Di Prima and Feminism pt 2: The Contradiction of the Motherly Role

            As many preach their own philosophy which they do not always wholly live by, di Prima incorporated her views on personal independence and the rejection of the mainstream role of a housewife. Although she did not press her views as strongly as others, such as Burrows, she did still deviate from them a bit, even if the lines weren't as finely drawn out.

            Di Prima made herself responsible for many people, as she maintained several "pads" holding young people within them, taking on an almost motherly role. She did what she had to in order to make money for these people, including the writing of many fabrications within her book Memoirs of A Beatnik, which was initially published as nonfiction and later categorized as fiction due to the great influence of di Prima's editor and the necessity to pay rent.

            Although many people did rely on di Prima, placing her in a housewife-like role, one should note that she maintained her stability without the help of a partner, therefore diminishing the American standard. However, the fact that she is inclined to take care of others does give off the impression of a motherly role. This also contradicts her independent philosophy, as she is not only living for herself at this point, but for others as well.  While one could argue that di Prima was being independent if living for her own desires meant assisting others, it should also be understood that these desires are likely conventional and persistent due to her scientific role to reproduce and take care of children.

            This takes us to the next point, in which di Prima makes the decision to have a child. While it was untraditional at the time for a woman to opt to raise a child on her own, it has been done before, and is done in many other species. Monogamy is the human ideal and not necessarily realistic. Di Prima dismisses the idea of keeping a man around, perhaps knowing that men are unreliable, or perhaps aware that she is unreliable to a man. In any case, this rejection does not make her decision entirely feminist, as she still hopes to carry out her main role as a woman: to birth a child.

            In di Prima's defense, I did not find any articles that depicted her being involved with any radical feminist groups or standing up strictly on behalf of female empowerment. From what I understand of di Prima, she represents individual empowerment and the acquisition of one's desires. Therefore, her possibly innate desire to take care of others in a motherly role does not rule her out of the feminist category. It only means that her desires were likely as raw and instinctive as it gets: they were anatomic. To some, this makes her more Beat, and perhaps more of a feminist, than ever.

Di Prima and Feminism

            Often described as a great feminist poet, Diane di Prima has received much of her fame due to her association with the Beat Generation. The exclusive Beats men carried trends in their praising of women, sometimes almost in a traditional or romantic sense (many writers did marry), only to eventually dispose of them, at least in that time period. Despite that the association di Prima has with the Beat writers may, in some cases, defeat feminism, I agree that di Prima can be considered a feminist.

            Many of the women victimized by the Beat men set themselves up for the inevitable disappointment that they received by holding conventional expectations of the men. As the Beat Generation stood largely for freedom and the rejection of tradition, the fate of their relations should have been anticipated by the women. However, di Prima was different in that she did not maintain these expectations for the Beat men. She was very conscious of her decision to be independent, and very much in opposition to filling a housewife role. (This is not to say that she was the only woman who did not act out of naivety toward the men).

            In di Prima's "What I Ate and Where" segment of Dinners and Nightmares, she has dinner with her parents, who are clearly attempting to impose a conventional lifestyle upon her. She hopes to raise a child out of wedlock. When di Prima leaves the table, it is evident that she is rejecting her parents' ideals. Di Prima has chosen, like others involved with the Beat Generation, to live by her own standards in such a way that is independent, selfish, and untraditional.

            While di Prima did not become a radical feminist and reject men altogether, the rejection of mainstream values paralleled the empowerment of herself as a woman during that period. According to a dictionary source, feminism means "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men" (dictionary.com). Therefore, feminism does not indicate power over men, indifference towards men, or any other misconception. Whether or not di Prima became a radical female rights activist, she represented herself as an equal to men and treated them similarly to the manner in which they treated her. Di Prima is a feminist because she disregards the boundaries that mainstream America had set for women.

