Talk:Jack Kerouac

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack Kerouac article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Columbia

See LIFE, Paragraph 2: This passage contains a redundant description of the football scholarship and chain of events leading to his leaving college. Also, the two versions are not quite consistent. Did he quit or was his scholarship withdrawn because of injury?

Kereouac possible a sodimite

even newsweek this week issue claim he was possble swing for both teams. I know some of his friends were gay, but I am not sure he is. In the two book i read he did not talk about men like he did about women. It does not seem to be right to call him gay or bi-sexual. It is fair to say though these two other men did go at it and he must not have mind it. But does that make him gay or bi sexual himself ? I do not know and only God will know for sure. (Irishmonk 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Kerouac and bisexuality

Check out Barry Miles' book Jack Kerouac: King of the Beats (1998) it contains details of his numerous homosexual encounters.

Kerouac never admitted to being bisexual and any claims that he was have been vigorously disputed. He also never really wrote about bisexuality or GLBT issues. I'm not sure why it's necessary to include him in the category of "bisexual writers." I've got no problem whatsoever with GLBT, but I'm just not sure if including him in that category necessarily gives the best context for his work and life. the dharma bum 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to make the exact comment. I've read that he had some sexual experiences with men, but I don't know if that qualifies him as "bisexual." I tend to think that qualification for such categorization should be the person himself making that claim. In other words, if Jack Kerouac himself said he was bisexual, then putting him in that category would be okay. But I won't dare remove that category from this page, for fear of being accused of homophobia. Like you, I've got no problem with GLBT. I'm just questioning the means by which people decide such things about other people.

Earlier, however, I removed Anais Nin from the category. I know enough about her life to know that she was not in any real way a bisexual. She had one or two experiences with women, which she said she didn't like. I don't think that one or two experiences qualify as bisexual. (From what I've read, that's about what Jack Kerouac had, a few experiences.) In Henry Miller's Book of Friends, Henry Miller says he and a male childhood friend used to have sex when they were little boys ("bugger" is the word he uses for it). Should Henry Miller be listed in the bisexual category? -- Andrew Parodi 12:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing for months. He had one or two experiences, but was overwhelmingly straight otherwise. I'm not afraid to remove it, because it's based in fact. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

For me, it was more lack of confidence in knowledge of his life that led to me to not want to remove that category. I recall reading he had a few experiences, but I also recall a friend who said that he always suffered great guilt after each experience, and that he usually only had sexual relations with men when he was drunk. So, it wasn't really the fear of being called "homophobic" that made me hesitate to remove the label, but lack of confidence in my knowledge of his life.

But I am rather against the idea of labeling people something when they themselves never used the label. I guess I don't like the idea of writers being used in political debates. (What I mean is ... why emphasize something that might not have much relevance to the writer's work?) Probably the best example, in my mind, is Emily Dickinson. I don't think there's any conclusive proof that she was a lesbian. Above all, I think it's the work of these writers that should matter most, not their orientation -- whether that orientation be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or whatever. Getting off the soap box now. :) -- Andrew Parodi 04:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fond of labels on a personal level, but they are very useful for research purposes. That's why it's important for people like Kerouac (and Dickinson) to be accessible to researchers tracing the theme of homosexuality throughout literature. You can't rely on the definition that they had to label themselves. Sexual orientation matters a lot -- it usually affects the work immeasurably. GLBTQ sums up this aspect of Kerouac well, and you will find many other sources to confirm their statements: "Kerouac's misogynistic tendencies and Catholic guilt made lasting relationships with men and women impossible, as evidenced by his short-term marriages and his casual attitude toward his male lovers (among whom were Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Alan Ansen and Gore Vidal). Kerouac's uneasiness toward his homosexuality led to his practice of omitting his own homosexual experiences from his books. For example, The Subterraneans (1958) alters his real-life affair with Gore Vidal into a platonic night spent in a hotel room. Despite this reticence and ambivalence, many of his early works authentically depict gay culture at a time when such portrayals were rare in popular literature." This information belongs on the main page. --Kstern999 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, who is the source of that quoted passage? Second of all, whoever they are, how can they know the reason that Kerouac couldn't have lasting relationships with men or women?

There are two issues at hand: homosexual relations, and identification as a homosexual/gay person. Apparently, Kerouac had one but not the other. I don't think he ever "come out" as gay or bisexual. And there are many straight male prostitutes and porn stars who have gay sex. That doesn't make them gay.

There was a time when sexual orientation was not an identity (largely because it was assumed that everyone was straight). I think that in Kerouac's time this was the case. The curious thing is that in such contexts, where sexual orientation is not an identity and homosexuals are largely invisible, many people who do not consider themselves "gay" take part in gay sexual activity. My uneducated opinion is that Kerouac was perhaps in this category.

There are many people who are known to have had homosexual relationships, such as Marlon Brando, Kurt Cobain, and Mick Jagger, and who are not identified as "gay" or "bisexual" in their articles.

Lastly, the very concept of "gay" has changed since Kerouac's time. Today, it is a political statement to "out" a person and call them gay. But if we do that with everyone who has had a homosexual encounter at some point in his/her life, then most likely half of all biographies would be labeled gay/bisexual. My point in this is that if Kerouac's homosexual relations are to be referenced on this article, I think they should be in context. I think it should reference who said he had these encounters, and then it should perhaps be referenced that this was a part of the counter culture aspect of Beat Culture.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in this day and age to proclaim a person as "gay" is often to imply that they were activists for gay rights. Actually, it seems that activists for gay rights are usually the ones who "out" people. I think that if Kerouac's homosexual activies are referenced, then it should be put in context that he himself never saw himself as a gay rights advocate and even, according to the paragraph you cited above, tried to hide his homosexual behavior. That's a far cry from being a gay rights advocate. Copy Editor 01:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another odd thing to think about: is there a category called "Heterosexual Authors"? If not, why one of "Homosexual Authors"? I reper to just think of authors as authors. Copy Editor 03:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From the horses mouth "You must know me, you met me, you know I'm not queer, and at that time when I met Burroughs and Ginsberg I was just off the football team and in those days (1943) it was no easy trick to find a non-queer football player who didn't look down his nose at a queer. But these guys were such great writers and thinkers, and over the objections of my father, I hung out with them to learn new ideas and techniques." - Letter from Kerouac to Seymour Krim, February 13, 1965, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Center for Lowell History.

Kerouac obviously didn't consider himself homosexual or bisexual, this is a fact. Now to the claims of 'proof' of homosexuality. Vidal does claim that he had sex with Kerouac. Ginsberg who witnessed it said that he couldn't get 'hard enough' for Gore. Kerouac claims nothing at all happened sexually. I can find no reference to him having sex with Ginsberg. There are letters Neal wrote that said Kerouac didn't even want to have a 3 some with him and Carolyn. I really think it is quite a stretch to label Kerouac a 'Bisexual Writer'. I personally have no problem removing him from that category. As far as future Historians not being able to find an accurate list of Bisexual writers, I'm not to worried about that what I am worried about is creating a 'fact' where there is none. In the end there is no proof that Kerouac is a bisexual/homsexual. LilDice 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And now that I recall, in the documentary Whatever Happened to Kerouac?, Gregory Corso says that one thing that he and Jack Kerouac bonded over was that they were both not gay. Actually, to put it in the crude terms he used, he said, "We were both non-faggot. Most of Gingsberg's friends were faggot and all that shit. It's a real rarity finding a poet who is non-faggot."

