I am interesting in researching and writing about the Beat generation in San Francisco, and the involvement of City Lights. I think that the book store in some ways represents the city, as it was a meeting place for poets across the country with the desire to do something different.
Snyder, Kerouac, Ferlinghetti and Ginsberg will all play a large role. I will examine their role in the North Beach community, the book store, the city as a whole, and the beat movement. I will draw from their work to show the complex interweaving of city life with obsession with nature, holiness with immorality and many of the other issues this combined force of intellectuals dealt with in their off-beat way. Most importantly, I will point out their differences, but why they are all in some ways, beat, or beat-influenced.
In addition to course reading, I plan to use several of Kerouac's novels which were not assigned to this class, as well as biographical sources about these people.
Snyder, Kerouac, Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti generally come from very different economic, religious, and regional backgrounds. However, they all ended up spending a good deal if time in San Francisco, influencing each other and forming the core of the beat generation. I will compare and contrast their ideals, analyzing why, despite their differences, they were drawn to one another.
I foresee the possibility that this may be able to lose focus on. When I begin to outline by essay, I will try to confine my focus to specific examples, rather than rambling on and trying to throw in all the information off the top of my head. I also may even cut Snyder out of the essay, or perhaps add William Burroughs, just to get some more crazy diversity.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Snyder/Kerouac
Kerouac had a tendency to latch himself onto those he percieved as possessing admirable qualities which he himself was lacking. With Neal Cassady, these qualities were his easygoing and natural confidence, masculinity, and ecstatic holy con-man innocence. Years later, he idolized Snyder in the same fashion, but for very different reasons. Snyder represented intellectualism, inner peace, a connection with the East, and a oneness with nature. He was a mentor for Kerouac not just in the ways of Buddhism and mountaineering, but in a general approach to life. Snyder speaks from a centered, self-assured position, where Kerouac is clearly lost and trying to find his way in a world which amazes him, but also one in which he feels insecure and lost.
To get this interpretation of Kerouac I am reading between the lines in Dharma Bums, and also drawing from his other works which I have read. To understand Kerouac is to understand a complex process (often unsuccesful) of reconciling his conservative Catholic background with his position in the burgeoning counter-culture, his shyness and insecurity with his admiration of his friends' outgoing nature, the social vs. "monastic" parts of him.
For instance, in the yabyum scene with Princess, Kerouac, as he often does, play the part of the reluctant observer, only to be finally drawn in. Just as in the Mexican whorehouse in On the Road, he seems a reluctant participant in the madness and debuachery. The conflict is that he admires the ease with which his charismatic friends can live their lives. I recall a line from the documentary, "What happened to Kerouac?" where someone is quoted as saying that Jack Kerouac moved (paraphrase) "with the shyness of someone looking for a place to sit down in the lunch room, as though everyone were watching him, all of the time." It is this critical self-awareness which both made him a great author and led to his alcoholism, and his death.
Something which bothers me is the conflicting reports on how accurate the Dharma Bums is as an autobiographical account of this period in Kerouac's life. While Snyder initially praised and thanked him, he soon turned against Kerouac (they did reconcile eventually). Snyder flat out denies that instances such as the yabyum scene ever happened. Is Snyder covering up (it doesn't seem his style), or was Kerouac embellishing. This also seems uncharacteristic, since Kerouac constantly professes his desire to combat falsity and show the truth.
Question: What is your take on Japhy's relationship with Ray? Do you think Kerouac's portrayal is accurate, especially when taking into account what we've read from outside sources, including Snyder?
To get this interpretation of Kerouac I am reading between the lines in Dharma Bums, and also drawing from his other works which I have read. To understand Kerouac is to understand a complex process (often unsuccesful) of reconciling his conservative Catholic background with his position in the burgeoning counter-culture, his shyness and insecurity with his admiration of his friends' outgoing nature, the social vs. "monastic" parts of him.