Dissecting Dr. Sax

            In comparison to previous readings on the Beat Generation, Kerouac's Dr. Sax has been the most peculiar. Even Burroughs can be understood upon recognizing his lifestyle. I understand that Kerouac is known for reflection on the past, but I had trouble grasping the complex symbolism and use of fantastical creatures in order to convey his message. Most importantly, I am not sure that I retrieved the right message. Two themes that I hope I understood correctly from our classroom lecture are that evil is in everyone, and that everything is an illusion. I have not been able to wrap my mind around these concepts yet, so I will use this blog post in order to do so. Unfortunately, my lack of comprehension of this book has hindered my forming of a novel opinion on it.

            When Jackie Duluoz looks into the vast "lakes" of the Great Snake's eyes, he is apparently looking at himself. I see this more clearly in the use of the "lake" metaphor. While the cliché remains that the eyes are the windows to the soul, Jackie does not initially realize that he is looking at the snake's eyes. He is looking at a reflection of himself. As snakes represent evil in multiple cultures, Jackie is therefore seeing the evil in himself. Jackie's character previously represented the innocence of childhood, so, in seeing evil within himself, the rest of the world must also contain that evil. In understanding this theme, the means of delivery become less significant. All of the confusion of Dr. Sax was likely to express that the construction of the story is superfluous so long as the themes are understood. (Have I actually reached some enlightenment here?)

            This leads us to the concept of the illusion. Much of the story is obviously an illusion, as it is a mess of nonsensical fantasy intermingled with realistic childhood memories. However, by the end of the story, Kerouac apparently anticipates that the reader understands his theory that everything is an illusion, and that those who do not understand this are to remain pathetically stagnant in their lives. Is he solely criticizing religion at this point? If everything is an illusion, then I cannot help but to imagine a more spiritual perspective of our existence in dismissing the physical. Of course, he is dismissing everything, and not only the physical. In dissecting this idea, I fear that I will only end up with a mess of contradictory statements.

            Despite the lack of structure and a solid argument in this blog post, I feel that I have gotten a few inches closer to some understanding of Dr. Sax, and, honestly, my disorganization and confusion may even be fitting. I found these comic scribbles that Kerouac drew in consideration of Dr. Sax. At least he took himself seriously.

What I've Learned: The Importance of Individual Satisfaction

            Before taking my 20th Century Literature (Kerouac and the Beats) class, I did not have a significant impression of the artistic counterculture during that time period. In the previous semester, I learned about the Lost Generation, and therefore, assumed that I could easily compare the two due to their similar post-war art circumstances. However, while both were enthralled with promiscuity and heavy substance abuse, their works were entirely different in that they took opposite paths. Fitzgerald was concerned that he did not do enough for his country in the war (a common theme among Lost Generation writers), and yet traveled to France in the aftermath of the war, unable to face his country. Kerouac and the Beats wanted nothing to do with the government after the war, and chose to seek satisfaction, not in the institutionalized system of American society, but in the land itself. Writers such as Hemingway drank their sorrows into further sorrows and some, such as he, committed suicide.

            What I've learned from the class is that the Beat Generation counterculture stands out as an objection to American society, rather than an avoidance of it. They are seeking freedom rather than wallowing in self-pity. They are not only disillusioned, but also perturbed and willing to act as individuals so as to not be swallowed by mainstream ideals. Each writer has their own way of doing this, and although not all are effective (as they are sure of the method, but not of the destination), none are willing to give up their lifestyles for the sake of tradition.


            William Burroughs preached his philosophy until his death. Many criticize him as being the darkest and most selfish Beats writer of the group for his method of taking what he wants in disregard for others. He argues that those in power are already living this way, and that, in order to counterbalance them, we should as well. This argument is represented well in his story, "Twilight's Last Gleaming". In this primitive self-concern, Burroughs finds satisfaction in the act of not being screwed over by others.

            Jack Kerouac's writing explains the journey of a man living for himself, with only a slight regard for others. He considers the potential of mainstream values, such as the traditional American family, but drops them. Although readers may not be satisfied with this, had Kerouac succumbed to these ideals, we may not be reading about him at all.

