by many people today.
As far as go novels of approximately this time period that read as if they were written in one sitting, I prefer Ken Kesey's _Sometimes a Great Notion_.
Also, I think the fact that the guy travels all the way from the East to the West has something to do with it. If he covered only a particular portion of the country, or even made a complete journey across in the opposite direction, the book would probably not have been so well-received. Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way, you know (speaking of popular nineteenth-century paintings). And all this relates to the massive post-war migration to California, right?
I'm not saying I think this is a good reason to canonize a book. People like facile things.
i want to say "i like your facile comments", but it's only my one angry eye speaking (i love everyone's comments). read my lj.
Matthew, I don't know what your "lj" is and "facile" is not a synonym for "concise". I do not pretend to address complexities with my short book reviews. If you think my comments pertaining to _On the Road_ are overly simplistic, perhaps you ought to address those specific points, rather than making vague allusions to my tendency to make "facile comments."
A lot of these responses are really helpful. Ariel, I will definitely hunt down the Ames essay. Thanks everyone!
On a related note, R.I.P. Norman Mailer. Now I'll have to track down his "WN" essay, too, for an overdue reread.
my apologies, rachel; mine was, in fact, a facile comment (i'm aware of the definition). i was merely recording, for posterity, the evil (and incorrect) inner voice that i carry 'round in my head. the imp of the perverse, if you will. absolutely no malice was intended. my lj is my livejournal, wherein i explain that, last night (before writing the comment), i got sucker punched, from behind, and, now, have a swollen eye and a bloodied shirt. i did say i loved everyone's comments... all in all, this is why, apparently, i get punched in the face with a certain frequency.
Oh, Matthew. That's terrible. I'm really sorry to hear it. I was previously going to suggest that you might not spend so much of your social time on the internet, but after hearing this story I have changed my mind. At least Rachel can't punch you through the computer!
One of the nice things about the Internet is that people can't punch you the way they can in real life. Another nice thing about this kind of communication is it gives you a better chance to evaluate, in advance, whether you ought to share what your inner evil voice is saying. As you indicate that you love everyone's comments, it may be difficult for you to imagine that, as far as most people are concerned, some remarks are far more worthwhile than others.
thank you for your sympathy, jessica. in reality, i need to spend more time away from both the internet AND bars, but, for the life of me, the only place i can think to do it is church, and i just can't.
rachel, i was drunk, and had recently been punched in the face; my critical faculties were somewhat impaired. i meant that i loved everyone's comments on this thread, not everyone's comments, full stop. your criticism has merit, however. i have apologised.
Thank you for your review. The smugness level regarding this book and its fans can be astounding sometimes.
Perhaps, like me, you indulge in fantasies about what punishment could possibly be meted out to the to the sink holes of the really worst-of-the-worst - those books that cannot just be thrown away because an innocent might be trapped like a child in a thrown away refrigerator. Take heart, I have discovered the perfect solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Jessica's review
On the Road by Jack Kerouac
Jessica's review
rating:
bookshelves:
bad-reads
recommended for: fourteen-year-old assholes
This is probably the worst book I have ever finished, and I'm forever indebted to the deeply personality-disordered college professor who assigned it, because if it hadn't been for that class I never would've gotten through, and I gotta tell you, this is the book I love to hate.
I deeply cherish but don't know that I fully agree with Truman Capote's assessment: that _On the Road_ "is not writing at all -- it's typing."
Lovely, Turman, but let's be clear: typing by itself is fairly innocuous -- this book is so awful it's actually offensive, and even incredibly damaging.
I'd be lying if I said there aren't parts of this book that're so bad they're good -- good as in morbidly fascinating, in the manner of advanced-stage syphilis slides from seventh-grade health class. Keroac's ode to the sad-eyed Negro is actually an incredible, incredible example of.... something I'm glad has been typed. For the record. So we can all see it clearly, and KNOW.
Please don't get me wro...more
I deeply cherish but don't know that I fully agree with Truman Capote's assessment: that _On the Road_ "is not writing at all -- it's typing."