Also, one of the major biographies of Kerouac has a quote from one of his female friends who says that though he did have some gay sexual encounters, you cannot really consider him gay or bisexual. She said that the sexual encounters with men usually took place when he was drunk and that he suffered great guilt afterwards. We can analyze all day that maybe he was just trying to deny a deep inner yerning, or whatever. But the fact remains that he himself didn't identify as "gay" or "bisexual." I don't think you can put that category on people out of mere speculation. What is the criteria for labeling someone gay on Wikipedia? My opinion is that the person him/herself should have identified with that label. Copy Editor 11:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. It's also been said that Kerouac's attitude on sex was that it was just for kicks, and that's it. He believed that you had to satisfy all sexual urges, and that it was a very natural thing. Ever since he was a kid he was going to prostitutes... (I can cite all this if you want). But anyway, I think we've established he should NOT be in any of those categories. So if someone tries to put him in the category again we will be in the right on a revert. LilDice 12:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but Kinsey used a 0-6 scale because Hetero-Bi-Gay was not found descriptive enough to be meaningful. I also agree that these terms apply as political or self- identifying terms. Here was an attractive guy who was lonely and craved the company of intellectuals so he “let them” after a few drinks. This can dissolve the barriers (along with alcohol) over time so that “kicking back” is not too big of a deal while drunk (though guilt can be big afterwards). It’s a pretty old story, and the guy kicking back gets some secondary gain besides rather unsatisfying pleasure). In Kinsey’s lingo, he would be a Kinsey 2 ( 0 = no homosexual behavior, 1 = incidental, 2 more than incidental etc.) See http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/ak-hhscale.html I’ll bet that Kerouac never desired, fantasized, or went looking for sexual contact with a male body, male genitals etc. He just didn’t have the psychological barriers ( due to alcohol +secondary gains) that would otherwise keep the more predatory guys away from him. (By predatory, I mean those people who will get what they want without regard for the effects it may have on the other person. I am sure they knew that he had remorse afterwards but it didn‘t stop them.) 31 Oct 2006

Kerouac was bisexual but he was deeply closeted. What's all this discussion on what makes someone a "true" bisexual or not? You can be bisexual and be a virgin to both genders and have never had sex at all. Also, if you were to go by the outdated Kinsey scale being a 2 on it would make someone bisexual as you don't have to have equal attraction to both genders. Also, various biographies such as 'Subterrenean Kerouac' have written about Kerouac's bisexuality and here's an article about Kerouac where it discusses his bisexuality: http://www.glbtq.com/literature/kerouac_j.html

Even in Kerouac's most autobiographical book 'Vanity of Dulouz' there is a part where he writes about picking up a male sailor for sex, having sex with a black cook on board a ship, and he has sex with a football player inside a mental asylum. Why would he write about having sex with men if he was heterosexual, and he clearly wasn't heterosexual since he had sex with both men and women. Even if he was just "sexual" with one gender and didn't fall in love with men he'd still be bisexual.

I'm glad that you know he was bisexual, unfortunately Kerouac never identified as one, so we shouldn't make the decision for him postmortem. The Vanity of Dulouz is not an autobiography. LilDice 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the person identified as bisexual or not while they were alive. People's orientations can be discovered after their death. Just look at people such as James Dean, Joan Crawford, Eleanor Roosevelt, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Sappho, Leonard Bernstein, Lorn Byron, Anais Nin, and other people whose bisexuality was discovered after their deaths. Kerouac was in the closet during his lifetime and omitted references to his queerness in his literature and lied about his sexuality. Kerouac felt the closet was the price he had to pay to maintain his literary reputation as an American author. Trying to paint him as heterosexual is bi-phobic and the idea that "he was drunk" is the oldest excuse in the book when it comes to men having sex with other men. About the 3 way with Neal and Carolyn: Have you ever had a 3 way with two people who are in a commited relationship, where you have different relationships with both partners? If you have then you know how sticky things can get when you involve people who are in an established relationship and have a relationship with both of them. He didn't want to complicate matters even further with his Polyamorous relationship with both Neal and Carolyn. You can't put Kerouac into the category of Heterosexual, as he had sex and relationships with men, loved Neal Cassady and Allen Ginsberg, and he wasn't homosexual, he clearly wasn't transgendered, so that would make him bisexual as he had sex with both genders and fell in love with both men and women. It's very well known that he had sex with Ginsberg and Burroughs, and both of them have written about this. Trying to argue for Kerouac's queerness and saying that he's not heterosexual is like arguing with holocaust denialists.

It is YOUR opinion that he was in the closet, you have no facts that he was a bisexual, you must reach a consensus here on a controversial issue like this before reverting, if you revert again you will be in violation of the WP:3RR. LilDice 03:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not just my opinion that he was in the closet and bisexual. Read some biographies about him, read some 20th Century queer theory about the beats, visit the Kerouac archives in Lowell, read the published 1948 letter to Neal Cassady where he writes about hiding his queerness and being ashamed of it, read the interviews/writings by Vidal (Here's a quote from Vidal's memoir 'Palimpset: A Memoir' "Jack was bisexual"), Burroughs, and Ginsberg where they talk about his bisexuality. It's not surprising or controversial that he's bisexual. Even Paul Maher Jr. author of the newest biography on him agrees that he is bisexual (direct quote from Paul Maher Jr.:"Was he bisexual? Most certainly, but the argument for or against his heterosexuality never appears in my book because it was not a going concern of mine to state that case.") If you'd actually done some research on him you'd discover this very well known fact about him.

You need to assume good faith, I have read biographies of him, as I'm sure everyone above has. I read Maher's bio about 6 months ago as a matter of fact. We are all aware of what Vidal has said about him which you would know if you'd bother to read the discussion that was had before you got here. I don't think anyone is denying that he had some questionable experiences with men. What everyone is objecting to is labeling him bisexual. Mick Jagger isn't labeled bisexual in his bio. Please let some other editors weigh in here before reverting it, currently you've shown no willingness to work with other editors instead insulting us by equating us to holocaust deniers. LilDice 12:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not weighing in on the controversy. However, when adding new text, especially controversial new text, it is good form to include a footnote reference to a credible source. This not only helps to avoid extensive discussion and bickering, it also improves the entire article in a general sense. --Evb-wiki 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to respond to the notion that the Kinsey classification system “is outdated”, because it is pivotal to this discussion and is always useful anytime sexuality (and labeling) is being discussed. The Kinsey classification system does not put a label on anyone because is does not assume that sexuality is necessarily fixed. It is a convenient way of relaying what sexual activity (mentally and physically) one has had historically. It does not imply a reason for the behavior, nor does it attempt to predict what one might engage in in the future. This means that as a person continues to live, “the number” changes to reflect any new experiences. It is still the best instrument available to avoid the kind of confusion that exists in this discussion. It is difficult enough to find the facts regarding Kerouac’s sexual behavior (if anyone should care), much less banter about a question of labeling. I must say that I really love the comment made further down which says it all and I paste here in its entirety:

“My own personal opinion is that Kerouac was at odds with himself. How can a man who dropped out of college, roamed the country with his bisexual best friend, did drugs, had gay sex, lived an unconventional life at home with his mother, and inspired the entire counter culture generation, fancy himself a conservative Catholic? I'm not suggesting my own personal views be included in the article, however. :) Copy Editor 01:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)”

How is the Kinsey scale NOT out dated and too static/fixed? Nobody actually goes by it anymore and the much more modern Klein grid is more widely used since it shows that sexuality is fluid and that it's not like the Kinsey scale since the Kinsey scale is too fixed and doesn't allow for as much change as the Klein grid does.