For instance, in the yabyum scene with Princess, Kerouac, as he often does, play the part of the reluctant observer, only to be finally drawn in. Just as in the Mexican whorehouse in On the Road, he seems a reluctant participant in the madness and debuachery. The conflict is that he admires the ease with which his charismatic friends can live their lives. I recall a line from the documentary, "What happened to Kerouac?" where someone is quoted as saying that Jack Kerouac moved (paraphrase) "with the shyness of someone looking for a place to sit down in the lunch room, as though everyone were watching him, all of the time." It is this critical self-awareness which both made him a great author and led to his alcoholism, and his death.
Something which bothers me is the conflicting reports on how accurate the Dharma Bums is as an autobiographical account of this period in Kerouac's life. While Snyder initially praised and thanked him, he soon turned against Kerouac (they did reconcile eventually). Snyder flat out denies that instances such as the yabyum scene ever happened. Is Snyder covering up (it doesn't seem his style), or was Kerouac embellishing. This also seems uncharacteristic, since Kerouac constantly professes his desire to combat falsity and show the truth.
Question: What is your take on Japhy's relationship with Ray? Do you think Kerouac's portrayal is accurate, especially when taking into account what we've read from outside sources, including Snyder?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
To take a life: the ethics of eating meat
Like many of his surprisingly moderate opinions, Gary Snyder's point of view on eating meat is not what you would expect from his "surface persona." Given his intense affiliations with Buddhism, environmentalism and counterculture movements, I thought certainly he would be a vegetarian. His true stance on the matter is far more nuanced.
Perhaps it comes from living in Santa Cruz, where vegetarianism and veganism are often present in their most extreme forms, but I was very impressed with Snyder's realistic view on the matter. He describes the time he spent keeping chickens in such a way: "We maintained the flock, the ecology, and the economy by eating excess young roosters and, at the other end of the cycle, by the stewing an occasional elderly hen" (66). He goes on to point out that such management is one of the necessities of peasant life worldwide, for anything else would simply be uneconomical. And for those living in poverty, that is not possible. There is also something to be said about the fact that the chickens he raised lived far better lives than those raised in commercial farms, where animals are reduced to meat before they are killed. This brings up a point which strikes close to home for me. I come from a family of hunters, fishers and farmers. I have had innumerable conversations with meat-eaters who cringe to hear that I have killed animals and gutted them myself. If vegetarians object on moral grounds, so be it, but to hear meat eaters call me a coldblooded for killing a deer, well, that is hypocrisy, or worse. Predation is a natural part of the ecosystem. In my family lake in Wisconsin, we purposefully catch the mid-size bass and panfish, since they are horribly overpopulated. We practice catch and release with the large fish, while removing their competition, in effort to keep the balance. Deer hunting, also, is encouraged by the DNR, as the natural predators of deer have been all but driven extinct. Thus countless deer succumb to starvation and disease as a result of overpopulation. This method of meat-eating be grittier, but it is both more ethical (you are not supporting cruel factory farms), and more eco-friendly.
Snyder goes on to point out that it is only the middle and upper classes in first-world societies who have the option to choose vegetarianism. Among the poor in many parts of the world, vegetarianism is a necessity, something you do when the family buffalo has been sold and have no money but for rice and fish sauce. I find it doubly ironic that those who are often the most outspoken and militant anti-meat campaigners are the people who come from very priviledged backgrounds, and besides perhaps reading a few extremist theoretical texts, have had no contact with the true meat-eating proletariat of the world.
Question: I have heard that studies have been done which explore the feasibility of worldwide vegetarianism, crop-growing, phasing out of meat products, etc. I have found none. To me, the concept sounds absurd. Can anyone educate me?
Perhaps it comes from living in Santa Cruz, where vegetarianism and veganism are often present in their most extreme forms, but I was very impressed with Snyder's realistic view on the matter. He describes the time he spent keeping chickens in such a way: "We maintained the flock, the ecology, and the economy by eating excess young roosters and, at the other end of the cycle, by the stewing an occasional elderly hen" (66). He goes on to point out that such management is one of the necessities of peasant life worldwide, for anything else would simply be uneconomical. And for those living in poverty, that is not possible. There is also something to be said about the fact that the chickens he raised lived far better lives than those raised in commercial farms, where animals are reduced to meat before they are killed. This brings up a point which strikes close to home for me. I come from a family of hunters, fishers and farmers. I have had innumerable conversations with meat-eaters who cringe to hear that I have killed animals and gutted them myself. If vegetarians object on moral grounds, so be it, but to hear meat eaters call me a coldblooded for killing a deer, well, that is hypocrisy, or worse. Predation is a natural part of the ecosystem. In my family lake in Wisconsin, we purposefully catch the mid-size bass and panfish, since they are horribly overpopulated. We practice catch and release with the large fish, while removing their competition, in effort to keep the balance. Deer hunting, also, is encouraged by the DNR, as the natural predators of deer have been all but driven extinct. Thus countless deer succumb to starvation and disease as a result of overpopulation. This method of meat-eating be grittier, but it is both more ethical (you are not supporting cruel factory farms), and more eco-friendly.