Lovely, Turman, but let's be clear: typing by itself is fairly innocuous -- this book is so awful it's actually offensive, and even incredibly damaging.
I'd be lying if I said there aren't parts of this book that're so bad they're good -- good as in morbidly fascinating, in the manner of advanced-stage syphilis slides from seventh-grade health class. Keroac's ode to the sad-eyed Negro is actually an incredible, incredible example of.... something I'm glad has been typed. For the record. So we can all see it clearly, and KNOW.
Please don't get me wro...more
Yes, a lame boy made me read it, but the lamest part is that I actually read it.
I read this book when I was 15 and was filled with inspiration and a love of life and a desire to be Dean Moriarty. Then, seven years later, I read it again in college, hoping for the same experience - only better because I should "understand" it more, now that I was in college. Instead, my understanding this time was that I was irritated, disturbed, and a little depressed.
i know i read this book, but i have absolutely no other recollection of it. i do know i don't feel like rereading it. i did like "the dharma bums", at one point.
I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this book is worthless. I couldn't read it when it was new or any time since. It still sits on my shelves waiting to be appreciated. Might be the most over-hyped book of all time.I am into the whole American hit the road thing. Just not this book.
hm. we should form a club. i should like to be treasurer, and all of your dues are in arrears.
are the comments always in bold?
no, they're not. what gives?
Okay, so yesterday I walked past the New York Public Library -- the fabulous one on Fifth Avenue, where I hope to live in the event of drastic environmental catastrophe, though hopefully (dare I dream?) I'LL have a decent script and costars -- and couldn't HELP but notice the gigantic BANNER for an EXHIBITION devoted to this STUPID CRAPPY PILE of TEDIOUS TYPEWRITING. I was and remain, in a word, aghast.Will somebody please explain to me why respectable grownups like this book so much? Or perhaps better, why I don't? What am I missing here??? It's not just that I was too old by the time I read it. I first tried to read this book as an impressionable fourteen-year-old, at a time when I was easily swept away by romantic rebellion and at a personal cultural low point: I'd recently discovered Drugs, and was addled enough to believe the Doors were a terrific band. BUT EVEN DURING THIS VERY DARK AGE, I DID NOT SEE THE APPEAL OF THIS NOVEL AND ABANDONED IT AFTER A FEW PAGES BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS DUMB AND THAT THE GUY WAS A JERK. That is to say, at a point in my life when even (I'm not proud of this, Booksters) Jim Morrison seemed like a genius to me, I still was not taken in by the rumored romantic appeal of this novel.
My question is this: what am I missing here? People love this book. People I respect have granted it plenty of Bookface stars. Apparently it's not just a favorite of goateed coffee-shop patrons and unkempt college students, as the New York Public Library (granted, the same institution that sold Kindred Spirits to Walmart) has apparently decided to canonize this document and declare Kerouac some kind of book saint.
Obviously, there is something wrong with me. This must be a good book. What makes this book good? And what is the goodness lacking in me that makes me think it is so bad? Because I think it is. I think it's bad. But clearly I'm missing something!
Okay, so I'm being a little disingenuous here. I do understand the appeal of the nonconformist, follow-your-dreams, freedom-of-the-road novel, but what I don't understand is why THIS book gets to be THAT book. THERE ARE BETTER BOOKS ABOUT TRAVELING AROUND AND NOT GOING TO WORK. There are even better books about trying to be a "White Negro." Way better books, before and since. So what is the DEAL here??
Please explain!
As I've said, I was very inspired by this book when I first read it. I think the reason it's THE popular book about all those things is because its style is so energetic. Yes, there are other books about traveling and being rebellious and being a "white negro." But they don't make you feel like you're on speed when you read them the way this book does. So the answer to your question is - everyone just wants to feel like they're on speed, or have fond memories of the time they did. Jonathan Ames wrote an essay about his relationship to this book. You should read it. It's in "I love you more than you know."
I need a 'read-it-liked-it-but-can't-remember-why' shelf, or more accurately, a 'stuff-I-read-between-1968-and-1973,which-quite-possibly-sucked-but-I-liked-it-at-the-time' shelf.