Anyway, all that aside it's a widely well known and documented (read any biography on him such as Memory Babe or the interviews with Gore Vidal or Allen Ginsberg and others where Kerouac's bisexuality is discussed) fact that Kerouac was a bisexual man.

No real or true heterosexual guy even wants sex with another man and if he says he does he's only deeply closeted and in denial about his true sexuality which Kerouac could be accused of being this way about his bisexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.47.82 (talk • contribs)

So you explain how the Kindey scale is too fixed or static, and while you are at it, explain how is it that what is newer is always better. Please enlighten us all!

Is it just me?

or does it seem that Kerouac's work must have some sort of heavily pursued copyright imposed upon it? Kinda ironic, I'd say. Mostly I think this because finding anything on him, about him, him speaking, or any of his texts is just about impossible. Anybody know who own's his estate and how the money from his books are divided up? Why are there so few online texts of his work? Peace.

it's not just you. There is a long history of controversy about Kerouac's estate. It recently flared up with the insane "copyright protection" that the curator of the On the Road scroll imposed on it as it toured the country but it has caused a lot of bad feelings over the years since his death. It's always hard to know who's right and who's wrong, but the owners of the estate are the relatives of Jack's last wife, Stella Sampas. Kerouac once said something to the effect of "I don't want a single penny of mine going to my wife's millions of Greek relatives." well, it did. and they seem to be milking it for everything it's worth. the dharma bum 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think he married her near the end of his life and never really lived with her -- didn't get along with her that well as I recall. But, as you say that is the way with relatives and estates KarenAnn 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which San Jose

I'm willing to bet that the San Jose mentioned in this article as the location of the library where Kerouac first read about Bhuddism is San Jose, California, but would like to know for sure. Gentgeen 23:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's indeed in San Jose, California. Thanks for bringing this up, the link to San Jose in the article is now fixed.

-- Sourcecode 02:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is there a Jack Kerouac Wikipedia category which then leads to a very incomplete "Novels of Jack Kerouac"? I'm still new a this Wikipedia stuff, but this seems like an unnecessary category gK 19:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

rimbaud???

he supposedly wrote a book called rimbaud, but i can't find any info on it anywhere. it's listed under a list of books he wrote in the front of a copy of (i think) "desolation angels". i have no idea if it's poetry or a novel or essay or what. 64.12.116.5

Poem first published in Amiri Baraka and Hettie Cohen's Yugen magazine (6) in 1960, then by City Lights Books as a 5"x25" broadside; only 2000 copies were made; printed on two sides and folded in fifths to make a 5"x5" book titled, Rimbaud. [1] Also included in the collection, Scattered Poems, published by City Lights, 1971. ISBN 0872860647 --Viriditas | Talk 07:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Kerouac and Drugs

Because the introduction refers to the trip he took with Leary, it makes it sound as if drugs were something Kerouac came to late in life as he sought 'deeper meaning'. Kerouac,and the beats he mixed with, took drugs from very early on. Benzedrine and marijuana were the preferred choice (with the ntoable exception of Burroughs , who was a morphine addict for a long time). The benzedrine could be brought legally and was sniffed.

Kerouac did trip with Leary but was very much against it. He beleived LSD was some sort of Communist plot to undermine minds of the youth of America.

The drug that caused him most problems was legal: alcohol. He was an alcoholic by the end of his life (in fact, he was suffering from the DT's on the day On The Road was published to critical acclaim and unable to attend press conferences etc.). He describes his alcoholism graphically in 'Big Sur'. He died form liver disease (I think).

I believe you are right, for the most part. (I don't know about the Communist plot part) but he did not like drugs the way Boroughs or Leary did. I'm quite sure he was really an alcoholic all along. And I'm pretty sure he died of a bleeding ulcer from alcohol consumption. KarenAnn 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kerouac was into smoking pot (tea as he called it) and using Benzedrine (amphetamines), he tried peyote once, LSD once, and was an alcoholic. He also used morphine a bit with Burroughs and while living/traveling in Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.47.82 (talk • contribs)

Criticism

71.139.53.242 added the following unsourced statement to the lead:Critics of Kerouac fault him for a lack of artistry. He didn't write novels, they say, but memoirs. Truman Capote said of Kerouac's work, "That is not writing, but typing." While I certainly think there is room for a criticism section, such a statement does not belong in the lead, and appears to be out of context and unsourced. Let's flesh out Capote's intent and include it in the article if its an important criticism. Otherwise, quips and offhand remarks probably don't belong, especially if there is personal animosity between two writers that has no bearing on the work. --Viriditas | Talk 00:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this criticism belongs there because: 1) It is the most-often quoted criticism of Kerouac's work. You can check its authenticity by Googling Kerouac, typing, Capote. When the subject of criticizing Kerouac comes up, Capote's words are most often quoted. 2)This wikipedia article is too laudatory of Kerouac and needs balance. In many people's opinions, Kerouac was more of a cultural figure than a novelist. 3)The only place to fit this criticism in is at the bottom of the second paragraph. It doesn't fit in the Biography section or the Influence section, the only sections in this article. It seems out of place because there is no discussion of Kerouac's literary work or artistic merits in this article. Respectfully, do you mind if I restore this? I think this article desparately needs some balance. --Griot

If you can source the criticism and place it in context, then we can determine whether or not to include it. It doesn't appear important enough to go in the lead, and appears to be nothing more than the sniping of one writer against another. Please provide more information regarding such criticism and its importance in the article. You can find criticism of practically everything and everyone on Wikipedia, but only the most relevant make the final cut. I fail to find the pertinence of Capote's quip in the lead, nor do I see how it brings "balance". Yes, the article deserves a criticism section, but you are going to have do actual research and verify sources. I don't see how a six word put-down by Capote (referring to On the Road) adds balance in any way. Capote was known for his rivalries with other writers, and its likely that the 1959 Kerouac phenomenon of spontaneous prose (which is what Capote is referring to) competed with Capote for book sales at the register. Including this in the lead would be like adding "disses" from competing rappers in the lead of hip-hop articles. It's absurd. If you want to discuss the criticism of Kerouac's writing style, add a section, but the lead is no place for a put-down by a competing writer, and reads like sour grapes. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to take some time and write a critical account of Kerouac's work for this article. Capote's criticism was justified in the sense that Kerouac wasn't a craftsman. The six word put down, as you call it, was not a criticism of Kerouac's spontaneous prose style, but of his writing as a whole. Again, I need remind you that this wasn't a "snippy" put down on Capote's part, but a genuine criticism. Kerouac's novels were thinly disguised memoirs. If he is judged as a novelist, some would not judge him well, as he is more of a memorist. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be hagiography. I'll write a balanced critique of Kerouac's work as a novelist and stick it in here soon. --Griot