Snyder goes on to point out that it is only the middle and upper classes in first-world societies who have the option to choose vegetarianism. Among the poor in many parts of the world, vegetarianism is a necessity, something you do when the family buffalo has been sold and have no money but for rice and fish sauce. I find it doubly ironic that those who are often the most outspoken and militant anti-meat campaigners are the people who come from very priviledged backgrounds, and besides perhaps reading a few extremist theoretical texts, have had no contact with the true meat-eating proletariat of the world.
Question: I have heard that studies have been done which explore the feasibility of worldwide vegetarianism, crop-growing, phasing out of meat products, etc. I have found none. To me, the concept sounds absurd. Can anyone educate me?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Hearst and anti-Mexican propaganda
(Cross-posted from www.ridiculousapocalypse.com)
Information, and those who control it, is a major form of political control, and essential to the creation of “empire.” Newspaper magnate and propagandist William Hearst is a perfect and perfectly terrifyng example of this. Compared to the complete and utter propaganda printed by his papers and other media, modern day news doesn’t look quite as bad. Of particular interest to me is the page of an article taken from a Hearst publication titled, “The Greater United States” (226). It is subtitled with the text, “If Mexico is annexed we will have 31 new states and territories, 15,000,000 new Americans and 767,290 square miles of picturesque, historic and rich lumber, agricultural and mineral lands.” This is one of countless such articles which Hearst used to push his agenda of Manifest Destiny and the conquest of Latin America, particularly Mexico.
The images used in this article are of particular note. The map of the US, which shows Mexico as the darkened western area, includes the vast amount of territory won in the Mexican American war some seventy years previous. By making it seem like this territory, which at the time of publication (1916) is at stake, perhaps the editors hope to further sway the public. It is also effective as a conflation of old territory and new territory, saying perhaps, “Yes, California and Texas are great, but look what we could have if he had it all.” It is also worth noting that in the original Mex/US war the US took away over 55% of the country’s territory. But people like Hearst were still not happy.
Also included in the article are three photos of ancient Aztec architectural achievements. These seem to be a nod to a civilization long gone, possibly like the Orientalist European fascination with Sanscrit. Juxtaposed with the fourth image, a picture of a tiny decrepit hut captioned with the text “A typical scene…” Hearst’s paper seems to be saying, “look at what they used to be, oh well, let’s move in and take over.”
Question: How does Hearst’s gross manipulation of the media compare with modern media conglomerate leaders such as Rupert Murdoch? Have we really progressed that far since Hearst’s time?
Information, and those who control it, is a major form of political control, and essential to the creation of “empire.” Newspaper magnate and propagandist William Hearst is a perfect and perfectly terrifyng example of this. Compared to the complete and utter propaganda printed by his papers and other media, modern day news doesn’t look quite as bad. Of particular interest to me is the page of an article taken from a Hearst publication titled, “The Greater United States” (226). It is subtitled with the text, “If Mexico is annexed we will have 31 new states and territories, 15,000,000 new Americans and 767,290 square miles of picturesque, historic and rich lumber, agricultural and mineral lands.” This is one of countless such articles which Hearst used to push his agenda of Manifest Destiny and the conquest of Latin America, particularly Mexico.
The images used in this article are of particular note. The map of the US, which shows Mexico as the darkened western area, includes the vast amount of territory won in the Mexican American war some seventy years previous. By making it seem like this territory, which at the time of publication (1916) is at stake, perhaps the editors hope to further sway the public. It is also effective as a conflation of old territory and new territory, saying perhaps, “Yes, California and Texas are great, but look what we could have if he had it all.” It is also worth noting that in the original Mex/US war the US took away over 55% of the country’s territory. But people like Hearst were still not happy.
