Maybe it's because I never had my On the Road phase, but this review on Kerouac I always found really strong:
> 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.
I have had my on the road phase when I was around 18 when I read the book but I did not vibe at all with it. I found all the characters highly unlikeable and couldn't help to think that I much better friends, even my wildest ones. But I wasn't wild enough I guess because I actually managed to finish the book, like a well behaved schoolboy.
It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. 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.
It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.
The moral views of the average person circa 1930 are very different from one today.
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.
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 have, awhile ago. There isn’t much more to it than the quoted section.
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.
I wonder why Keruoac-like personalities are so magnetic, I never felt it click.
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.
Jack Kerouac has always felt like a gateway for early 20 year old guys looking to be seen as literary explorers. Similar to how Orwell seems to be commonly found around your mid teens (15-17) and many are seem reading 1984. I guess it's almost a right of passage.
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.
OTR is also required reading in the US. I remember a lot of my peers being very inspired by living that sort of beat life, although none of them actualized on that
Orwell is an absolute master of both fiction and non-fiction. This dude lived and got dirty on purpose just to be able to report about it: far-away colonies, lower-class slums, foreign wars against fascists; in the end it even cost him his life.
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.
Maybe it's because I never had my On the Road phase, but this review on Kerouac I always found really strong:
> 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-...
I have had my on the road phase when I was around 18 when I read the book but I did not vibe at all with it. I found all the characters highly unlikeable and couldn't help to think that I much better friends, even my wildest ones. But I wasn't wild enough I guess because I actually managed to finish the book, like a well behaved schoolboy.
It must be so exhausting to go through life only enjoying things that match one’s up-to-the-minute current moral views. 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.
It feels a bit like religious fundamentalism with a different veneer.
Ok but you do realize that he was alive in the 1900s, not 1000 BC.
The moral views of the average person circa 1930 are very different from one today.
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.
You're jumping to some wild conclusions there. This isn't about wokism (if you know the author, that would be clear) or political correctness.
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.
I wasn't making it about wokism at all.
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.
> up-to-the-minute current moral views
“You shall not steal” is the eighth commandment from the Bible, two thousand years ago.
So you don't read or enjoy any books about people that have broken any commandments?
Maybe try reading the review first before criticising it.
I have, awhile ago. There isn’t much more to it than the quoted section.
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.
I wonder why Keruoac-like personalities are so magnetic, I never felt it click.
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.
https://archive.ph/2026.05.23-110154/https://www.newyorker.c...
Can't not read stuff like this. Fascinating.
Jack Kerouac has always felt like a gateway for early 20 year old guys looking to be seen as literary explorers. Similar to how Orwell seems to be commonly found around your mid teens (15-17) and many are seem reading 1984. I guess it's almost a right of passage.
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.
OTR is also required reading in the US. I remember a lot of my peers being very inspired by living that sort of beat life, although none of them actualized on that
Orwell is an absolute master of both fiction and non-fiction. This dude lived and got dirty on purpose just to be able to report about it: far-away colonies, lower-class slums, foreign wars against fascists; in the end it even cost him his life.
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.