            Because American society held a harshly restrictive ideal for women during that time, I found Diane Di Prima's writing particularly intriguing. She lived as the men did, with concern for herself and assurance in her identity. When she wanted a child, she had a child. Tradition and financial security were not important to her. She did not hold expectations in others, but in herself.

            These self-satisfying writers chose not to concern themselves with the government, and therefore, sought fulfilling lives. They were not the Lost Generation. The Beat Generation's biographical approach allows the reader to directly understand the individual objections to American society during that time period. These objections solidified each writer's identity, and their search for freedom is evident in them. Whether or not they achieved the satisfaction that they sought, each had their own philosophy and they lived to satisfy themselves, and not the world around them.

Di Prima's Perspective: Not Much Greener

          Although the dominant male writers of the Beat Generation did not fail to keep my attention with their works, the sexist and parochial views declared by their writings and lifestyles has become exasperating for me as a reader. Because of these views, I had gotten the impression that females associated with the Beat Generation were artistically and intellectually useless, as well as being naïve and ignorant. The Beats writings reflect a complete disregard for women on any greater level than their sexual benefits. I had not considered that along with independently choosing to live this way with no greater expectation from men, the women of the Beat Generation had a great deal to offer in their own writings and expressions.

            In reading some works written from the female perspective of the Beat Generation, I found Diane Di Prima's section "Conversations" from Dinners and Nightmares most enlightening. The compilation of conversations (as the title implicates) discloses the other side of the Beats: the woman's view. Despite that Di Prima's perspective differs from those of other female Beat writers', the same variation goes with the males. While some are more hopeful, others are darker. Some are confident in their identity, and others are shaken by society's influence.

            Di Prima's perspective is one of independence and a secured identity. She chose her lifestyle without any expectations of maintaining traditional or mainstream American values. Di Prima was on a quest for freedom as much as any other Beats writer. While the section entitled "Conversations" expressed her independent lifestyle and views, it also separated her from the male perspective of the Beats even further. In the section, she is constantly being ignored by the men, and when they turn to her for artistic support, Di Prima's perspective makes them out to look like a fool to the reader, and her a fool to the men. This equal indifference for men, although not universally applicable for women of the Beat Generation, makes sense of the relationships in the writings from both perspectives.

            While women play a significant role in The Beat Generation from the male writer's perspective, that role is generally sexual and interchangeable. They are placed as objects to reveal that promiscuity is a component of the male Beat writer's quest for freedom. Women are often portrayed as being dull. Di Prima portrays men in a similar fashion. In the portion of conversations entitled "The Poet," a man is speaking to Di Prima of love and sorrow that he feels, clearly getting the impression that she is not intellectually capable of this understanding, all the while ignoring a woman being beaten by her boyfriend in the street. The man is too caught up in his own self-appreciation to understand that he is contradicting himself.

 

            In reading works from both the male and female sides of the Beat Generation, I can see that they are similar. The only difference is that, despite the Beats' attempts to counter societal standards, men still hold the power. However, women and men in the Beat Generation are similar in that they are all on a quest for individual freedom, and that they will use the opposite sex (and likely the same sex) in order to attain that freedom.

Why Snyder's Philosophy Is Different

            One thing I've noticed in learning about the Beat Generation is that the writers encourage or enthuse their own philosophy. Despite this, some philosophies seem easier to live by than others, and some writers may not practice what they preach. If one were to live precisely by Burroughs's ideology, it is not likely that they would get far in life professionally or socially. In any case, living with a strict philosophy may be impossible in that some things may contradict others. However, I do not believe that any of these poets were being literal enough to cause controversy within their theoretical system. I believe they were merely pressing these lifestyles onto society through their writing with the hopes of seeing some sort of positive change in society.

            The writer from the Beat Generation who I believe has a stronger philosophy, and one that he lived by for much of his life, is Gary Snyder. This week, our class discussed Snyder's work. Buddhist influences are evident in both his poems and his essays. His writings consistently involve themes of nature, and more specifically, the idea of people and nature joining without institutionalization or influence of systematic power.