With all due respect, you are misinformed. Capote's put-down was a criticism of Kerouac's spontaneous prose as found in On the Road. According to a biography found in American Decades, Gale Research, 1998, Truman Capote made the comment in reference to On the Road on David Susskind's Open End television program. In the biography Authors and Artists for Young Adults. Vol. 25. Gale Research, 1998, it states: "For years critics had complained of Kerouac's "spontaneous prose," claiming as the author Truman Capote once did, that it was typing, not writing." In the Concise Dictionary of American Literary Biography: The New Consciousness, 1941-1968. Gale Research, 1987, it states: "Most memorably, Truman Capote attacked the idea of spontaneous prose on David Susskind's television program in September 1959 by saying that what Kerouac did wasn't writing: "it's typing." See also Jack Kerouac: Selected Letters : 1940-1956 for more evidence of the rivalry. --Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you proved my point when you wrote, "For years critics had complained of Kerouac's 'spontaneous prose,' claiming as the author Truman Capote once did, that it was typing, not writing." Capote isn't the only critic who made this complaint about Kerouac, and the critique was made many times over the years by man different people. When people criticize Kerouac's writing, they often go to the Capote quote because that quote was so telling. "Spontaneous prose" has its merits, but it can indeed read like typing. Since this is an encylopedia article, not a fan page, this type of criticism belongs here IMO. --Griot

I don't think I've proved your point, but I have corrected one of your assumptions. What you fail to understand is the historical context of the criticisms being made, and that would take quite a bit of time to bring you up to date. In short, reactionary critics were opposed to the "immorality" of Kerouac's themes, and the relative novelty of his first person individualism which sought total freedom (a Roman Catholic form of moksha) including liberation from social, psychological, and even grammatical restrictions. While Gilbert Millstein, of The New York Times, described On the Road as "a major novel", many critics drew a complete blank when faced with the freedom of Kerouac's jazz-inspired, spontaneous extended narrative which fit nothing in their formal literary paradigm. Terms like "infantile, perversely negative," and a "series of neanderthal grunts" were used and Kerouac and his subjects were described as juvenile delinquents. Some biographies state that there was a federally-financed censorship program in place to dismiss Kerouac's work. In a 1995 New York Times book review of The Portable Jack Kerouac, Ann Douglas describes the lone voice of Kerouac whose work was "...greeted by a barrage of incomprehension and vilification almost unparalleled in American letters...Critics attacked him as untalented, anti-intellectual, un-American, an apostle of mindless violence." In respect to Capote, it's ironic that he claimed the mantle of "novelized fiction" with the 1965 publication of In Cold Blood. Writer Aaron Latham noted the seeming hypocrisy of Capote's former put-down when he observes, "But would [Capote] have written In Cold Blood as a non-fiction novel if Jack Kerouac had not helped to make the form respectable?" Capote's novel is described as New Journalism, but Kerouac's novels are fictionalized chronicles which anticipate the style of New Journalism by many years. Only within the last 30 years have Kerouac's works become appreciated, with the majority of critics recognizing his contributions as classics, and labeling them as such. Capote's empty criticism reminds me of the Italian critic who called the work of American abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock, "chaos, absolute lack of harmony, complete lack of structural organization, total absence of technique, however rudimentary, once again, chaos" (like the plotless Kerouac confessional style). Or critics who faulted John Coltrane for the length and monotony of his solos, and his discordant, and chaotic music (compare with Kerouac's spontaneous prose, which in fact had the same spiritual goal as Coltrane) or those who criticized Vincent van Gogh for working too quickly (On the Road was completed in three weeks). In any case, Douglas concludes that "Kerouac's work represents the most extensive experiment in language and literary form undertaken by an American writer of his generation". [2] --Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My point was simply this -- Capote wasn't the only one who believed that Kerouac was not a good writer. I'm speaking about aesthetics here, not politics. You cast our differences on this matter in a political context. You talk about "reactionary critics" and bring up the morality of the 1950s. I'm looking at Kerouac's work from the point of view of aesthetics. What you call "Kerouac's jazz-inspired, spontaneous extended narrative which fit nothing in their formal literary paradigm" is something of a myth. Kerouac rewrote "On the Road" many times, and for that reason, it is one of his better novels. His later novels, in which he did engage in spontanous prose, are hard to read today. Kerouac was really two figures. He was a culture figure, an icon of the beat generation, and he was a novelist. His novels may be criticized purely on their aesthetic grounds, which this wikipedia article fails to do. I would like someone to do it, and that person may be me. I hope if I undertake this task that you and others who take the saintly view of Kerouac will understand that, as a novelist, his aesthics -- his abilities as an artist -- may be subjected to criticism. I put Capote's criticism in here because, first, Capote is a well-respected novelist and short story writer, which means his opinion is more valuable than most others, and because his "typing" comment has validity and is the most-often-quoted criticism of Kerouac. Believe me, I'm all in favor of the Beats' cultural influences, but these people were poets, novelists, and artists, and to write about them without judging their aesthetics is to engage in fan club writing, which IMO is useless. ~Griot