Also included in the article are three photos of ancient Aztec architectural achievements. These seem to be a nod to a civilization long gone, possibly like the Orientalist European fascination with Sanscrit. Juxtaposed with the fourth image, a picture of a tiny decrepit hut captioned with the text “A typical scene…” Hearst’s paper seems to be saying, “look at what they used to be, oh well, let’s move in and take over.”
Question: How does Hearst’s gross manipulation of the media compare with modern media conglomerate leaders such as Rupert Murdoch? Have we really progressed that far since Hearst’s time?
Friday, May 18, 2007
The case against tom yum goong
On November 21, 2006, prime minister Surayud Chulanont claimed that the main source of insurgent funding came from a chain of Thai restaurants operating in Malaysia, which sold Thai spicy shrimp soup.
Alhough Malaysia responded by calling this claim "baseless," it really does seem like the only reasonable explanation for the apparent indomitability of the brutal Muslim insurgency in Thailand's south.
The case against tom yum gung
Thai cuisine is some of the best in the world. Its unique dishes combine sweet, sour and spicy ingredients to create a deliciously diverse variety of flavors. Thai restaurants are everywhere, their presence increasing with the spread of Thai immigrants.
Most people don't even think about where their money is going when they buy a delicious bowl of curry or a plate of freshly grilled satays. Some may even assume it is being used to pay for things like the the staff's salaries, water and electric, or other expenses of running a restaurant.
Most people don't even think about where their money is going when they buy a delicious bowl of curry or a plate of freshly grilled satays. Some may even assume it is being used to pay for things like the the staff's salaries, water and electric, or other expenses of running a restaurant.
On November 21, 2006, prime minister Surayud Chulanont claimed that the main source of insurgent funding came from a chain of Thai restaurants operating in Malaysia, which sold Thai spicy shrimp soup.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
the snail's final plea
there are three small frogs
who saw the snail drown
and they all attest
to his dying song
"as the poor snail sunk," says frog number one.
"in the seeping muck," croaks frog number two.
"his eyes opened wide," moans frog number three.
and together they sigh, "oh with great might he cried:"
"I've lived a long life in many a place,
I've seen cities built and other erased.
I was around for the dawn of mankind,
I watched the first monarchs burst from inside.
I saw great winds destroy Khan's mighty fleet,
and Hitler's grimace at a plate of red meat.
I spoke in rhyme with the great kings of time,
in their gold palaces of grand design.
I watched the towers dissolve in mere hours,
while flowers of all kinds were devoured.
Over all the years, the battles and tears,
There's one thing I do that calms all my fears.
I think of some things, not a lot, just a few,
I think to myself, what is false, what is true?
I know what I am and know what I've been,
but most truths could fit on top of a pin.
Though it may be futile, hopeless and tiring,
pursuit of truth is a thing worth admiring.
So I beg of all with my final breath,
remember Truth," and with that, the snail left.
who saw the snail drown
and they all attest
to his dying song
"as the poor snail sunk," says frog number one.
"in the seeping muck," croaks frog number two.
"his eyes opened wide," moans frog number three.
and together they sigh, "oh with great might he cried:"
"I've lived a long life in many a place,
I've seen cities built and other erased.
I was around for the dawn of mankind,
I watched the first monarchs burst from inside.
I saw great winds destroy Khan's mighty fleet,
and Hitler's grimace at a plate of red meat.
I spoke in rhyme with the great kings of time,
in their gold palaces of grand design.
I watched the towers dissolve in mere hours,
while flowers of all kinds were devoured.
Over all the years, the battles and tears,
There's one thing I do that calms all my fears.
I think of some things, not a lot, just a few,
I think to myself, what is false, what is true?
I know what I am and know what I've been,
but most truths could fit on top of a pin.
Though it may be futile, hopeless and tiring,
pursuit of truth is a thing worth admiring.
So I beg of all with my final breath,
remember Truth," and with that, the snail left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)