What Gets Kept
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
> On the Road is a terrible book about terrible people. Jack Kerouac and his terrible friends drive across the US about seven zillion times for no particular reason, getting in car accidents and stealing stuff and screwing women whom they promise to marry and then don’t.
> Jack Kerouac’s relationship with Dean can best be described as “enabler”. He rarely commits any great misdeeds himself. He’s just along for the ride [usually literally, generally in flagrant contravention of all applicable traffic laws] with Dean, watching him destroy people’s lives, doing nothing about it, and then going into rhapsodies about how free-spirited and unencumbered and holy and mad and visionary it all is.
https://readscottalexander.com/posts/ssc-book-review-on-the-...
It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.
But I read old books for their interesting stories, viewpoints on life, literary quality, etc. – not to tut-tut someone for having different moral views than me, a hundred years later.
So it doesn't bother me. Like I said, I really cannot understand the mindset of someone that reads a book from another era/civilization and focuses on critiquing the author's ethics. Just feels like such a limited way to interact with the world.
Personally speaking, I found the book very 'awe-inspiring'/it made me go 'wow' a bunch, because I found the author's experience so completely different from my own :)
It's more: wow these guys are jerks, and they get on my nerves.
A protagonist doesn't need to be perfect. But, ultimately, you should be rooting for him.
And I don't agree that you should be rooting for protagonist. That's an extremely limited way of looking at literature, much less history. I can think of half a dozen books offhand that have unpleasant or anti-hero type protagonists.
I was not a fan of Thomas Covenant. What a prick.
I don’t know if it’s him or me, but the last book gave me the feeling Ellroy has fully embraced the man-o-sphere. I can hardly judge him, given the story of his upbringing, but I think I am going to catch the next stop on his bus line.
“You shall not steal” is the eighth commandment from the Bible, two thousand years ago.
What is bad is insisting that no one can point it out. That we all must pretend that acting like that is being cool free-spirit and visionary. That we cant analyze a book and make conclusions about what it celebrates, what it criticizes and what it just describes without any value judgement attached.
Somewhere along the lines people developed extremely thin skin toward what you can say about famous pieces of art. You cant really analyze them nor their characters. You must show only unfailing admiration of the characters and the book itself.
That was always one of the appeals of the Seinfeld show for example. Well written show about some really horrible people. Fun for the whole family.
It’s not really surprising to me that the author didn’t like it; Kerouac is probably the exact opposite person to him. But that doesn’t make it a good review.
But text is a serialization of an idea and it's entirely possible I have the wrong deserializer. So that's one thing perhaps you and I now have in common. And I suspect Scott Alexander just lacks the deserializer for Jack Kerouac.
It is not that much exhausting to not celebrate abuse. In fact, most people are not abusers, most books are not celebrating it. But, there are subcultures that do treat abuse as a cool inspirable thing to do. That is what the quote references. And it is exhausting to be around such cultures once you have seen or understand consequences of what they celebrate. And that ideology is how one gets Epstein enablers.
Vice signaling and principled opposition against "acknowledging there are victims here" are weird and destructive taboos.
>I guess all biographies of influential people are basically out, as being successful in 1000BC or 1500AD required one to do things considered unethical today.
Maybe this means we should not celebrate success itself, but acknowledge harm many successful people do to make themselves famous, rich and powerful. But more importantly, this claim of yours is frequently just not true. It is something people say to defend their heroes, trying to defend unusually horrible stuff that back then people themselves found horrible back then, fought against and criticized a lot. You can write about bad stuff historical person caused without framing it as good or cool thing, really. You can even acknowledge that their opposition had a point.
We know that being abuser is something that makes certain people admire you more.
The best person to ever have lived, was thus a baby born to a prisoner in the 1600 which spend his life in prison doing nothing. We should all aspire and be inspired to be like that. Childlike and horrifically controlled by external systems.
left from so strongly clutching his pearls
will take an eternity to de-dimple.
if you read on the road thiking you're going to get carefully distilled philosophical and moral clarity, you're in the wrong Wendy's sir.