Let me adress all of your points in order, however this may sound disjointed or confusing to someone who isn't following this thread. Whether or not Capote "believed" that Kerouac was a poor writer has nothing to do with any actual criticism of Kerouac's work. I had previously asked you to source the criticism and place it in context so you could see this for yourself, but you didn't, so I'll help you: according to Kerouac biographer Ann Charters [3], Capote's "sneer" (not a literary criticism but a sneer) was made in response to Kerouac's bragging about completing his manuscript of On the Road in three weeks during April, 1951. Kerouac's retort was, "Wasn't there a time when American writers were let alone by personality mongers and publicity monsters?" Kerouac was more or less correct. In contrast to the introverted Kerouac who appealed to the popular imagination of youthful rebellion, and who disliked (and feared) the media and abhorred PR of any kind, Capote embraced the establishment, pursued "literary celebrity", was photographed in homes around the world and for dozens of magazines and newspapers, and held a masked ball at the Plaza Hotel in New York in 1966 for 500 of his closest friends, including princes and princesses. (Washington Post, Obit.) As for others who "criticized" Kerouac, you don't name them, but you might want to start here, paying special attention to Maurice Poteet. You say you are speaking of "aesthetics", but I've been quoting sources, and discussing the nature of the so-called "criticism" in relation to Kerouacs "new syncretic approach to the theory and aesthetics of fiction" (Gordon Ball). Kerouac's jazz-inspired, spontaneous extended narrative is not a myth in the sense that Kerouac's free-association, or "wild form" and "spontaneous prose" is a real technique. Further, Poteet describes Kerouac's spontaneous prose as a unique American prose style (although the style truly belonged to Neal Cassady). What difference does it make that the first draft of OTR was written in three weeks and retyped several times, with Kerouac working on it for four years until it was published? It began as spontaneous prose. It is certainly not a myth that the colloquial form fit nothing in their formal literary paradigm. Contemporary Authors Online writes, "In both form and subject On the Road was completely unlike the formal fiction that dominated the era and was ridiculed accordingly by Kerouac's contemporaries in the literary establishment, who viewed it as 'an insane parody of the mobility of automotive America,' according to Dennis McNally...On the Road spoke to many readers, however, expressing their own unarticulated dissatisfaction with the repressive climate of the United States after World War II." So, perhaps you can understand why the political context takes precedent in so many of the "phony criticisms" (as Kerouac called it), and why he was attacked mercilessly, possibly with funds from the Central Intelligence Agency. (Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement 8: 1966-1970. American Council of Learned Societies, 1988.) The "culture figure" you describe was a media creation, and Kerouac despised it as it slowly destroyed him. While his novels may be criticized on aesthetic grounds, you must remember that Wikipedia does not allow original research (see also Wikipedia:Verifiability). I do not take a "saintly" view of Kerouac -- I'm merely going on the historical record which I've asked you to cite. His abilities as an artist are subject to criticism, but in the past they really weren't. Capote's sneer was not criticism, and your contention that it belongs because he's a "well-respected novelist" is an appeal to authority. Capote's comment has historical value and should probably be placed in the article, but your placement of it in the lead was inappropriate. As for your claim that Capote's sneer is more valuable than other criticisms, I must disagree. What is the historical validity of his "typing" comment, over let's say Poteet's critical analysis of Kerouac's writing style? If you see "fan club writing", then bring it up on the talk page. The placement of sneers, put-downs, and insults in the lead of a biographical article doesn't work, and it hasn't beeen done in any biographical article that's been published about Kerouac, including Dictionary of American Biography, Contemporary Authors Online, American Decades, Authors and Artists for Young Adults, Concise Dictionary of American Literary Biography: The New Consciousness, Contemporary Popular Writers, Encyclopedia of World Biography, nor any other published biography. This is also not a place for original research or unsourced criticism. I've given you a huge bibliographic list of critical sources to pour over, so I'm sure you'll find something to cite. -Viriditas | Talk 13:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now Capote's criticism has become a "sneer" because Charters, whose biography of Kerouac is anything but objective, called it that. All you have to do is read "Doctor Sax" to know that Kerouac's prose could indeed degenerate into "typing." I am glad to see you write, "Capote's comment has historical value and should probably be placed in the article..." If you look up Saul Bellow or Vladimir Nabokov in the wikipedia, you will see criticism of their novels (Bellow's in the lead section). Why does Kerouac get special treatment? Why should criticism of Kerouac be censored from this article? --Griot

Your opinions aside, an offhand quip on a television show is hardly legitimate literary criticism. I gave you a partial list of criticism (probably more modern ones can be had) which you fail to cite. The current lead mentions that Kerouac wasn't critically successfull during his lifetime. I've looked up Saul Bellow, and there is no criticism in the actual "lead section", but in the seventh paragraph of a nine paragraph article that lacks section headers due to limited content. The lead is usually between one and three paragraphs. If there are no headings due to lack of subtopic content, a brief article tends to appear like Bellow's. In fact, you can see how the topics are split up in that article. The lead is in the first paragraph, the biographical "early life" section follows in the second, with a description of his appearance later in life in the third, and a "career" seection in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs. The criticism section is at the bottom, beginning in the seventh paragraph. The examples and bib sections don't really compose the main article but are ancillary. If you are new to Wikipedia, you may want to review the relevant policies, or I can point you in the right direction. --Viriditas | Talk 22:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any other way to define a "lead section" except to say its the start of an article before the first heading. By that definition, the criticism of Saul Bellow's novels is in the lead section of the Saul Bellow article. Why can't Kerouac abid any criticism? The Kerouac article really, really needs a discussion of his work. Can we agree that the Capote quote would be legitimte if it were put in a discussion of Kerouac's literary work -- his novels and poems. The article as it stands is basically a fawning description of Kerouac as an American culture figure. Again, I assert that the Capote quote is more than an "offand quip on a television show." What Capote said about Kerouac's novels is the most oft-quote criticism of Kerouac. Capote's criticism hit home for a reason. People quote it so often because it is a legitimate criticism of Kerouac's novels, and, as such, it ought to be in this article instead of censored from it. -- Griot

I think you misunderstand the layout of the Saul Bellow article as I explained in the previous reply. Again, the article is essentially a proto-article, as the Examples, Bibliography and External links section headers are merely standard and ancillary headings and do not indicate that the previous section is a "lead section". Read Wikipedia:Lead section again; a lead section is not nine paragraphs long. I explained above that the lead section in the Bellow article is in the first paragraph. The reason there isn't a section header following that paragraph (it would be named "Early life" if it did) is because it is not good form to use section headers when there is limited content. As I pointed out above, the criticism section in the Saul Bellow article is in the seventh paragraph, or fourth section (which isn't named for the reason I just described). See Wikipedia:Guide to layout for further information. In order to demonstrate my point, I have added headers to the Saul Bellow article. Feel free to remove them if you wish. As for the criticism section in this (Kerouac) article, I have asked you to add one, and I've given you links above to various information. I've already explained that the Capote quote should be added in context. As for your opinion about the Capote quote, we can't add that, unless you can find a reputable cited source. OTOH, I can describe Capote's comment as a "sneer" as long as I attribute the term to Charters. I welcome your insightful additions to the article. --Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Influences section

The entire Influence section is getting out of hand. The number of cultural references to Kerouac and his contributions is staggering. Is it time for a Cultural Influence of Jack Kerouac article, or does this section need to be cut down?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to splitting the article off to Cultural influence of Jack Kerouac. It sounds like a good idea. --Viriditas | Talk 13:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after really reading it closely, it seems more like Cultural references to Jack Kerouac than anything else. I'll work on splitting it off.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. --Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Split off to List of cultural references to Jack Kerouac. Wordy, but accurate.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice job. --Viriditas | Talk 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Published Works

The commentary at the end of this section needs rewriting, IMO. I don't think it adequately explains Kerouac's writings. It says, "embarking on a journey during which he explores the society surrounding him by mystifying those experiences." But "On the Road" and "The Dharma Bums" are not mystical. The landscape descriptions of America are lovingly rendered. These books are autobiographical records of Kerouac's youth. "Social and sexual recklessness". Recklessness? These people were "mad for life," not reckless. And what is this about: "There is a book featuring much of Jack's early writings when he was first beginning as a writer, entitled Atop an Underwood. A journal of some his dreams was also published after his death, in a book called Book of Dreams?" Shouldn't these books be in the list of Published Works? Why does they merit a mention here?

I propose deleting this commentary and embarking on a five- or six-paragraph assessment of Kerouac's work, starting with "The Town and the City" (1950) a Thomas Wolfe-inspired novel on the grand scale. From there, under the influence of jazz music and his friends in the Beat movement, he wrote a frantic, energetic novel, "On the Road" (1956). Next came "The Dharma Bums" (1958; great title!), a laudatory picture of Gary Snyder that also explained the author's embrace of Budhism. Then came "Visions of Gerard," a morose soaked-in-nastalgia book about the author's youth and his dead brother Gerard. How did Kerouac's alchoholism effect his writing? Did his celebrity effect it? His later novels, IMHO, are almost impossible to read now and warrant Capote's criticism of Kerouac's novels: "That's not writing, it's typing." Ferlingthetti thought that Kerouac suffered from a nostalgic longing for the America of the 1930s and 1940s.