I do remember reading and liking On the Road and The Dharma Bums back in the day (about age 15) but I have no clear memory of either. When I had to read Desolation Angels, though, as a graduate student, I pretty much wanted to shoot myself.
That doesn't really answer your question, does it?
hm. more ames. i suppose it's not synchronicity if we're all sitting around discussing writing. homes, of "music for torching", praises his "wake up, sir!" quite highly, however, in what i think might be a bit of synchronicity (or, merely, the incestuousness of the literary world).
They're both Yaddo people...
i'll have to look into that (after my nap); i'm unfamiliar with it.
i was too curious... i wonder if the artists' colony, in "wake up, sir!", is based on yaddo.
Jessica, I think the "before and since" part of your comment is significant. My understanding is that Kerouac and the Beats, much like Hemingway and the Lost Generation, are strongly associated with a particular time. And while drinking all day in Parisian cafes and going to bullfights in Pamplona remains appealing, that stuff -- and that time -- seem pretty remote. I figure the enduring popularity of _On the Road_ has a great deal to do with its being a particularly early expression of a certain post-WWII sensibility which is still shared by many people today.
As far as go novels of approximately this time period that read as if they were written in one sitting, I prefer Ken Kesey's _Sometimes a Great Notion_.
Also, I think the fact that the guy travels all the way from the East to the West has something to do with it. If he covered only a particular portion of the country, or even made a complete journey across in the opposite direction, the book would probably not have been so well-received. Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way, you know (speaking of popular nineteenth-century paintings). And all this relates to the massive post-war migration to California, right? I'm not saying I think this is a good reason to canonize a book. People like facile things.
i want to say "i like your facile comments", but it's only my one angry eye speaking (i love everyone's comments). read my lj.
Matthew, I don't know what your "lj" is and "facile" is not a synonym for "concise". I do not pretend to address complexities with my short book reviews. If you think my comments pertaining to _On the Road_ are overly simplistic, perhaps you ought to address those specific points, rather than making vague allusions to my tendency to make "facile comments."
A lot of these responses are really helpful. Ariel, I will definitely hunt down the Ames essay. Thanks everyone!On a related note, R.I.P. Norman Mailer. Now I'll have to track down his "WN" essay, too, for an overdue reread.
my apologies, rachel; mine was, in fact, a facile comment (i'm aware of the definition). i was merely recording, for posterity, the evil (and incorrect) inner voice that i carry 'round in my head. the imp of the perverse, if you will. absolutely no malice was intended. my lj is my livejournal, wherein i explain that, last night (before writing the comment), i got sucker punched, from behind, and, now, have a swollen eye and a bloodied shirt. i did say i loved everyone's comments... all in all, this is why, apparently, i get punched in the face with a certain frequency.
Oh, Matthew. That's terrible. I'm really sorry to hear it. I was previously going to suggest that you might not spend so much of your social time on the internet, but after hearing this story I have changed my mind. At least Rachel can't punch you through the computer!
One of the nice things about the Internet is that people can't punch you the way they can in real life. Another nice thing about this kind of communication is it gives you a better chance to evaluate, in advance, whether you ought to share what your inner evil voice is saying. As you indicate that you love everyone's comments, it may be difficult for you to imagine that, as far as most people are concerned, some remarks are far more worthwhile than others.
thank you for your sympathy, jessica. in reality, i need to spend more time away from both the internet AND bars, but, for the life of me, the only place i can think to do it is church, and i just can't.rachel, i was drunk, and had recently been punched in the face; my critical faculties were somewhat impaired. i meant that i loved everyone's comments on this thread, not everyone's comments, full stop. your criticism has merit, however. i have apologised.
Thank you for your review. The smugness level regarding this book and its fans can be astounding sometimes.
Perhaps, like me, you indulge in fantasies about what punishment could possibly be meted out to the to the sink holes of the really worst-of-the-worst - those books that cannot just be thrown away because an innocent might be trapped like a child in a thrown away refrigerator. Take heart, I have discovered the perfect solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...