> carefully distilled philosophical and moral clarity
I wasn't looking for moral clarity, I was looking for something interesting to read about the world they live in, some insight
From the review posted above:
"But this is supposed to be okay, because they are visionaries. Their vision is to use the words “holy”, “ecstatic”, and “angelic” at least three times to describe every object between Toledo and Bakersfield. They don’t pass a barn, they pass a holy vision of a barn, a barn such as there must have been when the world was young, a barn whose angelic red and beatific white send them into mad ecstasies. They don’t almost hit a cow, they almost hit a holy primordial cow, the cow of all the earth, the cow whose dreamlike ecstatic mooing brings them to the brink of a rebirth such as no one has ever known."
I understand the argument but what is the "dish" OTR is serving ?
So instead of using a metaphor, can you tell us what you experienced when reading the kind of lines he is referring to when you read the book ?
What I personally experienced is not very relevant, but I was moved by the book - whether it's positive or negative doesn't really matter - it's jazz.
(I think people have misunderstood the appeal of the book, probably because the psychological conditions of the mid-20th century are unrecognizable. It is significant that the book is from 1957, a whole decade before Easy Rider and the general transition period centered on 1968)
"“I remove a glove with my teeth, reach down and feel the aluminum side cover of the engine. The temperature is fine. Too warm to leave my hand there, not so hot I get a burn. Nothing wrong there.
On an air-cooled engine like this, extreme overheating can cause a “seizure.” This machine has had one-in fact, three of them. I check it from time to time the same way I would check a patient who has had a heart attack, even though it seems cured.”
Could be I just like On the Road: The Musical, book by Craig Finn, music by The Hold Steady.
> generally in flagrant contravention of all applicable traffic laws
Being up front, I cannot stand this author in the first place. The idea there were any applicable traffic laws in the Great Inbetween in 1950s America is stupid.
It really is unfortunate that man's sex drive is above and beyond the level he can achieve without subterfuge (at best) and violence (at worst).
It has been a long time and now I feel like I should revisit it to see if that still holds.
When I was a kid, I was very sad for the last half of SLC Punk! Like so many stupid kids, I was sure that I was oppressed and my angry instincts had some sort of real defiance and valor to them. And of course, just like the movie, a bit of life experience and maturity revealed the lie. I rewatched the movie recently as an adult (~late 30s) it was a totally different experience. The end of the movie felt a bit like a mercy. (which I'm sure is what the director intended)
I say this only because I've never heard people talk about Kerouac in this way, but I also think the last time I heard anyone talk about Kerouac was back in college; back when we could still lie to ourselves about the nature of (stupid, teenage) rebellion. Back when we had no inkling just how selfish or privileged we were.
Maybe it's that people wish they would dare share that freedom? Escapism from boredom?
The lifestyle does not at all feel pleasant, at least to me. I don't mean it in the sense of regular comfort; these lines describe a tortured man more than they do a 'happy beggar'.
And then there's the chaos the trainwreck leaves behind. I don't believe a man that's truly passionate would have so little empathy for others. If anything, it feels egotistical and self infatuated.
I think that glimpse is only tantalizing, and Kerouac's types only magnetic, when the reader lacks a well developed theory of mind for other humans and only obeys laws and social conventions for fear of punishment and ostracism. If you can empathize with others, shedding that capacity is more a strange nightmare than it is desirable. On the other hand, if you are fearful of social and legal consequences, freedom from that fear is absolutely a seductive fantasy.
I know many will say those are stereotypes or tropes but having worked with people from 15-28 over the course of many years in a range of roles, it's very much an observation at this point. Orwell especially I suspect comes from required reading.
I am SO happy he is an obligatory lecture in many schools and countries; it's probably the best thing kids could be reading. He's been my hero ever since I've read him, and still is now even as I am approaching 40. And I've read many other good things too, but rarely something comes close to Orwell's dedication and authenticity. The man speaks universal truths in a way that sticks. If you only know 1984 and Animal Farm, do yourself a favor and check out The Road to Wigan Pier, for example.
"Of the five pay-checks I mentioned above, no less than three are rubber-stamped with the words 'death stoppage'. When a miner is killed at work it is usual for the other miners to make up a subscription, generally of a shilling each, for his widow, and this is collected by the colliery company and automatically deducted from their wages. The significant detail here is the rubber stamp."