A word about the man's poetry would be in order, too. I think his drug- and alchohol-induced poetry could be considered "mystical," as this article asserts. Griot

Duluoz Legend

The "Duluoz Legend" that was mentioned in this article is not "an unfinished manuscript". Kerouac, later in his life, referred to all of his autobiographical novels collectively as "The Duluoz Legend".

Capote's Quote

The original roll manuscript of ON THE ROAD was written by Kerouac on long rolls of teletype paper taped together and trimmed to fit a typewriter. Kerouac did this so he wouldn't have to stop his train of thought to change sheets of paper. He also completed this draft in just over thirty days. When Capote was told of how Kerouac wrote this first draft and how quickly he did it, he said: "That's not writing, it's typing." It was more of a comment about the way in which the book was written (the, then, new spontaneous prose method) than of the writing itself.

Essay on Jack Kerouack's Courage

I'm removing this link. I think the article definitely deserves links to critics, but this one piece of text... It's very much POV, which would not be bad in itself, but it's pretty much off. The author is criticizing the poems, but he didn't even bother to try to understand the wording of them. At one place, for example, he bashes Kerouack for placing !Ojo! "(eye)" on a separate line. I understand it doesn't make any sense to him, because !Ojo! doesn't mean 'eye' in this context in the first place... Had he know the correct meaning, it would be obvious to him there *is* a place for this word on the line before the last one in the poem :) And so on. I didn't read the whole text through, so if you feel I'm mistaken at clasifying it as amateurish and non-informed, put it back.

College Park section of Orlando, not Winter Park

The second photograph in the article shows the house where Jack lived in the late 1950's. It is located in the College Park section of the City of Orlando, Florida NOT in Winter Park. The house is located at 1418 Clouser Avenue -one block west of Edgewater Drive. Princeton St. exit off I-4. (in case anyone gets tired of the mouse while they are down here and wants to see some of the real Florida.) There are signs in the neighborhood marking it. Hokeman 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

On The Road Timeline

Hasn't it been shown over the years that the claim of writing the book in three weeks is...well...less than true? Other drafts have been found and there is much correspondence between Kerouac and his editor about the book over a couple of years. IrishGuy 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but from what I can tell, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the basic structure for On the Road was composed in three weeks time, retyped several times further, with Kerouac working on it for another four to six years due to editorial demands. —Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, isn't it a bit disingenuous to say in the article that the book was written in three weeks? It makes it appear as if what one reads right now was completely finished in a three week period, which wouldn't really be the case. Also, I may be incorrect, but didn't he have earlier versions of the book before he settled into spontaneous prose? Wouldn't those earlier (albeit, later abandoned) version still count? IrishGuy 17:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no, and maybe. I'll try and clear this up later tonight with references. —Viriditas | Talk 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to trace the source for the claim that in April, 1951 Kerouac completed the first draft in twenty days. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ellis Amburn (Subterranean Kerouac paperback pg. 164) writes that the April 1951 version was written in 20 days. This was what is now considered the definitive scroll version. There had, however been previous versions entitled "The Beat Generation" and "Gone On The Road". So while the scroll was done in the famously allotted time, I still contend that as there were earlier and later drafts, it isn't really correct to say the book was written in three weeks. IrishGuy

Can you add the cited info to the article? As long as we stick to the facts, there doesn't seem to be a problem. Obviously, the article requires a lot of work. Your criticism is needed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of my edits thus far have been correcting grammar and condensing while adding bits and pieces here and there. I am hesitant to attempt to write something that is sub par on a subject like this (something and someone whom I have great esteem for)...do you have any ideas for a proper way to word this? It would be much appreciated. I know of the Amburn source and can probably come up with a couple more over the next day or so (O won quite a few biographies of Kerouac) to add to the entry. IrishGuy 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a bit. I'm hoping you'll expand it. —Viriditas | Talk 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I like that. Very well done. Is there a link that we could add to that section about the scroll? Are there any websites about the tour? IrishGuy 15:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm sure you could improve it. Yes, there are links to add, but I have to logout. I hope you'll work on the article when you have the time. —Viriditas | Talk 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I added a bit more to that section. I slightly altered the text about the titles of previous versions as well as a sentence about the scroll. I also added a reference to Cassady's Joan Anderson Letter as an influence.IrishGuy 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Item: the story about writing the book in three weeks can be directly verified by reference to the Jack Kerouac Portable Library by Ann Charters, Penguin USA. In the introduction there is a passage that says this in so many words. We need to define that the "scroll" was written in 20 days not the book. Kerojack, Argenta 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kerouac lineage

Taken from the French language article on Jack Kerouac:

• Kirouac Family Association

-- Mathieugp 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Disapproved of the hippie movement?

"Ironically, his books are often credited as the catalyst for the 1960s counterculture, even though Kerouac considered himself a political conservative who supported the Vietnam War and disapproved of the hippie movement."

As I write this, I'm watching a documentary called "What Happened to Jack Kerouac?" [4]. This documentary contains footage from an interview with Jack Kerouac where he says that the hippie movement is "just the younger generation" of what he and the Beat Generation were. He does go on to criticize some of their behavior, such as the protests, etc., but he doesn't really say that he disapproves. So, I was thinking that maybe the above paragraph could be edited a bit to reflect the nuance in his views. He seemed to embrace the hippie movement to a point. I mean, he seems to have had a somewhat parental view of them; he saw that they were a continuation of what he started, but was a bit disappointed with how they were carrying on the movement. -- Andrew Parodi 16:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1952, Kerouac coined the term "beat generation", and defined it as: "members of the generation that came of age after World War II who espouse mystical detachment and relaxation of social and sexual tensions, supposedly as a result of disillusionment stemming from the cold war." There is no question that members of Kerouac's generation, as well as the characters in his autobiographical, but fictional works, On the Road (1957) and The Dharma Bums (1958), were at the vanguard of the 1960's counterculture, and anticipated the "rucksack revolution" of 1960s hippie culture. William Burroughs said that Kerouac's books, "...opened a million coffee bars and sold a trillion Levis to both sexes...Woodstock rises from his pages." However, Kerouac, the man behind the words, the conservative, pro-war Catholic, was completely at odds with hippie culture. His last published article, "After Me, the Deluge", makes his disapproval clear (you can read a copy of it online; see page 15, pdf). "Kerouac famously hated hippies, supported American efforts in Vietnam, and admired National Review," writes Nick Gillespie in a review of Making Peace with the 60s, by David Burner. [5]. Carolyn Cassady, ex-wife of Neal Cassady says, "It killed Jack to be taken up by (hippies) and made responsible for what happened in the 60s." Cassady also seems to claim that the hippies "hijacked" the beat movement. [6] —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, suffice it to say he was a confusing man. But I think the best approach here is to quote directly from him and then source the quotes. I saw the footage of him saying, "They're just the younger ones..." seeming to imply that the hippies were an extension of what he and the Beats were. He does say that they were hijacked by "communists," but doesn't say ALL hippies were communists. Whatever the case, I think citation is best, direct quotation, as well as a balanced view.