            Not only did Snyder write about these ideas, and perhaps delve lightly into the culture that he preached (as other Beat writers have), but he lived for some time in Japan, where he studied Zen. He later traveled to India in a similar cultural pursuit. These travels were not for the mere sake of an impermanent good time, as they would outline his values for the rest of his life. The video gives a short perspective of some parts of Snyder's life as well as the philosophy in which he lives by.

            Many have deemed Snyder the "Thoreau of his generation," as Beat writer, Lawrence Ferlinghetti once said. I can appreciate Snyder's beliefs because they are not harmful or selfish, as many of the writers from the Beat Generation have demonstrated. While the Beat Generation as a whole represents those writers' responses to the state of their nation and its society, those responses taken individually were all considerably different. Snyder's response was hopeful, unlike some writing of Ginsberg, Burroughs, or even Kerouac (such as in "The Vanishing American Hobo").

            Snyder returned to the states and still lives life according to his Zen Buddhist beliefs. I cannot imagine living a lifestyle such as Burroughs' or Ginsberg's past my youth, but I can imagine that Snyder's values can logically be maintained throughout a person's life without being greatly compromised. I do not say this to give the impression that I plan to pursue such a philosophy for myself. I only mean to argue that it is reasonable in comparison to those of the other Beat writers thus far. I will leave with these words from Snyder, which not only support his philosophy, but can also be considered for general encouragement:
 

"We are all indigenous. We may not transform reality, but we may transform ourselves. And if we transform ourselves, we might just change the world a bit."

What Vanished With The Hobos

"In America there has always been a definite special idea of footwalking freedom."
-Jack Kerouac, "The Vanishing American Hobo"


            Within the Beat Generation, a reoccurring concept is that "the geniuses of America" (as Ginsberg puts it) are not those preaching from behind a podium with their strings being pulled, or those working as a doctor and making more money in one paycheck than you'll ever see at once. The idea is not to look on the television to find the heroes of our nation. Perhaps check police records or street corners or pool halls.

            In Kerouac's short story, "The Vanishing American Hobo," the concept presented is not only  that the American hobo is a waning breed, but that the culture and intelligence responsible for the foundation of our country is disappearing with it. Kerouac mentions multiple examples of these "hobos" who built our nation and our beliefs, listing Benjamin Franklin, Walt Whitman, W.C. Fields, and even Jesus.

            As Kerouac sees these infamous figures as hobos, it is likely that he assumes himself to partially belong to the hobo culture as well, despite that he does not see himself as a real hobo. Kerouac's empathy toward the vanishing hobo is so powerful due to his recognition of a great loss for America. As the last hobos creep into to the shadows, demonized by society, perhaps his hope for the raw pursuit of freedom in America parallels this fate.

            Although Kerouac insists that in the loss of the American hobo, so goes our true identity, the ending of the story indicates that he does not anticipate change. Leaving on the looming note that "The woods are full of wardens," it seems that all hope for this American hobo, this genius symbol of individuality, is truly being hunted to obliteration. I understand that the Beats were not considered to be a lost generation as the artists in the 1920s, but in this conclusion to a tradition far older than the building of our nation, I believe Kerouac may be more lost than ever, as the rawness that America once was is now vanishing with the last of the American hobos.

"The Junky's Christmas" and "Pull My Daisy"

            Coppola's take on Burroughs' "The Junky's Christmas" opens up the story revealing Burroughs as the narrator, reading from a cozy living room decorated accordingly for the holidays. The video ends with Burroughs surrounded by friends and family celebrating Christmas together. Although this representation of Burroughs adds a Hollywood-esque loop to the story, I find it ironic, as I never previously pictured Burroughs in this setting. I also think it was a good decision by Coppola to contrast the lifestyle of Burroughs in this setting to that of the junky in the story.