Is there any statement by Kerouac himself where he says that he was anti-Hippie, anti-Counter Culture? I haven't seen it. I've seen OTHERS saying that, but not him.

From my reading, I've read direct quotes where he distances himself, but does not dissaprove. He just does not want to be associated with the Hippy movement. LilDice 19:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My own personal opinion is that Kerouac was at odds with himself. How can a man who dropped out of college, roamed the country with his bisexual best friend, did drugs, had gay sex, lived an unconventional life at home with his mother, and inspired the entire counter culture generation, fancy himself a conservative Catholic? I'm not suggesting my own personal views be included in the article, however. :) Copy Editor 01:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugs to Study Buddhism?

I don't understand the statement in the introduction - "he used alcohol, psilocybin, marijuana, and benzedrine, among others to study spiritual teachings such as Buddhism)" I've read most of Keruoac's books, I never remember that connection. Sure he abused drugs and alcohol -- no doubt about that. He also studied Buddhism, no doubt about that. But I dont recall ever reading about him explicitly using drugs and alcohol to study Buddhism. Someone care to explain/correct me on this? LilDice 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right. Feel free to reword/rework that as you see needed. -the dharma bum 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the buddhism bit and also the list of specific drugs used. I think it's silly to list the drugs a man used in the intro to his biography. I have no problem listing later, but is it really relevant in the second paragraph? LilDice 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I wholeheartedly agree that it was completely out-of-place in the first paragraph. -the dharma bum 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion Ideas

Buddhism

I think the subject of Kerouac and Buddhsim could be a good expansion point, plenty has been written on it. I've found a few things on google book search so i'm going to start.

Death of Brother Gerard

A major event that shaped Jack's life. Could have it's own section. LilDice 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

His relationship with his Mother

Obviously shaped his life and death. LilDice 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathlocism

Could put religious/spirtuality section with buddhism and catholocism section underneath. LilDice 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• spelling errors... it's Catholicism

Tacked on paragraph at end of Writing Style

I removed this:

A DVD entitled "Kerouac: King of the Beats" features several minutes of his appearance on Firing Line, William F. Buckley's television show, during Kerouac's later years when alcoholism had taken control. He is seen often incoherent and very drunk. Books also continue to be published that were written by Kerouac, many unfinished by him. A book of his haikus and dreams also were published, giving interesting insight into how his mind worked. In August 2001, most of his letters, journals, notebooks and manuscripts were sold to the New York Public Library for an undisclosed sum. Presently, Douglas Brinkley has exclusive access to parts of this archive until 2005. The first collection of edited journals, Wind Blown World, was published in 2004.

it doesn't seem to fit under writing style, needs to be rewritten,formatted, and inserted at a better place.

Alcoholism that would be his undoing. removal

The sentance ...indulging in the alcoholism that would eventually be his undoing. Was removed, I don't think this violates NPOV since Kerouac did die from alcoholism so I think it's relevant... LilDice 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I took that out -- the article makes this point clearly in the second paragraph and in the last sentence of the 'Life' section. Having the point made a third time in a reference to a bar that he frequented seemed to be beating the point unnecessarily. SteveHopson 18:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha that makes sense. I was just looking out that the article didn't become overly sanitized. LilDice 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article says "prounounced dʒak ˈkɛrʊæk," but I'm pretty sure this should be "ʤæk kɛɹəwæk" from the way I've heard "reputable people" pronounce his name. Still, maybe I'm missing something?

Not a Canadian

It seems that Canadians on Wikipedia are hell-bent on claiming Kerouac, whether it was recently changing his nationality to Canadian or adding him to a "Canadian-American" category... Am I the only one that thinks that someone who was born in the United States and was a United States citizen his whole life is American, without hyphenation or prefix? Yes, yes, we know he didn't speak English until he was 5 or 6 years old, that he came from French-Canadian lineage, but he was a naturalized American from the day he was born. Additionally, Kerouac as a writer was almost wholly concerned with America and Americans.

I love Canada as much as the next hoser (hell, I'm from Minnesota), and I don't want to start a fight here, but I think all these efforts are misleading and contribute little to Wikipedia's overall mission and vision of accuracy and non-biased facts. Am I wrong?

To not be entirely negative, can I suggest that we make sure Kerouac's French-Canadian heritage is well-covered in the article itself, and quit trying to make these broad changes to categorization or other elements of the entry that overblow the issue?

- the dharma bum 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I plan on checking out Kerouac: A Definitive Biography from the library again. That book has a wealth of info on his heritage and what it meant to him. if someone has a copy on hand they could make the changes now, also. LilDice 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it odd to put Keroauc under the category Canadian-American, as a European it sounds rather contradictory, like German-French or Italian-Spanish, but if you read the Wiki entry on Canadian-American it states "Canadian-American refers to a member of that group of people living in the United States who were born, or raised, in Canada"...and Keroauc was neither. Simple, remove that categorisation. Stephenjh

That's true. What is also true is that Kerouac's Parents where French-speaking and Catholic Quebecers who moved to Lowell, New England as part of a massive emigration that was called La grande saignée (The Great Bleeding) by commentators of the time. Jack Kerouac's "first ten years were spent in a section of Centralville which gathered around St. Louis de France Church". He received his elementary education in that neighbourhood where French was the language most often heard on the streets. So he was not born in Canada, but he was born in a part of the US, and in a social milieu, that was pretty much a replica of French Canada (or Quebec) inside the US borders! :-)

• Yes, I know all that, but it's irrelevant because it still doesn't make him "Canadian-American" ;-) By all means write about it in the article but don't categorise him something he wasn't (or ever claimed to be). Stephenjh

For people interested in better covering Kerouac's "French-Canadianess" in the article, I found some good info on this here: http://ecommunity.uml.edu/jklowell/jkctt.html

-- Mathieugp 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all great, but it doesn't change the fact that he was born in Lowell. I agree with dharma bum, just go ahead and add a section about his "French-Candianess" rather than claiming a nationality for him that isn't true. LilDice 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hum, there must have been a misunderstanding because I didn't sign my first post. My post started with "That's true.". I was replying to Stephenjh who had just written about the oddness of putting Kerouac in the Canadian-American category. I was agreeing with him. I never supported and most likely never will support the categorization of Kerouac as a Canadian-American. If I were overzealously patriotic, I'd argue to have him categorized as a Quebecois-American, but luckily I am only mildly patriotic. ;-) I cannot write something good in English, so I'll let some other person write a little paragraph on Kerouac's ethnicity and language. -- Mathieugp 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off so strong. Anyway, I reread the intro I think it covers it pretty well and in context. I don't have a good book here so I don't know what else to cite to make it more fleshed out. Besides, I think the things I outlined above are more important to expand. LilDice 23:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The category Canadian-Americans "includes articles on people who immigrated from Canada to the United States, or are self-identified as Canadian Americans, or who have Canadian ancestry." There is nothing factually inaccurate about including Kerouac in this category. Vanillagorillas 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So, there's a difference in definitons between the category and article...ok, but with a catch all phrase like "ancestry", it makes the term "Canadian-American" rather irrelevant. For example, at what point (in what year) does one stop connecting to "ancestors"? Keroaucs ancestors were Canadian, French, specifically Breton, who migrated from Cornwall making them Cornish, who in turn descended from the Brython, shall I stop here?. May I therefore suggest some new categories, such as "Cornish-American" or "Brython-American"?