           One would not likely think to read such a story on a holiday. However, Burroughs likely wrote this story to question the construction of happiness and family tradition which comes hand-in-hand with a holiday like Christmas. By making the holiday a dark tale of a junky looking for his fix, rather than meeting up with his family as most citizens are doing, Burroughs writes about a non-traditional holiday miracle. The character's consistent curiosity as to where everyone is at is a sign of how truly aloof he is to the holiday.

            I was surprised to see that Coppola chose to present the work in Claymation. However, I believe it added to the irony of the situation. The contrast of family values and societal norms to a junky's search for his fix is only extended in the use of Claymation, as such techniques are often used in Christmas films to represent the former.

            The effects of the different medium were mainly highlighted by the Claymation, as I obviously did not imagine the story to be played out as such. I also did not imagine the characters speaking in Burroughs voice. The use of both, though, did work well. I initially thought that Burroughs would remain quite monotonous throughout the story, and that the Claymation characters would not be capable of showing the actions and expressions as I felt right. Despite this assumption, both techniques worked well to represent the film, and the emotions were conveyed even more than my first reading of the story.


            Personally, Kerouac's film, "Pull My Daisy" did not have a similar effect on me. Rather then properly expressing emotion, I had a hard time understanding what was being said, and who or what was being referred to. I enjoyed the themes of opposition to institutionalization, religion, and traditional family values as shown in the character of the Bishop as well as in the family. Perhaps it was merely that I am so unaccustomed to the non-romanticized ways and the pace of the Beats Generation that I did not become a quick fan of it. I have seen Coppola's works, and I trust that he had a large input into his film, whereas "Pull My Daisy" was likely more largely influenced by Kerouac, which is a less familiar and less Hollywood perspective.

Burroughs and Societal Morality

Some Advice For Young People From William Burroughs:

- Never interfere in a boy-and-girl fight.
- Beware of whores who say they don't want money.
- If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing.
- Avoid fuck-ups.
- Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill.

            Even in his late seventies, Burroughs disregards the boundaries of morality, perhaps more than ever. Unconcerned with being politically correct, Burroughs continues to make remarks that make most Americans cringe. As learned through his works, his philosophy is to key into desire, eliminating values, fear, emotional ties, or any social construct that stands in the way of that desire. This perspective is evidently opposed to institutionalization, government intervention, religious influence, traditional family values, and general concern for others. Although one could argue that Burroughs' beliefs, if being held true to the majority of a population, would likely demolish all benefits from societal ties, I can see why Burroughs would choose this lifestyle in the context of American society.

            If everyone in a society acted only with concern for themselves as Burroughs apparently does, there would be no societal benefit. According to Rousseau's "Social Contract Theory", that societal benefit is the singular reason for morality. I doubt that Burroughs, in his elderly state and still preaching this advice, would survive in an animalistic society based on the survival of the fittest. However, Burroughs is giving advice to young people at this point, perhaps lacking concern for himself in his assistance to others, and therefore contradicting himself. Despite the slight contradiction, it is evident that no philosophy is solid.

            In Burroughs' short story, "The Twilight's Last Gleaming", the morality of America is questioned considerably. Each character represents the struggle of the survival of the fittest, and the fittest are those who are the most vile and manipulative. Those on the sinking S.S. America, are American citizens who have concealed their desires in order to reach them. Their indifference for one another has possibly lead to the sinking of the ship. Because this parallels with Burroughs' view of America as it is formed by societal construction, it is imperative to take note that all of the characters are represented as being innately self-concerned, rather than momentarily. One could argue that Burroughs contradicts himself once again in that the ship is sinking, and so, perhaps we should be honest with each other and ourselves in order to keep it afloat.

            However, I believe that Burroughs hopes for the ship to sink, as he would anticipate that in the abolishment of all social constructions, Burroughs would benefit the most. I do not believe Burroughs is correct, though. Although I do see some dark honesty in his beliefs, I can see his methods working much more successfully on a naïve society. As can be observed in the video as well as in his writing, Burroughs simply uses those who are of slight use to him until they aren't any longer, and he ignores those who he sees as being useless, such as the mentally ill. He is only concerned for himself, and he would not be able to take advantage of others in a country with no societal norms or moral boundaries.

Ginsberg's Relationship With America

"It occurs to me that I am America.
I am talking to myself again."

-Allen Ginsberg, "America" (41)



            In Ginsberg's poem entitled "America", he addresses our nation both in questioning disbelief and blunt confession. Ginsberg uses the technique of coming off as an unsuspecting writer with little intent greater than asserting his thoughts. Regardless of this technique, in reading Ginsberg's work, one is generally aware that there is strategy in turning the mind of the reader.

            The poem best reflects Ginsberg's confusion in the post-war American society. In the midst of the black-and-white view of McCarthyism, Ginsberg finds himself pressed to decide between his communist Russian roots and capitalist America. Throughout the poem, it is evident that Ginsberg is not ready to choose either. However, he is quick to direct the blame. A continually arising conflict within the beats generation is the consideration of patriotism, and if not patriotism, then what mainstream America would consider to be anarchy or madness. I do not believe Ginsberg sought to be either.

            In one line, Ginsberg mentions reassuringly, "My psychoanalyst thinks I'm perfectly right" (40). One could either assume that simply by writing this poem, Ginsberg is admitting to not being perfectly right, or that America not being perfectly right. With his consistent cynicism toward America throughout the poem, I would assume the latter. For the purposes of irony and deeper consideration, Ginsberg addresses his country, himself, and the reader, conjoining and contrasting each. In doing this, he first pulls the reader in as if to say "hey, you're a part of this, too".

"I'm addressing you.
Are you going to let your emotional life be run by
            Time Magazine?" (40)
           
            With the inclusion of a seemingly guiltless act, Ginsberg catches the reader red-handed, grouping he or she with America, and therefore handing the reader some of the blame. Being an American citizen and participating in American cultural norms is enough, in Ginsberg's opinion, to be deserving of responsibility and blame for America. Ginsberg does not ignore the fact that he is an American citizen himself.

            On page 41, in which Ginsberg personifies America as himself, he becomes most sarcastic in pondering war and national resources. While he is considering himself as a representative of America, he is also distancing himself from it more than ever.

"My national resources consist of two joints of
marijuana millions of genitals an unpublishable
private literature that goes 1400 miles an hour
and twenty-five-thousand mental institutions." (41)

            Here is the point at which Ginsberg is truly striking below the belt for America in mentioning all of the unmentionables, or so according to American societal norms of the time. Ginsberg is begging not to have to make that choice between madness and the upstanding clay model that represented capitalism. Rather, he points out that America as mainstream society chooses to view it, is far from just. Ginsberg is imploring that there be change, he must present their guilt in the most blunt and hideous fashion. By pulling himself, the reader, and their country together in blame, Ginsberg strategizes his way out of making the decision in which America is pressing him to make.

Investigating Carl Solomon from Ginsberg's "Howl"

            In Ginsberg's poem, Howl, the speaker explains a new perspective, one which represents the "best minds of [his] generation" to be among the homeless, the lawless, and those deemed insane by society. Ginsberg's poem is dedicated to one of those minds: Carl Solomon.

            Although it was Solomon who deemed himself insane by admitting himself into a psychiatric clinic in final rejection of the Dada movement which he once indulged in, Ginsberg saw the genius in him and took an interest. Despite that Solomon was not a frequent writer during their early friendship, Ginsberg took literary advice, as well as general advice, from Solomon. Ginsberg was not only attracted to Solomon's experience with artistic movements such as Dada, but also Solomon's mental condition in the views of society and culture.