That's silly. ONE of Kerouac's ancestors came from Bretagne, France (Maurice Louis Alexandre Lebrice de Keroack dit Breton). That makes him 1/128th breton, and you have to go pretty far back before that to reach hypothetical immigrants from Cornwall to Bretagne. On the other hand, Jack Kerouac's immediate ancestors were French-Canadian for 300 years. That's a non negligeable fact, and I think it should remain in the article, as the culture definitely influenced his early years. Who would dare say Frank Sinatra is not Italian-American? 70.53.165.72 04:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

One does have to "go pretty far back" when dealing with ancestry because that's the point, it's unavoidable. It's Kerouac's Breton ancestry that permits categorisation as a "French-American", therefore I presume you disagree with that categorisation too. Whether one's cultural ancestry "influences" is not the question here, as categorisation (using the definitions given) states only that your ancestors were born in "country x". Can one really 'divorce' Canadian-American's from their French ancestry? can one 'divorce' the Breton from their Cornish roots.

I believe all the Categories should remain, or be removed. I believe there should be consistency and logic and that Wikipedia should not contradict Wikipedia, i.e. if you don't agree with the definitions of a Category, make edits to the Category article itself (e.g. French-American, Irish-American) not all the articles that utilise the Category. (Is it better to put these responses and replies at the bottom of the page? it's might get a little confusing otherwise.) Stephenjh 10:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, maybe I can include the category British American as obviously Keroaucs ancestors descended from Britain and the British American article quite clearly states "British Americans are citizens of the United States whose ancestry stems, either wholly or in part, from one of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom." ;-) Stephenjh

Is there a need for consensus, if the same logical rationale is used to identify Keroauc as both Canadian-American and British American. To be consistent, both categorisations should remain or be removed. Stephenjh

You are willfully in violation of WP:POINT. You are intentionally putting in inaccurate information because you disagree with a previous edit. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have added a categorisation based on the same logical rationale (and fact) as an other categorisation (which I must now agree with based on the definitions). You are in error and what's more, you have no consensus or factual basis upon which to make the reverts you have. Stephenjh

You are being less than forthcoming. This edit shows that you disagree with the Canadian category. This edit, your next edit, adds British and in conjunction with this comment illustrates that you were intentionally adding inaccurate information to make a point. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous and factually incorrect. I disagreed with the Canadian-American categorisation, but must allow it to stand as the categorisation states the word "ancestors". Applying the same logic, Keroauc is also British American due to his ancestral heritage. I did not say he was British, I said he was British American. Do you understand now? Stephenjh

Your edits illustrate exactly what I stated: you are using inaccurate information to make a point. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The only way it would be even remotely accurate is if you went back a rediculous amount of generations in his family. He isn't British American by any rational measure. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "ancestors" refers to previous generations! Please support your pov with some facts. Stephenjh

Please find somewhere else to push your POV points. If you don't like the Canadian category, please use the discussion page to gain consensus. Making POV point edits is not the proper way to go about it. IrishGuy ^talk 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, it's a fact using the definitions of the category and the definition of the term "ancestor". I suggest you do a little more research. This problem is not about being "Canadian" or "British" either, I suggest you get your terminology correct.Stephenjh

Frankly, I suggest you read WP:CIV before continuing in such an abrasive fashion. Your edits are POV and it is made clear by this edit where you even end it with a ;-) showing your motivation. Please stop pushing your POV. IrishGuy ^talk 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just an attempt to seem less "abrasive", warmer somehow :-) like that, see? The point is, you are factually incorrect. Keroaucs ancestors were from Britain, Cornwall to be specific. Do you dispute that? Stephenjh

Um, but his dad is from Cornwall see, also we better put the Irish-American category in, and also make damn sure we include it in some sort of Category about Normandy since his mother is from Normandy. -- [7] LilDice 00:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whilst not wanting to begin another "revert war" with this issue, I feel that if Keroaucs ancestral heritage is to be included as a category in this article, then it should be more complete somehow. If Canadian American and French American are to be included then using the same terms, definitions and logic, one must also include the term British American, as originally his ancestors came from Cornwall. Keroauc himself wrote of this fact in his books.

• This isn't about claiming him as British, or denying his Canadian background, merely an attempt to provide a fuller account of his ancestral history...and via Canada, France and Britain one goes as far back as is possible based on his own written accounts. Stephenjh 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I was born in another country but I call myself an American, period, no hyphen. I also didn't learn English until I started school. There were also no "english as a second language" classes back then, thank God. But if people want to hyphenate they should call him Canadian-American since both his parents were from Canada. Calling him French-American is a little stretched. Come on, how many generations do we need to go back. He was born in the good old USA. But I will accept Canadian-American at the most.Foolscape 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, what we find 'acceptable' has caused the debate and 'edit wars' here. A compromise seems to have been reached, based upon the definitions of Canadian / French / British American within Wikipedia itself. (See those articles). I think if people disagree, then they should be editing those articles to make them more acceptable rather than the articles / categories that result from using those definitions. Stephenjh 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Respect accepted. I certainly don't want an edit war over something which in the whole scheme of life is actually trivial. Life is too short. Foolscape 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is unfair for Foolscape to make these outrageous statements. The Fool That Follows 08:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You Tube Video

Removing the direct links to video clips of Kerouac might be necessary, but is there a way of mentioning that there are clips available on www.YouTube.com? I read many Keroauc books, climbed under Raton Canyon, stood by his grave in Lowell, all before I ever saw a clip of him 'in motion' as it were. It was great to see him reading from his books and being interviewed on the TV. I would like to think that others may have that discovery too. Stephenjh 08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

generational epic formula

ARTICLE SAYS: The Town and the City was published in 1950 under the name "John Kerouac" and earned him some respect as a writer. It is heavily influenced by Kerouac's reading of Thomas Wolfe and it reflects on the generational epic formula and the contrasts of small town life VS the multi-dimensional and larger city.

As a reader, I don't know what you mean by "the generational epic formula." Is there another page on WP that talks about what this is? If not you should explain it or cut it.

69.141.55.46 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

According to Schizophrenia.com, Kerouac was diagnosed with Schizophrenia (or dementia praecox as it was known then) while serving in the american navy. I am confused as to why it would not be mentioned once here.

Please make responses to USER: Random task — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.226.32 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.. See this site and use it as your reference. —Viriditas | Talk 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any factual problems with this page.. but I would change the opening paragraph, which, obviously, is very important. The way it is now makes me very queezy in its overall ignorant summary of the man and his life.

Life section: Bail amount

In the Life section, the author states that Kerouac's bail was set at $100. However, if you click on the Lucien Carr link, an author on that entry states that Kerouac's bail was set at $2500. I'm just pointing this out in case someone knows the actual amount, and would like to post accurate information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.19.82.68 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. We should probably just remove it until the accurate figure is confirmed. —Viriditas | Talk 21:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)