            Ginsberg was not the only author of his time to take an interest in a less accomplished and less rational character to influence his works. Jack Kerouac attempted to keep close ties with Neal Cassady, who kept Kerouac on his toes, and gave him enough inspiration to produce (or involve Cassady's character in) several works. William Burroughs could often be found with his thieving street smart pal, Herbert Huncke. These friends of great Beat Generation writers pumped the raw America that the writers sought out. The unknown forbidden fruit of America appeared to these authors in the mentally deranged, wild characters and their unpredictable lifestyles.

            Solomon personally experienced the ugliest corners of the American system by being institutionalized and exposed to traumatic events such as shock therapy to overcome his depression. Solomon's experience with shock therapy helped to form the view that American society often excuses genius for madness, which is a major theme in Howl.

            In Howl, Ginsberg refers to Solomon in the words: "... who threw potato salad at CCNY lecturers on Dadaism and subsequently presented themselves on the granite steps of the madhouse with shaven heads and harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy."

Carl Solomon and Allen Ginsberg, 1991

 

            Ginsberg's interest in Solomon's involvement with the Dada movement as well as with his mental illness are evident in these lines. Despite Ginsberg being two years older than Solomon, his education on American society from Solomon's experiences is clear. Although Ginsberg considers Solomon to be among the best minds of their generation, Solomon has clearly been brutalized by the views of American society. Ginsberg does not make it fully evident whether these effects of America act positively or negatively on these great minds. However, he does point out that common American society is the villain.

            However unfortunate Solomon's treatment was, it intrigued Ginsberg and they became longtime friends. The final reference to Solomon is the line, "I'll see you in Rockland," in which Ginsberg refers to the psychiatric clinic at which the two first met.

Not The Journey, But The Destination

            In Jack Kerouac’s On The Road, Jack is constantly seeking satisfaction as an American citizen, as well as in his own general existence, during a post-war American society. Jack seems to place all of his bets on finding this satisfaction through his travels across the country, as well as in his friend, Neal Cassady. However, I have noticed in reading the book so far that Kerouac loses most of these bets and yet, he continues on his journey, still holding his faith in his idolized friend. This week, I will primarily consider Kerouac’s gripping faith in his country, represented in his travels.

            With the view of each town in the rearview mirror, Kerouac leaves the reader with a gloomy opinion of the location and the people. Despite that Kerouac places his faith on the American road, he seems to be repeatedly disappointed with its reality. He also commonly relates each location back to his starting point of New York.

            When Kerouac visits Los Angeles, he looks out from the view of his hotel window and sees what he claims to be “the loneliest and most brutal of American cities,” and while he admits that similar could likely be said for New York, he believes there is at least some camaraderie there, while Los Angeles is completely lacking in it. Therefore, Kerouac dubs Los Angeles to be “a jungle” (86). In New Orleans, Kerouac compares the people of New York to those of New Orleans, commenting that they are both alike in that “they stand uncertainly underneath immense skies, and everything about them is drowned” (166). In this portion of the book, Kerouac admits to being tired of traveling and despite this, they continue onward.

            Throughout the book, one will see this consistently negative outlook on the cities in which Kerouac visits. These views are always created while Kerouac is in the city, or as he is leaving. However, while imagining the next destination, Kerouac pictures brilliant scenes and wild adventures. While he does experience the latter often, Kerouac tends to find himself in a depressive state when not in a risky situation. In each town between the starting point and the destination, town locals admit to having found their own satisfaction in their residence. Despite their advice to stop and enjoy the current view, Kerouac continues to set his dreams down the road, constantly idealizing his future destinations.

            While traveling through the plains of Iowa, Kerouac is dreaming of the destinations that await him: “Now I could see Denver looming ahead of me like the Promised Land… and I could see the greater vision of San Francisco beyond, like jewels in the night” (14). Kerouac is continually focused on the destination, counting down the miles to each. These tendencies reveal the true state of Kerouac’s generation. Because they are so set on not being a “Lost Generation” as Americans were considered after World War I, Kerouac finds himself in a generation which is seeking something. In that something, they will be satisfied as not being lost. However, in not being sure of what that something is, I believe they may never find it.